Toward a Locally Deployable Agentic Co-Scientist: Small-Model Planning for Early-Stage Drug Discovery
Organizations: Division of Pharmacy and Optometry, University of Manchester, UK · Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester, UK · Centre for Computational Imaging and Modelling in Medicine (CIMIM), University of Manchester, UK · Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, USA ·
Abstract
Early-stage computational drug discovery requires coordinating heterogeneous scientific tools across multi-step workflows. We present a lightweight, tool-augmented framework in which a locally deployable compact language model plans calls to 18 modular tools. A Unified Molecular Schema maintains shared molecular records, while a plug-in interface supports tool replacement and extension. We construct 1,263 manually refined query-plan pairs through workflow-graph path coverage and apply LoRA fine-tuning to three compact model families. Under the query-level split, all fine-tuned models generate fully parseable and schema-compliant plans on 47 held-out cross-group queries. Llama 3.2-3B achieves a tool-selection F1 of 0.998, sequence exact match of 0.979, and argument F1 of 0.960. Under the stricter workflow-grouped split, which excludes identical ordered tool sequences across partitions, sequence exact match reaches 0.452 to 0.548, highlighting the remaining difficulty for compact models in generating complete workflow paths unseen during training. These results demonstrate the feasibility of compact, locally deployable planning while identifying compositional generalization as an important direction for further improvement.
Figures & tables
| Model | Setting | Parse | Schema | Tool F1 | Seq. EM | Seq. LCS | Arg. F1 |
| Llama 3.2-3B | Zero-shot | 0.553 | 0.553 | 0.786 | 0.000 | 0.709 | 0.658 |
| Fine-tuned | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.998 | 0.979 | 0.996 | 0.960 | |
| Qwen3-4B | Zero-shot | 0.298 | 0.298 | 0.778 | 0.000 | 0.716 | 0.736 |
| Fine-tuned | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.990 | 0.915 | 0.990 | 0.958 | |
| Gemma 3-4B | Zero-shot | 0.638 | 0.574 | 0.871 | 0.148 | 0.800 | 0.576 |
| Fine-tuned | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.994 | 0.936 | 0.990 | 0.949 |
| Rank | SMILES | Predicted pIC 50 | QED | Overall score |
| 1 | Cc1nc2ccc(C(=O)N3CC@HC@HC3)cc2n1C | 6.578 | 0.741 | 0.724 |
| 2 | Cn1cc(CC(=O)N2CC@HC@HC2)cn1 | 6.381 | 0.744 | 0.684 |
| 3 | CCc1cccc(C(=O)NC2(CNC(=O)Cn3cnnn3)CC2)n1 | 6.263 | 0.721 | 0.651 |
Appendix figures & tables7 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Scope | Component | Representative fields | Purpose |
| Pipeline | User objective | user_query , project_target , optimization_goal , hard_constraints | Stores the original request, optimization objective, and user-defined workflow constraints. |
| Pipeline | Target state | target_id , name , sequence , receptor artifacts, target pocket, status | Maintains target identity, prepared receptor files, detected binding pockets, and target-preparation status. |
| Pipeline | Planning and execution | execution_plan , execution_trace , current_step , replanning_count , terminated | Records the current plan, execution progress, and information required for iterative replanning or early termination. |
| Pipeline | Molecular pool | molecules , molecule_index , active_molecule_ids | Maintains all molecular records, enables identifier-based lookup, and tracks the active subset passed between tools. |
| Pipeline | Ranking and nomination | ranking_strategy , top_k_requested , shortlisted_ids , nomination_candidates , global_metrics | Stores project-level ranking settings, aggregate statistics, and candidate selection results. |
| Pipeline | Knowledge state | retrieved_documents , parsed_documents , synthesis_summary | Preserves retrieved and extracted knowledge that is not restricted to a single molecular record. |
| UMS block | Representative contents | Role in the workflow |
| physchem | Molecular weight, logP, TPSA, hydrogen-bond donors and acceptors, rotatable bonds, QED, ring statistics, and rule violations | Describes physicochemical properties and common drug-likeness criteria used for filtering and multi-objective ranking. |
| affinity | Target identity, primary endpoint, IC 50 /K i /K d predictions, p-values, potency class, threshold outcome, and confidence | Represents predicted target engagement and provides a normalized potency value for filtering and ranking. |
| scaffold | Scaffold SMILES, scaffold type and key, annotation status, selection status, and removal reason | Supports scaffold annotation, diversity control, and per-scaffold candidate quotas. |
| Selected pocket, alternative pocket candidates, pocket scores, probabilities, and docking-box coordinates | Defines candidate binding sites and provides the search region required by structure-based docking tools. | |
| docking | Docking method, receptor identifier, execution status, score type, top score, ranked poses, and pose files | Stores predicted binding poses and structure-based interaction scores for downstream assessment or simulation. |
| md | Simulation duration, mean and standard deviation of RMSD, binding-energy estimate, and stability decision | Summarizes molecular-dynamics evidence concerning pose stability and target engagement. |
| Category | Num. | Key Content |
| Molecular Design and Generation | 232 | De novo molecular generation, scaffold-based diversification, candidate-pool construction, and control of sampling size and temperature. |
| Molecular Developability | 208 | Physicochemical property profiling, drug-likeness assessment, ADMET prediction, toxicity screening, retrosynthetic feasibility analysis, molecular retrieval, and novelty assessment. |
| Target Engagement | 185 | Target-specific affinity prediction, binding-pocket detection, pocket-derived search-box construction, molecular docking, molecular-dynamics simulation, engagement evaluation, and consensus scoring. |
| Knowledge Extraction | 171 | Scientific-document parsing, extraction of molecular and target information, evidence-quality assessment, relation extraction, and synthesis of information across documents. |
| Cross-group Workflows | 467 | Workflows spanning multiple functional groups, including generation- or retrieval-initiated tasks, developability assessment, target-engagement evaluation, knowledge extraction, and candidate ranking. These workflows emphasize dependency-aware tool ordering and intermediate-result transfer through the UMS. |
| Total | 1,263 | Complete collection of query–plan pairs used for Planner training and evaluation. |
| Model | Set. | Validity | Tool selection | Sequence | Argument generation | ||||||
| Parse | Schema | P | R | F1 | EM | LCS | P | R | F1 | ||
| Llama | ZS | 0.606 | 0.606 | 0.669 | 0.734 | 0.666 | 0.065 | 0.670 | 0.512 | 0.576 | 0.539 |
| F | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.989 | 0.989 | 0.988 | 0.961 | 0.997 | 0.936 | 0.942 | 0.939 | |
| Qwen | ZS | 0.591 | 0.591 | 0.666 | 0.718 | 0.662 | 0.080 | 0.651 | 0.515 | 0.568 | 0.537 |
| F | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.989 | 0.984 | 0.986 | 0.937 | 0.991 | 0.934 | 0.941 | 0.937 | |
| Gemma | ZS | 0.803 | 0.740 | 0.680 | 0.779 | 0.703 | 0.085 | 0.732 | 0.618 | 0.571 | 0.584 |
| Model | Set. | Validity | Tool selection | Sequence | Argument generation | ||||||
| Parse | Schema | P | R | F1 | EM | LCS | P | R | F1 | ||
| Llama | ZS | 0.556 | 0.556 | 0.790 | 0.793 | 0.749 | 0.129 | 0.763 | 0.626 | 0.672 | 0.645 |
| F | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.955 | 0.879 | 0.909 | 0.548 | 0.865 | 0.901 | 0.907 | 0.904 | |
| Qwen | ZS | 0.651 | 0.651 | 0.681 | 0.685 | 0.661 | 0.110 | 0.612 | 0.489 | 0.555 | 0.518 |
| F | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.966 | 0.896 | 0.926 | 0.508 | 0.889 | 0.910 | 0.913 | 0.911 | |
| Gemma | ZS | 0.810 | 0.738 | 0.758 | 0.788 | 0.761 | 0.032 | 0.707 | 0.596 | 0.480 | 0.528 |
LLM Tool Use
Large language model tool use studies how models select, call, and coordinate external tools to extend their reasoning and take actions.
See all 293 papers