TxBench-PP: Analyzing AI Agent Performance on Small-Molecule Preclinical Pharmacology

LLM agents have incredible potential for scientific discovery applications. However, the performance of LLM agents on real-world, small molecule drug design (SMDD) tasks across diverse chemistries and targets is unclear. Current evaluation methods are either ad hoc, too simple for real-world discovery, limited in scale, or restricted to single-turn question answering. In effort to standardize the evaluation of LLM agents on small molecule design, we introduce SMDD-Bench, a challenging, multi-turn, long-horizon agentic benchmark consisting of 502 guaranteed-solvable task instances spanning 5 task types: 2D Pharmacophore Identification, Interaction Point Discovery, Scaffold Hopping, Lead Optimization, and Fragment Assembly. SMDD-Bench tasks span a wide region of chemical space and involve 102 unique protein targets. Completely solving the benchmark would require having strong chemical and biological reasoning and 3D intuition, understanding specialized tool use, and displaying planning expertise over a limited number of oracle calls. We benchmark 7 frontier open and closed source LLMs and find even the most performant LLM, GPT5.4, solves only 40.2% of tasks. We hope SMDD-Bench provides a standardized testbed to invigorate the field towards training and evaluating LLM agents for fully autonomous computational drug design. We host a public leaderboard at smddbench.com .

Agentic large language model (LLM) systems are reshaping scientific workflows in chemistry and drug discovery, but evaluating their open-ended, tool-augmented outputs remains a fundamental bottleneck. The LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm has emerged as a scalable alternative, but existing drug discovery benchmarks deploy LLM judges without validating their alignment with human experts. In this work, we present an LLM-as-a-Judge evaluation framework for ChatInvent, an agentic drug discovery assistant deployed at AstraZeneca, with five contributions. First, we define four output-quality evaluation dimensions---Completeness, Relevancy, Structural Clarity, and Scope Adherence---alongside deterministic Tool Call Correctness checks. Second, we validate the judge through a human alignment study with five expert annotators, comparing Gemini 3.1 Pro, Claude Opus 4.7, GPT-5, and Llama 3.1 70B as candidate judges. Third, we optimize the best-performing judge using few-shot demonstrations of human-annotated examples, improving alignment with the human majority vote from 0.80 to 0.86. Fourth, applying the optimized judge to 70 held-out questions, we surface concrete limitations and find no strong evidence that informal phrasing degrades output quality; it may, however, still be helpful to have the LLM rewrite the original question before querying the agent. Finally, we extend the framework to 38 adversarial questions that are ambiguous, invalid, out-of-scope or ethically sensitive, and show that the agent's refusal behavior is guided by the stated intent of a request. Our framework provides a reusable template for human-aligned evaluation of agentic systems in scientific domains.

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.