The DOI matches its DataCite record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An Auditable Agent Platform For Automated Molecular Optimisation
Open accessAbstract
Drug discovery frequently loses momentum when data, expertise, and tools are scattered, slowing design cycles. To shorten this loop we built a hierarchical, tool using agent framework that automates molecular optimisation. A Principal Researcher defines each objective, a Database agent retrieves target information, an AI Expert generates de novo scaffolds with a sequence to molecule deep learning model, a Medicinal Chemist edits them while invoking a docking tool, a Ranking agent scores the candidates, and a Scientific Critic polices the logic. Each tool call is summarised and stored causing the full reasoning path to remain inspectable. The agents communicate through concise provenance records that capture molecular lineage, to build auditable, molecule centered reasoning trajectories and reuse successful transformations via in context learning. Three cycle research loops were run against AKT1 protein using five large language models. After ranking the models by mean docking score, we ran 20 independent scale ups on the two top performers. We then compared the leading LLMs' binding affinity results across three configurations, LLM only, single agent, and multi agent. Our results reveal an architectural trade off, the multi agent setting excelled at focused binding optimization, improving average predicted binding affinity by 31%. In contrast, single agent runs generated molecules with superior drug like properties at the cost of less potent binding scores. Unguided LLM runs finished fastest, yet their lack of transparent tool signals left the validity of their reasoning paths unverified. These results show that test time scaling, focused feedback loops and provenance convert general purpose LLMs into auditable systems for molecular design, and suggest that extending the toolset to ADMET and selectivity predictors could push research workflows further along the discovery pipeline.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Supervisor-based multi-agent architectures can independently search, classify, and reconcile candidate mechanisms and compounds while maintaining explicit chains of provenance.
“Supervisor-based multi-agent architectures can independently search, classify, and reconcile candidate mechanisms and compounds while maintaining explicit chains of provenance [27, 34, 48].”
From The next paradigm in bioinformatics: a review of multi-agent systems and foundational models for end-to-end scientific discovery (2026) · cites this paper as [34]
The value of agentic AI in drug discovery and personalized medicine emerges when reasoning, action, and evidence monitoring operate as an integrated system capable of accelerating insight without compromising reproducibility or governance.
“As recent implementations indicate, the value of agentic AI in drug discovery and personalized medicine emerges when reasoning, action, and evidence monitoring operate as an integrated system capable of accelerating insight without compromising reproducibility or governance [27, 33, 34, 45–48].”
From The next paradigm in bioinformatics: a review of multi-agent systems and foundational models for end-to-end scientific discovery (2026) · cites this paper as [34]
Emerging "AI organic chemist" platforms combine synthesis planning algorithms with laboratory automation interfaces, enabling partial or closed-loop experimentation.
“Emerging “AI organic chemist” platforms combine synthesis planning algorithms with laboratory automation interfaces, enabling partial or closed-loop experimentation [34, 47].”
From The next paradigm in bioinformatics: a review of multi-agent systems and foundational models for end-to-end scientific discovery (2026) · cites this paper as [34]
Citations
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Peptide-based drug design using generative AI
Ekambaram, S., & Dokholyan, N. V. (2025) · Chemical Communications · doi:10.1039/d5cc04998a · Cited by 53
Branda, F., Ahmed, M. M., Ciccozzi, M., Guzzi, P. H., & Scarpa, F. (2026) · Briefings in Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bib/bbag245 · Cited by 2
Organic Chemistry as a Catalyst for AI Innovation: Challenges, Methods, and Emerging Paradigms
Chawla, N. V., González‐Montiel, G. A., Guo, K., Guo, T., Hua, T., Huang, X., Inae, E., Jiang, M., Le, K., Liu, G., et al. (2026) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.5c01081 · Cited by 3
The rise of agentic AI in drug discovery from static tools to autonomous virtual scientists
Zhao, D., Fang, M., Mao, L., Zhu, Y., Su, Q., Shi, H., Xu, H., Li, L., Hou, T., & Hsieh, C.-Y. (2026) · npj Drug Discovery. · doi:10.1038/s44386-026-00075-0
Metadata
- Authors
- Ünlü, A., Rohr, P., & Celebi, A.
- ORCID
- Ünlü, Atabey
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2508.03444
- OpenAlex
- W7077063820
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Drug Discovery › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
- Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Machine Learning in Materials Science
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Degradation and Inhibitors
- Keywords
- multi-agent systems, molecular design, drug discovery, large language models, binding affinity prediction, provenance tracking, AKT1, in-context learning
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review