OmicsBench: a long-horizon multi-turn benchmark of AI agents on research-study-scale bioinformatics

Artificial-intelligence (AI) agents hold promise for automating bioimage analysis, yet no benchmark evaluates whether they can carry out real-world analyses end to end. Such analyses are hard for agents because 2D images, 3D volumes and time-lapse sequences are often too large to read as context, so an agent must choose and run an analysis through code, specialized software and rendered views. Published studies make this capability testable, because each pairs raw images with a peer-reviewed result. We introduce BIABench, a benchmark of 16 tasks reconstructed from published biological studies that retain their scientific questions, imaging data and ground truth. The tasks span eleven analysis subtasks and modalities from H&E histology to single-molecule localization microscopy. Each submission receives an outcome score, which compares the output files with the ground truth using field-standard metrics, and a process score, in which a vision-language model judges method choice and quality control against an expert-written rubric. We evaluated general-purpose and biology-specific agents across several language models, with repeated runs of every task. Routine two-dimensional tasks were solved well, but on some tasks that added a third dimension or a time axis no agent scored above 0.19. Neither biological specialization, stronger models nor detailed expert instructions closed this gap. The agents were also unreliable, with scores varying more between repeated runs of one agent than between different agents, and without ground truth a correct run could not be told from a wrong one by its process score or by the time spent. Released openly with its data and code, BIABench provides a verifiable framework for evaluating, and eventually training, agents for reliable long-horizon bioimage analysis.

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.

We evaluate whether AI agents can match the reported findings of published biomedical studies using public data. Existing evaluations do not consistently separate analysis from prior knowledge or retrieval of the published answer. We introduce BioStudyBench, a benchmark of 25 long-horizon analysis tasks drawn from studies first published between July and September 2026, after the developer-reported knowledge cutoffs of the models we evaluate, semi-automatically filtered down from 404,019 PubMed records. In each task, the agent receives a neutral research question but no data files, so it must find and download the relevant public data, search the literature through tools that return only records dated before its cutoff, and report findings through data analysis. To measure gains over prior knowledge, we run every task both with and without access to data and tools. Across eight models, access to data and tools raises the pass rate by 47 percentage points on average over the no-data baseline. Open-weight models across sizes trail closed-weight models, with the best open-weight model passing 81.3% of tasks against 94.7% for the best closed-weight model.