AI agents are increasingly useful for biological data analysis, but existing benchmarks mostly test broad biological knowledge, executable workflows, or localized analysis steps rather than end-to-end scientific reasoning over spatial measurements. We introduce SpatialBench-Long, a benchmark for long-horizon spatial biology in which agents must recover biological claims from raw or near-raw data and calibrated experimental context without prescribed methods. SpatialBench-Long contains 24 evaluations across primary pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), engineered glioblastoma organoids and in vivo tumors, Cas9 lineage-traced lung adenocarcinoma, and mouse optic nerve aging/intervention systems, spanning CosMx, Visium, Xenium, multiplexed error-robust fluorescence in situ hybridization (MERFISH), single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq), Slide-seq, Slide-tags, histology, and lineage-recording data. Candidate claims are hardened through reproduction, independent scientist review, and trajectory inspection. Final answers are graded deterministically over controlled vocabularies and symbols with companion rubrics capturing progress through key analysis chokepoints. Across the SpatialBench-Long benchmark, three model-harness pairs tie at 8/72 runs (11.1%): Gemini 3.5 Flash / Pi terminal coding harness, GPT-5.5 / Pi, and GPT-5.5 / OpenAI Codex. SpatialBench-Long tests whether agents can move beyond executing procedural analysis to deriving accurate scientific conclusions from complex spatial measurements.
Single-cell studies require analysts to convert raw measurements into specific biological claims through multi-step workflows and integration of metadata, assay context, and auxiliary evidence. Existing AI-biology benchmarks largely measure broad knowledge, executable workflows, or local analysis steps. We introduce scBench-Long, a benchmark for long-horizon single-cell biology in which agents must recover scientific conclusions from raw or near-raw data without prescribed methods. The benchmark contains 21 evaluations spanning melanoma CD8 T-cell reactivity, CD8 RNA+ATAC regulatory inference, human--monkey chimera development, KRAS-driven lung tumor aging, and lethal COVID-19 lung pathology. Tasks cover paired scRNA/TCR sequencing, RNA and chromatin profiling, cross-species transcriptomics, combinatorial scRNA-seq, single-nucleus RNA-seq, immune repertoires, ortholog maps, ligand--receptor resources, and validation evidence. Candidate claims are reproduced, reviewed, and converted into controlled answer vocabularies with deterministic grading and trajectory rubrics. Across 1,068 completed trajectories, the strongest model--harness pair passes 16/63 runs (25.4%). scBench-Long evaluates whether agents can move beyond local analysis steps and make complex scientific claims that are supported by single-cell data.
Artificial intelligence (AI) promises to accelerate biological research by automating computational analyses. Yet the ability of AI agents to execute on computational biology at the scale of complete research studies has not been systematically evaluated. Here we introduce BixBench3, a benchmark that measures the capacity of AI agents to process raw biological data through to scientific results. We designed BixBench3 tasks to mirror the delegation of work from a scientist to an agent: the scientist chooses the research question and high-level methods, then delegates implementation of all analyses to the agent. In each task, an agent receives a research objective, methodological guidance, and raw data derived from a published scientific study, and must execute a sequence of analyses to achieve the research objective. The data artifacts resulting from these analyses, such as peak call matrices or differential expression tables, are programmatically graded against the corresponding artifacts generated and reported in the original study. Across 20 BixBench3 tasks encompassing the generation of 138 unique artifacts, we find that 13 frontier models achieve scores ranging from 0.00 for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite to 0.48 for GPT 5.6 Sol. Agents perform worse on tasks with larger raw datasets (0.36 on tasks with <100 GB versus 0.10 on tasks with >100 GB) and on analyses requiring more sequential steps (0.36 at 1-2 steps vs 0.24 at 3+). On average, agents use 6.8 hours, 102 million tokens, and $43 to complete each task, with the longest attempts consuming 24 hours, 1.07 billion tokens, and $525. Notably, the highest-scoring agents used fewer tokens and were cheaper than less performant options. These results reveal that LLMs vary substantially in their ability to (1) execute multiple sequential analysis steps coherently, (2) manage large quantities of raw data, and (3) work across scientific domains.
Zane Koch, Asmamaw T. Wassie, Javier Valdes-Aleman +5
We introduce EpiBench, a verifiable benchmark for short-horizon epigenomics analysis. EpiBench evaluates whether agents can make well-defined analysis decisions from realistic workflow states and return deterministically gradable answers. The benchmark includes 106 evaluations across CUT&Tag/CUT&RUN, ATAC-seq, ChIP-seq, and DNA methylation workflows. Across 5,088 valid trajectories from 16 model-harness pairs, no system passed a majority of attempts: GPT-5.5 / Pi led at 45.0% (143/318 attempts; 95% confidence interval (CI), 36.3--53.7), followed by GPT-5.5 / OpenAI Codex at 39.9% (127/318 attempts; 95% CI, 31.6--48.3). Claude Opus 4.8 Max / Pi and GPT-5.4 / Pi each passed 39.0% (124/318 attempts; 95% CI, 30.2--47.8 and 31.0--47.0, respectively). Performance varies across assay types, and many failed runs still contain parts of the correct answer. Agents often found the right files and computed useful intermediate results, but failed when the task required deeper, assay-specific scientific judgment.
Harihara Muralidharan, Reema Baskar, Soo Hee Lee +2