Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

From Prompt to Pipeline: Large Language Models for Scientific Workflow Development in Bioinformatics

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read LLMs can turn plain-language prompts into usable bioinformatics workflows.

desk verdict Solid qualitative evaluation with honest limitations, but the headline rankings don't follow from the per-workflow narrative; treat the model comparisons as testable hypotheses. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.20122 v2 pith:VBJ2JWJO submitted 2025-07-27 cs.SE

Khairul Alam , Banani Roy This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SE
keywords scientificworkflowslargelanguagemodelsbioinformaticspromptengineeringGalaxyNextflownf-coreworkflowgeneration
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks whether large language models can move from answering questions about bioinformatics to actually generating complete, executable scientific workflows. It claims the answer is yes: across ten representative Galaxy and Nextflow tasks, all three tested models produced logically correct workflows from natural-language prompts, with Gemini 2.5 Flash strongest in the graphical Galaxy environment and DeepSeek-V3 strongest for script-based Nextflow pipelines. The paper further claims that escalating prompts from plain instructions to role-based and chain-of-thought formats measurably improves completeness and correctness. If these results hold, researchers who do not program could hand a task description to an LLM and receive a workflow that follows community-established conventions, lowering the entry barrier to reproducible analysis.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a three-tier prompting escalation applied uniformly across models and tasks: each workflow begins with an instruction-only prompt; if the output is incomplete or incorrect, the model is re-prompted as a domain expert (role-based), and finally with a chain-of-thought prompt that asks for step-by-step planning and justification. Quality is then judged by two domain experts on completeness, correctness, and usability against GTN and nf-core baselines. This tiered design is what lets the paper attribute differences in output quality to model choice and prompt design rather than to task difficulty.

What would settle it

Re-run the same ten workflows with an independent panel of bioinformatics workflow experts who score the outputs blind, and check whether Gemini still wins on Galaxy and DeepSeek-V3 on Nextflow; additionally attempt an end-to-end execution of every 'usable' generated workflow in a fresh Galaxy instance and a clean Nextflow installation to see whether they run without hand repair.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that state-of-the-art LLMs can act as workflow co-developers in bioinformatics, generating outputs that align with community-curated baselines from the Galaxy Training Network and nf-core. Gemini 2.5 Flash consistently performs best for Galaxy, producing complete, tool-aware, executable workflows with minimal prompting; DeepSeek-V3 emerges as the most capable model for Nextflow, generating implementation-ready, nf-core-aligned pipelines with configuration and container details. GPT-4o is described as performing well when given structured, role-based prompts but tends to omit setup steps or recommend unavailable tools when prompted minimally. Across the ten workflows, role-based and chain-of-thought prompting improved correctness and completeness compared with instruction-only prompts.

Load-bearing premise

The rankings rest on the two authors' manual, non-quantified expert scoring of completeness, correctness, and usability; if a different expert panel scored the same outputs, the model winners could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Novice users could generate a first-draft Galaxy workflow from a single paragraph describing their analysis goal, then refine it with role-based follow-ups.
  • Model selection becomes platform-dependent: Gemini for graphical Galaxy, DeepSeek-V3 for script-based Nextflow, and GPT-4o when users can supply structured prompts.
  • Workflow developers should expect to escalate prompts; the paper's tiered strategy offers a concrete fallback ladder from instruction-only to chain-of-thought.
  • LLM-generated workflows still need human review because models hallucinate tool availability, so the practical role is assistive co-development rather than full autonomy.
  • Community-curated workflows remain the benchmark ground truth, which opens a low-cost way to pre-screen candidate pipelines before investing expert effort.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct test of the accessibility claim would be a user study with novices who have no Galaxy or Nextflow training, measuring time to first successful execution of an LLM-generated workflow; the paper reports expert judgment, not end-user behaviour.
  • Because the winning models are described as of early 2025, the platform-specific rankings are likely unstable as model versions update; the methodology, not the winner list, is the durable contribution.
  • The tiered escalation could be automated into an agent loop that checks executability and re-prompts until success, turning the manual ladder into a quantitative search over prompts.
  • Quantifying inter-rater agreement between the two evaluators, alongside execution pass rates, would let other groups reproduce the comparison on the same ten workflows.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper reports an exploratory study of three LLMs (GPT-4o, Gemini 2.5 Flash, DeepSeek-V3) for generating bioinformatics workflows in Galaxy and Nextflow. The authors select ten community-curated workflows (five per platform), design tiered prompts (instruction-only, role-based, chain-of-thought) with escalation when initial outputs are judged inadequate, and manually assess the generated workflows for completeness, correctness, and usability against GTN and nf-core baselines. The main claims are that LLMs can substantially assist workflow development, that Gemini 2.5 Flash produces the most accurate and usable Galaxy workflows, that DeepSeek-V3 excels at Nextflow pipeline generation, and that prompt design materially affects output quality. The paper includes qualitative per-workflow narratives and comparative tables, and makes all prompts and outputs available via Zenodo.

Significance. The study addresses a timely question and has a sensible object of study: real, community-maintained workflows rather than synthetic tasks. Its strengths include the use of GTN and nf-core baselines, a tiered prompting protocol that mirrors how non-expert users actually interact with LLMs, and a candid discussion of threats to validity in Section 6. If the rankings were robust, the paper would provide useful guidance on model and prompt selection for bioinformatics workflow generation. However, the evidence is currently qualitative, unblinded, and in places internally inconsistent; the comparative conclusions are therefore not yet reproducible. The contribution at this stage is best characterized as an exploratory qualitative account with actionable prompt-engineering patterns.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3 (Study Design) and §6 (Threats to Validity)] The tiered prompting protocol confounds model capability with the number and content of prompting attempts. Escalation is triggered by the authors' subjective judgment that an output is 'incomplete, incorrect, or misaligned with the baseline' (§3, 'To address RQ2'); a model whose initial draft is judged complete is never escalated, while a model whose initial draft is judged deficient receives additional, richer prompts. Section 6 concedes that 'our criteria for escalation may still carry implicit judgment calls.' Because RQ2 compares the 'completeness, correctness, and usability' of outputs across models, the protocol does not compare like with like: a model that produces a plausible but subtly wrong workflow can be scored as a success without any opportunity to correct it, while another model's measured performance reflects the authors' investment in additional prompting. The authors should either (i) compare models on instruction-only outputs only, (ii) report the number of escalation rounds per model/workflow as a separate usability metric, or (iii) define pre-specified, observable escalation criteria so that the decision rule is reproducible.
  2. [§4.1.2 and §4.2] The aggregate rankings do not follow from the per-workflow narratives. For Nextflow, the W2 narrative states that Gemini 2.5 Flash 'outperforms the others' (fetchngs), the W3 narrative concludes that GPT-4o produces 'the most technically precise and nf-core-compliant workflow' (under role-based prompting), and the W5 narrative says GPT-4o 'ensures the highest fidelity' while DeepSeek-V3 is 'most comprehensive and adaptable.' Yet the summary in §4.1.2 and the RQ2 answer declare DeepSeek-V3 'the most capable model' for Nextflow with no stated weighting or aggregation rule. For Galaxy, the W4 narrative identifies DeepSeek-V3 as producing 'the most comprehensive and customizable workflow,' while the §4.1.1 summary says Gemini 2.5 Flash 'consistently performs best.' Without a defined scoring rubric or an explicit qualitative weighting rationale, these summary rankings are not derivable from the reported evidence. Please either provide per-workflow scores and an aggregation rule, or restrict the conclusions to per-workflow observations.
  3. [§4.2 and §6] The evaluation lacks quantitative measurement and inter-rater reliability. Section 4.2 says the workflows 'are then manually assessed by two domain experts,' but no numeric scores, rubric, or agreement statistic are reported; the comparison tables (Tables 8–11) use qualitative checkmarks and symbols. Section 6 itself acknowledges that 'human interpretation is inherently susceptible to bias' and that 'the absence of quantitative metrics for some usability aspects introduces potential inconsistencies.' Because every comparative claim in RQ2 rests on these manual judgments, the rankings are not reproducible. I recommend adding a defined scoring rubric, reporting per-workflow scores for completeness/correctness/usability, and computing inter-rater agreement (e.g., Cohen's kappa or percentage agreement on at least a subset of workflows). If the authors prefer to keep the study qualitative, the comparative rankings should be explicitly reframed as exploratory observations rather than findings.
  4. [§4.1.1 (Galaxy W5) and §4.1.2 (Nextflow)] The executability evidence is incomplete for several of the central comparisons. For Galaxy W5, the paper states that GPT-4o's instruction-only workflow 'included tools not available within the Galaxy platform, such as ISMapper, MobileElementFinder, and Trackster,' so the authors 'are unable to develop the workflow'; DeepSeek-V3's W5 response similarly proposes Infernal, which is not available in Galaxy. For Nextflow, several narratives (e.g., DeepSeek-V3 on W3) say the generated steps 'are correct, and we can develop the workflow following the instructions,' but no execution logs, error reports, or tool-availability checks are provided in the manuscript or the supplementary description. Since the abstract and RQ1 claim 'executable' workflows, the paper should report per-workflow execution status (executed successfully, executed with modifications, not executable) with evidence, or qualify the executability claims accordingly.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§4.2.1] The text contains a duplicated bracket in 'grounded in recent literature on prompt engineering and LLM behavior [e.g., [28, 29, ...]'; this citation formatting should be fixed.
  2. [References] The Galaxy Training Network reference appears twice as [35] and [80]; these should be merged into a single citation.
  3. [Tables 8–11] The tables contain a garbled symbol rendered as '/exclamati⌢n-triangle'; the intended warning glyph should be typeset correctly.
  4. [Throughout] The name of the DeepSeek model is inconsistent ('DeepSeek-V3' vs 'DeepSeek-v3'); please use one spelling consistently.
  5. [Abstract] The statement that 'GPT-4o performed nicely with structured prompts' is vague and does not match the level of detail in the results; consider replacing it with a concrete summary of GPT-4o's observed behavior.
  6. [§3 (Study Design)] The text says a 'consistent prompting strategy is applied across all workflows,' but Tables 6 and 7 show role-based and chain-of-thought prompts only for a subset; clarify that these were used upon escalation, and consider reporting which prompt tier each model/workflow reached.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No material circularity: the central evaluation is benchmarked against external GTN/nf-core baselines; only minor, non-load-bearing self-citations appear.

full rationale

The paper contains no derived equations or fitted parameters that are later renamed as predictions. Its central claims, Gemini 2.5 Flash is best for Galaxy and DeepSeek-V3 is best for Nextflow, are empirical verdicts reached by manually comparing LLM-generated workflows against externally curated Galaxy Training Network and nf-core baselines, with Galaxy outputs additionally executed in the Galaxy web interface. The tiered prompting design is an interactive escalation protocol, not a statistical fit; even though the escalation decision involves judgment, the paper explicitly acknowledges this in Section 6 ("our criteria for escalation may still carry implicit judgment calls"). The only self-citations ([16] and [20], both by the authors) are used in the introduction to support the background claim that workflow development is challenging; they are not load-bearing for the comparative results, and they are accompanied by other external references. There is no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors, no ansatz smuggled in via citation, and no renaming of a known result as a new contribution. Consequently, there are no circular steps that reduce by construction to the paper's inputs; the score of 2 reflects only the presence of minor, non-load-bearing self-citations, not any circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or invented entities appear. The central claims rest on domain assumptions about benchmark validity, manual evaluation reliability, workflow representativeness, and escalation consistency, all partially acknowledged in the threats-to-validity section.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Community-curated GTN and nf-core workflows are treated as ground-truth references for correctness and completeness.
    Invoked throughout Section 4 as benchmarks; Section 6 acknowledges that alternative valid implementations create a gray area.
  • domain assumption Manual expert assessment by the two authors is a valid and sufficiently consistent measure of completeness, correctness, and usability.
    Section 4.2 states two authors manually evaluate; Section 6 flags subjectivity as an internal validity threat.
  • domain assumption The ten selected workflows are representative of real-world bioinformatics workflow development.
    Section 3 and Section 6 note the selection is limited to well-documented GTN/nf-core cases and may not generalize to exploratory workflows.
  • domain assumption Tiered escalation criteria (instruction-only, then role-based, then chain-of-thought) reflect realistic user behavior and are applied consistently.
    Described in Sections 3 and 4.1; Section 6 admits escalation decisions carry implicit judgment calls.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From Prompt to Pipeline: Large Language Models for Scientific Workflow Development in Bioinformatics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VBJ2JWJO

@misc{pith2026250720122,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From Prompt to Pipeline: Large Language Models for Scientific Workflow Development in Bioinformatics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VBJ2JWJO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.20122}
}
read the original abstract

Scientific Workflow Systems such as Galaxy and Nextflow are essential for scalable, reproducible, and automated bioinformatics analyses. However, developing and understanding scientific workflows remains challenging for many domain scientists due to the complexity of tool/module selection, infrastructure requirements, and limited programming expertise. This study explores whether state-of-the-art Large Language Models such as GPT-4o, Gemini 2.5 Flash, and DeepSeek-V3 can assist in generating accurate, complete, and usable bioinformatics workflows. We evaluate a set of representative workflows covering tasks such as RNA-seq, SNP analysis, and DNA methylation across both Galaxy (graphical) and Nextflow (script-based) platforms. To simulate realistic usage, we adopt a tiered prompting strategy: each workflow is first generated using an instruction-only prompt; if the output is incomplete or incorrect, we escalate to a role-based prompt, and finally to chain-of-thought prompting if needed. The generated workflows are evaluated against community-curated baselines from the Galaxy Training Network and nf-core, using criteria including correctness, completeness, tool appropriateness, and executability. Results show that LLMs exhibit strong potential in workflow development. Gemini 2.5 Flash produced the most accurate and user-friendly workflows in Galaxy, while DeepSeek-V3 excelled in Nextflow pipeline generation. GPT-4o performed nicely with structured prompts. Prompting strategy significantly influenced output quality, with role-based and chain-of-thought prompts enhancing correctness and completeness. Overall, LLMs can reduce the cognitive and technical barriers to workflow development, making SWSs more accessible to novice and expert users. This work highlights the practical utility of LLMs and provides actionable insights for integrating them into real-world bioinformatics workflow design.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.20122 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. RNA sequencing analysis pipeline (workflow) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of our study methodology Gemini 2.5 Flash is included for its efficiency in producing structured outputs and handling multi-step instructions, traits particularly relevant for workflow synthesis. DeepSeek-V3 is se￾lected for its strong performance in open-source benchmarks and its alignment with code-centric modeling, making it a competitive and transparent alternative to proprietary models. We eval￾uate ea… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Long-range machine-learning potentials with environment-dependent charges enable predicting LO-TO splitting and dielectric constants

    physics.comp-ph 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Environment-dependent, optionally charge-conserving Coulomb terms grafted onto Moment Tensor Potentials recover LO–TO splitting and experimental dielectric constants for NaCl and improve dimer binding curves.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

103 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    J. Liu, E. Pacitti, P. Valduriez, M. Mattoso, A survey of data-intensive scientific workflow management, Journal of Grid Computing 13 (4) (2015) 457–493

    2015

  2. [2]

    Cohen-Boulakia, K

    S. Cohen-Boulakia, K. Belhajjame, et al., Scientific workflows for computational repro- ducibility in the life sciences: Status, challenges and opportunities, FGCS 75 (2017) 284– 298

    2017

  3. [3]

    S¨ anger, N

    M. S¨ anger, N. De Mecquenem, et al., A qualitative assessment of using chatgpt as large language model for scientific workflow development, GigaScience 13 (2024) giae030

    2024

  4. [4]

    Wratten, A

    L. Wratten, A. Wilm, J. G¨ oke, Reproducible, scalable, and shareable analysis pipelines with bioinformatics workflow managers, Nature methods 18 (10) (2021) 1161–1168

    2021

  5. [5]

    Goodwin, J

    S. Goodwin, J. D. McPherson, W. R. McCombie, Coming of age: ten years of next- generation sequencing technologies, Nature reviews genetics 17 (6) (2016) 333–351

    2016

  6. [6]

    J. Xu, W. Du, et al., Llm4workflow: An llm-based automated workflow model generation tool, in: 2024 39th IEEE/ACM International Conference on ASE, IEEE, 2024, pp. 2394– 2398. 40

    2024

  7. [7]

    B. E. Langer, A. Amaral, et al., Empowering bioinformatics communities with nextflow and nf-core, bioRxiv (2024) 2024–05

    2024

  8. [8]

    Goecks, A

    J. Goecks, A. Nekrutenko, et al., Galaxy: a comprehensive approach for supporting acces- sible, reproducible, and transparent computational research in the life sciences, Genome biology 11 (2010) 1–13

    2010

Show all 103 references
  1. [9]

    Di Tommaso, M

    P. Di Tommaso, M. Chatzou, et al., Nextflow enables reproducible computational work- flows, Nature biotechnology 35 (4) (2017) 316–319

    2017

  2. [10]

    K¨ oster, S

    J. K¨ oster, S. Rahmann, Snakemake—a scalable bioinformatics workflow engine, Bioinfor- matics 28 (19) (2012) 2520–2522

    2012

  3. [11]

    Harenslak, et al., Data pipelines with apache airflow, Simon and Schuster, 2021

    P. Harenslak, et al., Data pipelines with apache airflow, Simon and Schuster, 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    Deelman, K

    E. Deelman, K. Vahi, et al., Pegasus, a workflow management system for science automa- tion, FGCS 46 (2015) 17–35

    2015

  5. [13]

    Goodstadt, Ruffus: a lightweight python library for computational pipelines, Bioinfor- matics 26 (21) (2010) 2778–2779

    L. Goodstadt, Ruffus: a lightweight python library for computational pipelines, Bioinfor- matics 26 (21) (2010) 2778–2779

    2010

  6. [14]

    Khodak, B

    A. Khodak, B. Chapman, et al., Existing-workflow-systems, [Online; accessed Thursday May 29 2025] (2024). URL https://github.com/common-workflow-language/common-workflow-language/ wiki/Existing-Workflow-systems

    2024

  7. [15]

    Kumar, H

    A. Kumar, H. Rasche, B. Gr¨ uning, et al., Tool recommender system in galaxy using deep learning, GigaScience 10 (1) (2021) giaa152

    2021

  8. [16]

    K. Alam, B. Roy, A. Serebrenik, Reusability challenges of scientific workflows: A case study for galaxy, in: 2023 30th APSEC, IEEE, 2023, pp. 289–298

    2023

  9. [17]

    Ferreira da Silva, D

    R. Ferreira da Silva, D. Bard, K. Chard, I. Foster, T. Gibbs, C. Goble, W. Godoy, J. Gustafsson, S. Hudson, S. Jha, et al., Workflows community summit 2024: future trends and challenges in scientific workflows (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    Menaka, K

    M. Menaka, K. S. Kumar, Workflow scheduling in cloud environment–challenges, tools, limitations & methodologies: A review, Measurement: Sensors 24 (2022) 100436

    2022

  11. [19]

    Deelman, T

    E. Deelman, T. Peterka, et al., The future of scientific workflows, The International Journal of HPC Applications 32 (1) (2018) 159–175

    2018

  12. [20]

    K. Alam, B. Roy, C. K. Roy, K. Mittal, An empirical investigation on the challenges in scientific workflow systems development, Empirical Software Engineering 30 (5) (2025) 151

    2025

  13. [21]

    De Roure, C

    D. De Roure, C. Goble, myexperiment–a web 2.0 virtual research environment (2007)

    2007

  14. [22]

    Cohen-Boulakia, U

    S. Cohen-Boulakia, U. Leser, Search, adapt, and reuse: the future of scientific workflows, ACM SIGMOD Record 40 (2) (2011) 6–16

    2011

  15. [23]

    Hurst, A

    A. Hurst, A. Lerer, A. P. Goucher, A. Perelman, A. Ramesh, A. Clark, A. Ostrow, A. Weli- hinda, A. Hayes, A. Radford, et al., Gpt-4o system card, arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21276 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Comanici, E

    G. Comanici, E. Bieber, M. Schaekermann, I. Pasupat, N. Sachdeva, I. Dhillon, M. Blis- tein, O. Ram, D. Zhang, E. Rosen, et al., Gemini 2.5: Pushing the frontier with advanced reasoning, multimodality, long context, and next generation agentic capabilities, arXiv preprint arXi...

    2025 arXiv

  17. [25]

    A. Liu, B. Feng, B. Xue, Wang, et al., Deepseek-v3 technical report, arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.19437 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Ouyang, J

    S. Ouyang, J. M. Zhang, M. Harman, M. Wang, Llm is like a box of chocolates: the non-determinism of chatgpt in code generation, arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.02828 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    X. Hou, Y. Zhao, et al., Large language models for software engineering: A systematic literature review, ACM TOSEM (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    Ekin, Prompt engineering for chatgpt: a quick guide to techniques, tips, and best practices, Authorea Preprints (2023)

    S. Ekin, Prompt engineering for chatgpt: a quick guide to techniques, tips, and best practices, Authorea Preprints (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    Arora, A

    S. Arora, A. Narayan, et al., Ask me anything: A simple strategy for prompting language models, in: The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    Reynolds, K

    L. Reynolds, K. McDonell, Prompt programming for large language models: Beyond the few-shot paradigm, in: Extended abstracts of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 2021, pp. 1–7

    2021

  23. [31]

    J. Wei, X. Wang, et al., Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models, Advances in NIPS 35 (2022) 24824–24837

    2022

  24. [32]

    Y. Zhou, A. I. Muresanu, et al., Large language models are human-level prompt engineers, arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.01910 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Marvin, N

    G. Marvin, N. Hellen, et al., Prompt engineering in large language models, in: Inter- national conference on data intelligence and cognitive informatics, Springer, 2023, pp. 387–402

    2023

  26. [34]

    Lin, How to write effective prompts for large language models, Nature Human Be- haviour 8 (4) (2024) 611–615

    Z. Lin, How to write effective prompts for large language models, Nature Human Be- haviour 8 (4) (2024) 611–615

    2024

  27. [35]

    Hiltemann, et al., Galaxy training: A powerful framework for teaching!, PLoS compu- tational biology 19 (1) (2023) e1010752

    S. Hiltemann, et al., Galaxy training: A powerful framework for teaching!, PLoS compu- tational biology 19 (1) (2023) e1010752

    2023

  28. [36]

    P. A. Ewels, et al., The nf-core framework for community-curated bioinformatics pipelines, Nature biotechnology 38 (3) (2020) 276–278

    2020

  29. [37]

    Barker, J

    A. Barker, J. Van Hemert, Scientific workflow: a survey and research directions, in: International Conference on Parallel Processing and Applied Mathematics, Springer, 2007, pp. 746–753

    2007

  30. [38]

    Lud¨ ascher, M

    B. Lud¨ ascher, M. Weske, T. McPhillips, S. Bowers, Scientific workflows: Business as usual?, in: International Conference on Business Process Management, Springer, 2009, pp. 31–47

    2009

  31. [39]

    C. Lin, S. Lu, et al., A reference architecture for scientific workflow management systems and the view soa solution, IEEE TSC 2 (1) (2009) 79–92

    2009

  32. [40]

    T. Oinn, M. Addis, et al., Taverna: a tool for the composition and enactment of bioinfor- matics workflows, Bioinformatics 20 (17) (2004) 3045–3054

    2004

  33. [41]

    C. S. Liew, M. P. Atkinson, et al., Scientific workflows: moving across paradigms, ACM CSUR 49 (4) (2016) 1–39

    2016

  34. [42]

    Vaswani, Attention is all you need, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (2017)

    A. Vaswani, Attention is all you need, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (2017). 42

    2017

  35. [43]

    W. X. Zhao, K. Zhou, J. Li, T. Tang, X. Wang, Y. Hou, Y. Min, B. Zhang, J. Zhang, Z. Dong, et al., A survey of large language models, arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.18223 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    J. Liu, C. S. Xia, et al., Is your code generated by chatgpt really correct? rigorous evaluation of large language models for code generation, Advances in NIPS 36 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    J. Yu, P. Liang, et al., Security code review by llms: A deep dive into responses, arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.16310 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    D. Nam, A. Macvean, V. Hellendoorn, et al., Using an llm to help with code understand- ing, in: Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 46th ICSE, 2024, pp. 1–13

    2024

  39. [47]

    Y. Su, C. Wan, et al., Hotgpt: How to make software documentation more useful with a large language model?, in: Proceedings of the 19th Workshop on Hot Topics in OS, 2023, pp. 87–93

    2023

  40. [48]

    R. Pan, A. R. Ibrahimzada, et al., Understanding the effectiveness of large language models in code translation, arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.03109 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Z. Yang, F. Liu, et al., Exploring and unleashing the power of large language models in automated code translation, Proceedings of the ACM on Software Engineering 1 (FSE) (2024) 1585–1608

    2024

  42. [50]

    O. A. Sarumi, D. Heider, Large language models and their applications in bioinformatics, Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal 23 (2024) 3498–3505

    2024

  43. [51]

    Manakul, A

    P. Manakul, A. Liusie, M. J. Gales, Selfcheckgpt: Zero-resource black-box hallucination detection for generative large language models, arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08896 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Peng, et al., Check your facts and try again: Improving large language models with external knowledge and automated feedback, arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.12813 (2023)

    B. Peng, et al., Check your facts and try again: Improving large language models with external knowledge and automated feedback, arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.12813 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Ugare, et al., Improving llm code generation with grammar augmentation, arXiv e- prints (2024) arXiv–2403

    S. Ugare, et al., Improving llm code generation with grammar augmentation, arXiv e- prints (2024) arXiv–2403

    2024

  46. [54]

    Gu, Llm-based code generation method for golang compiler testing, in: Proceedings of the 31st ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the FSE, 2023, pp

    Q. Gu, Llm-based code generation method for golang compiler testing, in: Proceedings of the 31st ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the FSE, 2023, pp. 2201–2203

    2023

  47. [55]

    H. Le, Y. Wang, et al., Coderl: Mastering code generation through pretrained models and deep reinforcement learning, Advances in NIPS 35 (2022) 21314–21328

    2022

  48. [56]

    Jiang, E

    E. Jiang, E. Toh, et al., Discovering the syntax and strategies of natural language pro- gramming with generative language models, in: Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2022, pp. 1–19

    2022

  49. [57]

    Vaithilingam, et al., Expectation vs

    P. Vaithilingam, et al., Expectation vs. experience: Evaluating the usability of code gen- eration tools powered by large language models, in: Chi conference on human factors in computing systems extended abstracts, 2022, pp. 1–7

    2022

  50. [58]

    B. Yeti¸ stiren, et al., Evaluating the code quality of ai-assisted code generation tools: An empirical study on github copilot, amazon codewhisperer, and chatgpt, arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.10778 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Kazemitabaar, J

    M. Kazemitabaar, J. Chow, et al., Studying the effect of ai code generators on supporting novice learners in introductory programming, in: Proceedings of the 2023 CHI on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2023, pp. 1–23. 43

    2023

  52. [60]

    what it wants me to say

    M. X. Liu, A. Sarkar, et al., “what it wants me to say”: Bridging the abstraction gap be- tween end-user programmers and code-generating large language models, in: Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2023, pp. 1–31

    2023

  53. [61]

    Y. Ji, Z. Zhou, H. Liu, R. V. Davuluri, Dnabert: pre-trained bidirectional encoder repre- sentations from transformers model for dna-language in genome, Bioinformatics 37 (15) (2021) 2112–2120

    2021

  54. [62]

    Brandes, D

    N. Brandes, D. Ofer, Y. Peleg, N. Rappoport, M. Linial, Proteinbert: a universal deep- learning model of protein sequence and function, Bioinformatics 38 (8) (2022) 2102–2110

    2022

  55. [63]

    Zhang, W

    D. Zhang, W. Zhang, Y. Zhao, J. Zhang, B. He, C. Qin, J. Yao, Dnagpt: A generalized pre-trained tool for versatile dna sequence analysis tasks, arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.05628 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Ferruz, S

    N. Ferruz, S. Schmidt, B. H¨ ocker, Protgpt2 is a deep unsupervised language model for protein design, Nature communications 13 (1) (2022) 4348

    2022

  57. [65]

    Oppenlaender, A taxonomy of prompt modifiers for text-to-image generation, Be- haviour & Information Technology (2023) 1–14

    J. Oppenlaender, A taxonomy of prompt modifiers for text-to-image generation, Be- haviour & Information Technology (2023) 1–14

    2023

  58. [66]

    White, et al., A prompt pattern catalog to enhance prompt engineering with chatgpt, arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.11382 (2023)

    J. White, et al., A prompt pattern catalog to enhance prompt engineering with chatgpt, arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.11382 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Y. Liu, G. Deng, Z. Xu, et al., Jailbreaking chatgpt via prompt engineering: An empirical study, arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13860 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  60. [68]

    L. Wang, X. Chen, X. Deng, et al., Prompt engineering in consistency and reliability with the evidence-based guideline for llms, NPJ digital medicine 7 (1) (2024) 41

    2024

  61. [69]

    Sahoo, A

    P. Sahoo, A. K. Singh, et al., A systematic survey of prompt engineering in large language models: Techniques and applications, arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.07927 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  62. [70]

    B. Chen, Z. Zhang, N. Langren´ e, S. Zhu, Unleashing the potential of prompt engineering in large language models: a comprehensive review, arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.14735 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  63. [71]

    A. G. Parameswaran, S. Shankar, P. Asawa, N. Jain, Y. Wang, Revisiting prompt engi- neering via declarative crowdsourcing, arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.03854 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Vatsal, H

    S. Vatsal, H. Dubey, A survey of prompt engineering methods in large language models for different nlp tasks, arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.12994 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Shah, From prompt engineering to prompt science with humans in the loop, Commu- nications of the ACM 68 (6) (2025) 54–61

    C. Shah, From prompt engineering to prompt science with humans in the loop, Commu- nications of the ACM 68 (6) (2025) 54–61

    2025

  66. [74]

    Smith, J

    R. Smith, J. A. Fries, B. Hancock, S. H. Bach, Language models in the loop: Incorporating prompting into weak supervision, ACM/JMS Journal of Data Science 1 (2) (2024) 1–30

    2024

  67. [75]

    C. Cohn, N. Hutchins, G. Biswas, Towards a formative feedback generation agent: Lever- aging a human-in-the-loop, chain-of-thought prompting approach with llms to evaluate formative assessment responses in k-12 science. (2023)

    2023

  68. [76]

    Razdaibiedina, Y

    A. Razdaibiedina, Y. Mao, R. Hou, M. Khabsa, M. Lewis, A. Almahairi, Progressive prompts: Continual learning for language models, arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.12314 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Knoth, A

    N. Knoth, A. Tolzin, A. Janson, J. M. Leimeister, Ai literacy and its implications for prompt engineering strategies, Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence 6 (2024) 100225. 44

    2024

  70. [78]

    L. S. Lo, The art and science of prompt engineering: a new literacy in the information age, Internet Reference Services Quarterly 27 (4) (2023) 203–210

    2023

  71. [79]

    L. S. Lo, The clear path: A framework for enhancing information literacy through prompt engineering, The Journal of Academic Librarianship 49 (4) (2023) 102720

    2023

  72. [80]

    Hiltemann, H

    S. Hiltemann, H. Rasche, S. Gladman, others and, Galaxy training: A powerful framework for teaching!, PLoS Comput Biol 19 (1) (2023) e1010752. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi. 1010752. URL https://doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pcbi.1010752

    2023 doi

  73. [81]

    Hiltemann, et al., Galaxy basics for genomics (2024)

    S. Hiltemann, et al., Galaxy basics for genomics (2024)

    2024

  74. [82]

    Pajon, C

    A. Pajon, C. Blank, et al., From peaks to genes (2024)

    2024

  75. [83]

    Clements, C

    D. Clements, C. Gallardo, Introduction to genomics and galaxy (2024)

    2024

  76. [84]

    Batut, M

    B. Batut, M. Doyle, et al., Quality control (galaxy training materials), [Online; accessed 2025-06-25] (2025). URL https://training.galaxyproject.org/training-material/topics/ sequence-analysis/tutorials/quality-control/tutorial.html

    2025

  77. [85]

    Batut, Bacterial genome annotation (2024)

    B. Batut, Bacterial genome annotation (2024)

    2024

  78. [86]

    Hakkaart, M

    C. Hakkaart, M. H¨ ortenhuber, nf-core bot, nf-core/demo: nf-core/demo 1.0.1 - roasted sweet potato (Oct. 2024). doi:10.5281/zenodo.13951181. URL https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13951181

    2024 doi

  79. [87]

    Patel, M

    H. Patel, M. U. Garcia, et al., nf-core/fetchngs: nf-core/fetchngs v1.12.0 - titanium platy- pus (Feb. 2024). doi:10.5281/zenodo.10728509. URL https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10728509

    2024 doi

  80. [88]

    Ewels, Sateesh Peri, P

    P. Ewels, Sateesh Peri, P. H¨ uther, et al., nf-core/methylseq: Endless tofu (Dec. 2024). doi:10.5281/zenodo.14502249. URL https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14502249

    2024 doi

  81. [89]

    Patel, P

    H. Patel, P. Ewels, J. Manning, et al., nf-core/rnaseq: nf-core/rnaseq v3.18.0 - lithium lynx (Dec. 2024). doi:10.5281/zenodo.14537300. URL https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14537300

    2024 doi

  82. [90]

    Lundin, nf-core bot, J

    D. Lundin, nf-core bot, J. A. F. Yates, nf-core/phyloplace: Phylosearch release (Feb. 2025). doi:10.5281/zenodo.14906186. URL https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14906186

    2025 doi

  83. [91]

    Chang, S

    K. Chang, S. Xu, C. Wang, Y. Luo, T. Xiao, J. Zhu, Efficient prompting methods for large language models: A survey, arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.01077 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Liu, et al., Pre-train, prompt, and predict: A systematic survey of prompting methods in natural language processing, ACM Computing Surveys 55 (9) (2023) 1–35

    P. Liu, et al., Pre-train, prompt, and predict: A systematic survey of prompting methods in natural language processing, ACM Computing Surveys 55 (9) (2023) 1–35

    2023

  85. [93]

    Alam, From prompt to pipeline: Large language models for scientific workflow devel- opment in bioinformatics (Jul

    K. Alam, From prompt to pipeline: Large language models for scientific workflow devel- opment in bioinformatics (Jul. 2025). doi:10.5281/zenodo.16416384. URL https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16416384

    2025 doi

  86. [94]

    Wohlin, P

    C. Wohlin, P. Runeson, M. H¨ ost, M. C. Ohlsson, B. Regnell, A. Wessl´ en, Experimentation in software engineering, Springer Science & Business Media (2012). 45

    2012

  87. [95]

    Palmblad, et al., Automated workflow composition in mass spectrometry-based pro- teomics, Bioinformatics 35 (4) (2019) 656–664

    M. Palmblad, et al., Automated workflow composition in mass spectrometry-based pro- teomics, Bioinformatics 35 (4) (2019) 656–664

    2019

  88. [96]

    DiBernardo, et al., Semi-automatic web service composition for the life sciences using the biomoby semantic web framework, Journal of biomedical informatics 41 (5) (2008) 837–847

    M. DiBernardo, et al., Semi-automatic web service composition for the life sciences using the biomoby semantic web framework, Journal of biomedical informatics 41 (5) (2008) 837–847

    2008

  89. [97]

    Koop, et al., Viscomplete: Automating suggestions for visualization pipelines, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 14 (6) (2008) 1691–1698

    D. Koop, et al., Viscomplete: Automating suggestions for visualization pipelines, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 14 (6) (2008) 1691–1698

    2008

  90. [98]

    Kumar, B

    A. Kumar, B. Gr¨ uning, et al., Transformer-based tool recommendation system in galaxy, BMC bioinformatics 24 (1) (2023) 446

    2023

  91. [99]

    Pickard, R

    J. Pickard, R. Prakash, et al., Language model powered digital biology with brad, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.02864 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Riffle, N

    D. Riffle, N. Shirooni, C. He, M. Murali, S. Nayak, R. Gopalan, D. G. Lopez, Olaf: An open life science analysis framework for conversational bioinformatics powered by large language models, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.03976 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  93. [101]

    X. Tang, B. Qian, R. Gao, et al., Biocoder: a benchmark for bioinformatics code genera- tion with large language models, Bioinformatics 40 (Supplement 1) (2024) i266–i276

    2024

  94. [102]

    D. J. Clarke, J. E. Evangelista, et al., Playbook workflow builder: Interactive construction of bioinformatics workflows, PLOS Computational Biology 21 (4) (2025) e1012901

    2025

  95. [103]

    N. Ding, S. Qu, et al., Automating exploratory proteomics research via language models, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.03743 (2024). 46

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.