PreprintCited by 4Computational Drug Discovery MethodsMachine Learning in Materials ScienceProtein Degradation and Inhibitors

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 access
Ünlü, Atabey, Rohr, Phil, Celebi, Ahmet·2025·arXiv

Abstract

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2508.03444

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Ünlü, A., Rohr, P., & Celebi, A.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7077063820
Cited by
3
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
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