CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 2Computational Drug Discovery MethodsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationArtificial Intelligence Applications

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

AI Agents in Drug Discovery

Open access
Seal, Srijit, Huynh, Dinh Long, Chelbi, Moudather, Khosravi, Sara, Kumar, Ankur, Thieme, Mattson, Wilks, Isaac, Davies, Mark, Mustali, Jessica, Sun, Yannick, Edwards, Nick, Boiko, Daniil, Tyrin, Andrei, Selinger, Douglas W., Parikh, Ayaan, Vijayan, Rahul, Kasbekar, Shoman, Reid, Dylan, Bender, Andreas, Spjuth, Ola·2025·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2510.27130arXiv 2510.27130
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) agents are emerging as transformative tools in drug discovery, with the ability to autonomously reason, act, and learn through complicated research workflows. Building on large language models (LLMs) coupled with perception, computation, action, and memory tools, these agentic AI systems could integrate diverse biomedical data, execute tasks, carry out experiments via robotic platforms, and iteratively refine hypotheses in closed loops. We provide a conceptual and technical overview of agentic AI architectures, ranging from ReAct and Reflection to Supervisor and Swarm systems, and illustrate their applications across key stages of drug discovery, including literature synthesis, toxicity prediction, automated protocol generation, small-molecule synthesis, drug repurposing, and end-to-end decision-making. To our knowledge, this represents the first comprehensive work to present real-world implementations and quantifiable impacts of agentic AI systems deployed in operational drug discovery settings. Early implementations demonstrate substantial gains in speed, reproducibility, and scalability, compressing workflows that once took months into hours while maintaining scientific traceability. We discuss the current challenges related to data heterogeneity, system reliability, privacy, and benchmarking, and outline future directions towards technology in support of science and translation.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2510.27130

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • By explicitly tracing the provenance of evidence and ranking candidate hypotheses, such systems can reduce the time required for structured review from weeks to hours, while preserving verifiability and reproducibility.

    “By explicitly tracing the provenance of evidence and ranking candidate hypotheses, such systems can reduce the time required for structured review from weeks to hours, while preserving verifiability and reproducibility.”

    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 [33]

    Section 3.1 (pp. 11–14) describes literature analysis that typically takes weeks and an agentic workflow that preserves citation provenance and lets users verify findings. It does not establish that this structured review is reduced to hours or that the system ranks candidate hypotheses; the under-two-hour result in §3.3 (p. 20) concerns assay protocol design, a different task. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • 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 [33]

    Sections 2.1 (p. 4) and 5 (p. 34) describe integrated reasoning, evidence-gathering and action in drug discovery, with gains in speed and reproducibility. Section 3.1 (p. 12) describes source tracking and checks on conflicting evidence. The paper does not establish the same value for personalized medicine, and its Conclusion treats governance as a framework still needed, rather than showing that implementations do not compromise it. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Multi-agent systems address the information bottleneck by combining retrieval-enhanced generation with role specialization, in which sub-agents focus on distinct domains under the supervision of an orchestrator.

    “Multi-agent systems address this bottleneck by combining retrieval-enhanced generation with role specialization, in which sub-agents focus on distinct domains (e.g. mapping mechanisms of action, profiling adverse events, structural chemistry) under the supervision of an orchestrator [33, 45, 46].”

    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 [33]

  • In preclinical development, agentic systems increasingly integrate reasoning cycles with controlled instrument execution.

    “In preclinical development, agentic systems increasingly integrate reasoning cycles with controlled instrument execution.”

    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 [33]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Still being checked.

Research works printed but not linked: 33

  1. [1]1. Sneader, W. Drug Discovery: A History . (John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, N.J, 2005).
  2. [2]2. Chou, W.-C., Li, M., Seal, S. & Lin, Z. Application of machine learning and artificial intelligence methods in predictions of absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion properties of chemicals ∗ . in Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence in Toxicology and Environmental Health (eds Lin, Z. & Chou, W.-C.) 61 -97 (Academic Press, 2026). doi:10.1016/B978-0-443-30010-3.00012-X. · DOI
  3. [6]6. Shamout, F., Zhu, T. & Clifton, D. A. Machine Learning for Clinical Outcome Prediction. IEEE Rev. Biomed. Eng. 14 , 116 -126 (2021).
  4. [7]7. Rouquié, D. et al. The OASIS Consortium: integrating multi-omics technologies to transform chemical safety assessment. Toxicol. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfaf128 doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfaf128. · DOI
  5. [8]8. Jiang, C. et al. Decision-Making Criteria and Methods for Initiating Late-Stage Clinical Trials in Drug Development From a Multi-Stakeholder Perspective: A Scoping Review. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 117 , 978 -988 (2025).
  6. [17]17. Caldas Ramos, M., J. Collison, C. & D. White, A. A review of large language models and autonomous agents in chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1039/D4SC03921A (2025) doi:10.1039/D4SC03921A. · DOI · Paper page
  7. [22]22. Gao, S. et al. TxAgent: An AI Agent for Therapeutic Reasoning Across a Universe of Tools. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2503.10970 (2025). · DOI · Paper page
  8. [23]23. Hazra, R., Venturato, G., Martires, P. Z. D. & Raedt, L. D. Can Large Language Models Reason? A Characterization via 3-SAT. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2408.07215 (2024). · DOI
  9. [33]33. Yao, S. et al. ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2210.03629 (2023). · DOI · Paper page
  10. [34]34. Yuan, Y. & Xie, T. Reinforce LLM Reasoning through Multi-Agent Reflection. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2506.08379 (2025). · DOI
  11. [35]35. Fehlis, Y. et al. Accelerating Drug Discovery Through Agentic AI: A Multi-Agent Approach to Laboratory Automation in the DMTA Cycle. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.09023 (2025). · DOI
  12. [36]36. Song, K., Trotter, A. & Chen, J. Y. LLM Agent Swarm for Hypothesis-Driven Drug Discovery. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2504.17967 (2025). · DOI
  13. [39]39. Dong, Q. et al. A Survey on In-context Learning. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2301.00234 (2024). · DOI · Paper page
  14. [40]40. Dherin, B., Munn, M., Mazzawi, H., Wunder, M. & Gonzalvo, J. Learning without training: The implicit dynamics of in-context learning. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.16003 (2025). · DOI · Paper page
  15. [41]41. Parmar, J., Satheesh, S., Patwary, M., Shoeybi, M. & Catanzaro, B. Reuse, Don't Retrain: A Recipe for Continued Pretraining of Language Models. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2407.07263 (2024). · DOI
  16. [42]42. Ovadia, O., Brief, M., Mishaeli, M. & Elisha, O. Fine-Tuning or Retrieval? Comparing Knowledge Injection in LLMs. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2312.05934 (2024). · DOI · Paper page
  17. [43]43. Yang, E. et al. Model Merging in LLMs, MLLMs, and Beyond: Methods, Theories, Applications and Opportunities. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2408.07666 (2024). · DOI
  18. [44]44. Singh, A., Ehtesham, A., Kumar, S. & Khoei, T. T. Agentic Retrieval-Augmented Generation: A Survey on Agentic RAG. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2501.09136 (2025). · DOI · Paper page
  19. [45]45. Han, H. et al. Retrieval-Augmented Generation with Graphs (GraphRAG). Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2501.00309 (2025). · DOI · Paper page
  20. [46]46. Delile, J., Mukherjee, S., Pamel, A. V. & Zhukov, L. Graph-Based Retriever Captures the Long Tail of Biomedical Knowledge. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.12352 (2024). · DOI
  21. [53]53. Yuryev, A., Tropsha, A. & Mitchell, G. Exploring Drug Repurposing for Rare Diseases: Leveraging Biomedical Knowledge Graphs and Access to Scientific Literature. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.12.31.24319817 (2025). · DOI
  22. [59]59. Selinger, D. W. et al. A Framework for Autonomous AI-Driven Drug Discovery. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.12.17.629024 (2024). · DOI
  23. [62]62. Lawrence, E. et al. Understanding Biology in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2403.04106 (2024). · DOI
  24. [65]65. Serrano, E. et al. Progress and new challenges in image-based profiling. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2508.05800 (2025). · DOI
  25. [68]68. Yi, L. et al. Prompt Injection attack against LLM-integrated Applications. Preprint at https://doi.org/arXiv:2306.05499 (2024).
  26. [70]70. Banerjee, S., Agarwal, A. & Singla, S. LLMs Will Always Hallucinate, and We Need to Live With This. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2409.05746 (2024). · DOI
  27. [71]71. Kalai, A. T., Nachum, O., Vempala, S. S. & Zhang, E. Why Language Models Hallucinate. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2509.04664 (2025). · DOI · Paper page
  28. [72]72. Mitchener, L. et al. BixBench: a Comprehensive Benchmark for LLM-based Agents in Computational Biology. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2503.00096 (2025). · DOI
  29. [73]73. Zhu, K. et al. MultiAgentBench: Evaluating the Collaboration and Competition of LLM agents. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2503.01935 (2025). · DOI · Paper page
  30. [74]74. Kapoor, S., Stroebl, B., Siegel, Z. S., Nadgir, N. & Narayanan, A. AI Agents That Matter. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2407.01502 (2024). · DOI · Paper page
  31. [75]75. Gottweis, J. et al. Towards an AI co-scientist. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2502.18864 (2025). · DOI · Paper page
  32. [76]76. Cooper, A. I. et al. Accelerating Discovery in Natural Science Laboratories with AI and Robotics: Perspectives and Challenges from the 2024 IEEE ICRA Workshop, Yokohama, Japan. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2501.06847 (2025). · DOI
  33. [77]77. Liu, M., Fang, S., Dong, H. & Xu, C. Review of digital twin about concepts, technologies, and industrial applications. J. Manuf. Syst. 58 , 346 -361 (2021).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Seal, S., Huynh, D. L., Chelbi, M., Khosravi, S., Kumar, A., Thieme, M., Wilks, I., Davies, M., Mustali, J., Sun, Y., Edwards, N., Boiko, D., Tyrin, A., Selinger, D. W., Parikh, A., Vijayan, R., Kasbekar, S., Reid, D., Bender, A., & Spjuth, O.
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2510.27130
arXiv
2510.27130
OpenAlex
W4415914943
Cited by
1
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Drug Discovery › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
Keywords
agentic AI, drug discovery, large language models, React, supervisor agent, swarm agents, literature synthesis, toxicity prediction, small molecule synthesis, drug repurposing, robotic experimentation, data heterogeneity, privacy

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