pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.15461 · v1 · pith:NBARWHG3new · submitted 2026-05-14 · 💻 cs.LG · cs.AI

DrugSAGE:Self-evolving Agent Experience for Efficient State-of-the-Art Drug Discovery

Yikun Zhang , Xiwei Cheng , Tianyu Liu , Yuanqi Du , Wengong Jin This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 15:21 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LG cs.AI
keywords drug discoveryLLM agentsmolecular property predictionexperience reusecross-task memoryself-evolving agentsmodel selectionzero-shot transfer
0
0 comments X p. Extension
pith:NBARWHG3 Add to your LaTeX paper What is a Pith Number? 
\usepackage{pith}
\pithnumber{NBARWHG3}

Prints a linked pith:NBARWHG3 badge after your title and writes the identifier into PDF metadata. Compiles on arXiv with no extra files. Learn more

The pith

A self-evolving agent reuses cross-task memory to reach state-of-the-art drug discovery models with little or no new search.

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

The paper sets out to demonstrate that LLM-based agents can avoid repeating the full cost of searching for optimal tools, architectures, and training strategies on every new molecular property prediction task by instead building and consulting a shared memory of prior experience. This memory holds verified skills that succeeded, statistical records of which strategies performed well, and documented errors together with their corrections. When the memory is populated from earlier tasks, the agent can apply ready solutions directly or sharply reduce trial-and-error on fresh problems. A reader would care because exhaustive searches for high-performing models remain computationally expensive in drug discovery, and successful reuse of accumulated knowledge would make the process far more scalable across related prediction tasks.

Core claim

DrugSAGE maintains a cross-task memory of verified skills, statistical evidence about effective strategies, and records of recurring errors with their fixes. The agent draws on this memory to transfer working solutions to new molecular property prediction tasks, sometimes without any test-time search. In evaluations on 33 tasks it ranks first among nine compared agents in the single-task regime; after memory is built from 16 smaller tasks it reaches an averaged normalized score of 0.935 on 17 held-out tasks and exceeds baseline agents by 10-30 percent under a zero-test-time search condition.

What carries the argument

Cross-task memory storing verified skills, statistical evidence on strategies, and error-fix records that enables direct transfer or reduced search on new molecular property tasks.

If this is right

  • Single-task performance on molecular property prediction reaches the top rank among nine state-of-the-art agents.
  • Memory accumulated from 16 prior tasks supports an averaged normalized score of 0.935 on 17 unseen tasks.
  • Zero-test-time search yields 10-30 percent gains over baseline agents on held-out tasks.
  • Working solutions can be applied directly to new tasks when the memory already contains a matching skill or strategy.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same memory structure could be tested on other scientific modeling domains that involve repeated architecture and strategy search, such as materials property prediction.
  • Long-term growth of the memory might reduce the need for human oversight in deciding which past records to retain or compress.
  • If transfer succeeds across many tasks, the framework could support incremental improvement of a single agent system rather than repeated independent searches.

Load-bearing premise

Experience gathered on one collection of molecular property tasks can be transferred to new tasks without introducing harmful biases from differences in task distributions.

What would settle it

On a fresh collection of held-out molecular tasks drawn from markedly different distributions, the agent equipped with prior memory would perform no better than or worse than agents lacking that memory.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.15461 by Tianyu Liu, Wengong Jin, Xiwei Cheng, Yikun Zhang, Yuanqi Du.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: DRUGSAGE overview. The Explore Agent builds a shared skill library K from literature and repositories. Cross-task memory Z enables two settings: experience-conditioned MCTS (B > 0), where Z guides and is updated by each search step, and zero-test-time routing (B = 0), where a verified solution is retrieved from Z without any new search. operators in a program evolution loop, while a significant amount of l… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Experience Memory. DRUGSAGE stores cross-task experience as Z = (R, H, Q). Solution memory R stores family priors and verified best solutions for root-family and parent￾solution selection. Refinement memory H stores proposal rationales and typed edit effects for grounding child-solution proposals. Execution memory Q stores script errors, environment failures, verified fixes, and resource profiles for sandb… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Cross-task efficiency on held-out tasks. (a) Six TDC-ADMET held-out tasks. (b) Eleven Polaris held-out tasks. Scores are min-max normalized per task before averaging; higher is better. The yellow dashed line is DRUGSAGE-ZERO with B = 0, and the green curve is DRUGSAGE with the same memory and up to 20 target-task search steps. TDC-ADMET and Polaris absolute metrics and per-task curves are in Section E and … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Total LLM API cost on the six held-out TDC-ADMET tasks. Compared with baselines, DRUGSAGE variants require substantially lower LLM cost. DRUGSAGE-ZERO uses nearly zero LLM cost by reusing cross-task experience without test-time search. (b) Performance improves from DRUGSAGE without Z, to DRUGSAGE with Q, and further to full DRUGSAGE, showing each module’s contribution. (c) Ablation study of analog-task… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Per-task budget trajectories on all 17 held-out tasks: 6 TDC-ADMET tasks (top one row) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Solubility task case: a zero-test-time routing solution routed from Lipophilicity outperforms [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Building state-of-the-art (SOTA) predictive models for drug discovery requires expensive search over tools, architectures, and training strategies. Current LLM-based agents can find SOTA solutions through extensive trial and error, but they do not retain the experience accumulated along the way and therefore pay the full search cost on every new task. We propose \method (Self-evolving Agent Experience), a framework that accumulates and reuses experience across tasks to build SOTA drug discovery models efficiently. \method maintains a cross-task memory of verified skills, statistical evidence about effective strategies, and a record of recurring errors and their fixes. In some cases, \method transfers a working solution directly without test-time search. In 33 molecular property prediction tasks, \method ranks first among nine SOTA agents in a single-task setting. With memory accumulated from 16 smaller tasks, \method achieves an averaged normalized score of 0.935 on 17 held-out tasks in a cross-task evaluation setting and outperforms all baseline agents by 10-30\% in a zero-test-time search regime. In summary, our work shows the advantage of cross-task memory for efficient SOTA model development in drug discovery.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes DrugSAGE, a self-evolving LLM agent framework for drug discovery that maintains a cross-task memory of verified skills, statistical evidence on strategies, and records of errors/fixes. It claims that in single-task settings across 33 molecular property prediction tasks, DrugSAGE ranks first among nine SOTA agents; with memory accumulated from 16 smaller tasks, it reaches an averaged normalized score of 0.935 on 17 held-out tasks and outperforms baselines by 10-30% in a zero-test-time search regime.

Significance. If the cross-task transfer results hold under distribution shift, the work could meaningfully reduce repeated search costs for SOTA model development in molecular property prediction by enabling reuse of accumulated experience. The scale of the evaluation (50 tasks total) and the zero-search regime are concrete strengths that would support broader adoption of experience-reuse mechanisms in LLM agents for scientific domains.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / cross-task evaluation] Abstract and cross-task evaluation section: The headline result of 0.935 normalized score and 10-30% gains in the zero-test-time regime rests on the assumption that memory from the 16 smaller tasks transfers effectively to the 17 held-out tasks. The manuscript provides no quantitative measure of task diversity (e.g., molecular scaffold overlap, property range statistics, or dataset source analysis) or ablation that isolates the memory components, leaving open whether gains reflect true self-evolution or partial distributional overlap.
  2. [Experiments] Experimental results: The reported first-place ranking among nine agents on 33 tasks and the percentage improvements require explicit details on baseline re-implementations, data splits, and statistical tests (e.g., standard errors or p-values across runs). Without these, the central performance claims cannot be fully verified as robust.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods] The description of memory components (verified skills, strategy statistics, error-fix records) would benefit from a clearer tabular summary or pseudocode in the methods to improve reproducibility.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions for task performance plots should explicitly state the normalization procedure used for the averaged score.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback and for acknowledging the potential of cross-task experience reuse to reduce repeated search costs in LLM-based drug discovery. We address each major comment below with clarifications and commitments to strengthen the manuscript where needed.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / cross-task evaluation] Abstract and cross-task evaluation section: The headline result of 0.935 normalized score and 10-30% gains in the zero-test-time regime rests on the assumption that memory from the 16 smaller tasks transfers effectively to the 17 held-out tasks. The manuscript provides no quantitative measure of task diversity (e.g., molecular scaffold overlap, property range statistics, or dataset source analysis) or ablation that isolates the memory components, leaving open whether gains reflect true self-evolution or partial distributional overlap.

    Authors: We agree that explicit quantification of task diversity and component-wise ablations would further substantiate the cross-task results. In the revised manuscript we will add: (i) quantitative diversity metrics including average Tanimoto similarity of Bemis-Murcko scaffolds across the 16+17 tasks, summary statistics on property value ranges, and dataset provenance analysis; (ii) ablation experiments that successively remove each memory component (verified skills, statistical evidence, error/fix records) and measure the resulting drop in zero-test-time performance on the held-out tasks. These additions will clarify the degree of distributional overlap and isolate the contribution of self-evolution. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Experiments] Experimental results: The reported first-place ranking among nine agents on 33 tasks and the percentage improvements require explicit details on baseline re-implementations, data splits, and statistical tests (e.g., standard errors or p-values across runs). Without these, the central performance claims cannot be fully verified as robust.

    Authors: We acknowledge that additional implementation and statistical details are required for full reproducibility and verification. In the revision we will expand the experimental section to include: complete descriptions of how each of the nine baseline agents was re-implemented (including any code adaptations or hyper-parameter choices); precise train/validation/test splits for every task; and statistical robustness measures such as standard errors over at least five independent runs together with p-values from paired statistical tests (e.g., Wilcoxon signed-rank) comparing DrugSAGE against each baseline. These details will allow independent verification of the reported rankings and gains. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; empirical results on held-out tasks are independent of inputs

full rationale

The paper describes an empirical agent framework that accumulates cross-task memory of skills and strategies, then measures performance directly on 33 single-task and 17 held-out molecular property prediction benchmarks. No equations, derivations, or first-principles claims appear in the provided text; the headline normalized score of 0.935 and 10-30% gains are reported as experimental outcomes rather than quantities that reduce to fitted parameters or self-referential definitions by construction. No self-citation chains, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes are invoked to force the result. The evaluation on held-out tasks supplies external falsifiability, rendering the work self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are explicitly described in the abstract; the approach builds on standard LLM agent capabilities and empirical task evaluations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5750 in / 1302 out tokens · 62816 ms · 2026-05-19T15:21:47.579780+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages · 7 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    From ai for science to agentic science: A survey on autonomous scientific discovery.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.14111, 2025

    Jiaqi Wei, Yuejin Yang, Xiang Zhang, Yuhan Chen, Xiang Zhuang, Zhangyang Gao, Dongzhan Zhou, Guangshuai Wang, Zhiqiang Gao, Juntai Cao, et al. From ai for science to agentic science: A survey on autonomous scientific discovery.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.14111, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Biomni: A general-purpose biomedical ai agent

    Kexin Huang, Serena Zhang, Hanchen Wang, Yuanhao Qu, Yingzhou Lu, Yusuf Roohani, Ryan Li, Lin Qiu, Gavin Li, Junze Zhang, et al. Biomni: A general-purpose biomedical ai agent. biorxiv, 2025

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Stella: Self-evolving llm agent for biomedical research.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.02004, 2025

    Ruofan Jin, Zaixi Zhang, Mengdi Wang, and Le Cong. Stella: Self-evolving llm agent for biomedical research.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.02004, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    autoresearch: Ai agents running research on single-gpu nanochat training automatically.https://github.com/karpathy/autoresearch, 2026

    Andrej Karpathy. autoresearch: Ai agents running research on single-gpu nanochat training automatically.https://github.com/karpathy/autoresearch, 2026

    work page 2026

  5. [5]

    Tune: A Research Platform for Distributed Model Selection and Training

    Richard Liaw, Eric Liang, Robert Nishihara, Philipp Moritz, Joseph E Gonzalez, and Ion Stoica. Tune: A research platform for distributed model selection and training.arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.05118, 2018

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    Beyond efficiency: A systematic survey of resource-efficient large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.00625, 2024

    Guangji Bai, Zheng Chai, Chen Ling, Shiyu Wang, Jiaying Lu, Nan Zhang, Tingwei Shi, Ziyang Yu, Mengdan Zhu, Yifei Zhang, et al. Beyond efficiency: A systematic survey of resource-efficient large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.00625, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Therapeutics data commons: Machine learning datasets and tasks for drug discovery and development.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2021

    Kexin Huang, Tianfan Fu, Wenhao Gao, Yue Zhao, Yusuf Roohani, Jure Leskovec, Connor W Coley, Cao Xiao, Jimeng Sun, and Marinka Zitnik. Therapeutics data commons: Machine learning datasets and tasks for drug discovery and development.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Polaris hub.https://github.com/polaris-hub/polaris, 2025

    Polaris. Polaris hub.https://github.com/polaris-hub/polaris, 2025

    work page 2025

  9. [9]

    Ds-agent: Automated data science by empowering large language models with case-based reasoning

    Siyuan Guo, Cheng Deng, Ying Wen, Hechang Chen, Yi Chang, and Jun Wang. Ds-agent: Automated data science by empowering large language models with case-based reasoning. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024

    work page 2024

  10. [10]

    Mle-star: Machine learning engineering agent via search and targeted refinement

    Jaehyun Nam, Jinsung Yoon, Jiefeng Chen, Jinwoo Shin, Sercan O Arik, and Tomas Pfister. Mle-star: Machine learning engineering agent via search and targeted refinement. InThe Thirty-ninth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2025

    work page 2025

  11. [11]

    AIDE: AI-Driven Exploration in the Space of Code

    Zhengyao Jiang, Dominik Schmidt, Dhruv Srikanth, Dixing Xu, Ian Kaplan, Deniss Ja- cenko, and Yuxiang Wu. Aide: Ai-driven exploration in the space of code.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.13138, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Ai research agents for machine learning: Search, exploration, and generalization in mle-bench

    Edan Toledo, Karen Hambardzumyan, Martin Josifoski, RISHI HAZRA, Nicolas Baldwin, Alexis Audran-Reiss, Michael Kuchnik, Despoina Magka, Minqi Jiang, Alisia Maria Lupidi, et al. Ai research agents for machine learning: Search, exploration, and generalization in mle-bench. InThe Thirty-ninth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2025

    work page 2025

  13. [13]

    R&d-agent: Automating data-driven ai solution building through llm-powered automated research, development, and evolution.arXiv e-prints, pages arXiv–2505, 2025

    Xu Yang, Xiao Yang, Shikai Fang, Bowen Xian, Yuante Li, Jian Wang, Minrui Xu, Haoran Pan, Xinpeng Hong, Weiqing Liu, et al. R&d-agent: Automating data-driven ai solution building through llm-powered automated research, development, and evolution.arXiv e-prints, pages arXiv–2505, 2025

    work page 2025

  14. [14]

    The FM Agent, February 2026.https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.26144

    Annan Li, Chufan Wu, Zengle Ge, Yee Hin Chong, Zhinan Hou, Lizhe Cao, Cheng Ju, Jianmin Wu, Huaiming Li, Haobo Zhang, et al. The fm agent.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.26144, 2025. 10

    work page arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    Mars: Modular agent with reflective search for automated ai research.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.02660, 2026

    Jiefeng Chen, Bhavana Dalvi Mishra, Jaehyun Nam, Rui Meng, Tomas Pfister, and Jinsung Yoon. Mars: Modular agent with reflective search for automated ai research.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.02660, 2026

    work page arXiv 2026

  16. [16]

    Internagent-1.5: A unified agentic framework for long-horizon autonomous scientific discovery.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.08990, 2026

    Shiyang Feng, Runmin Ma, Xiangchao Yan, Yue Fan, Yusong Hu, Songtao Huang, Shuaiyu Zhang, Zongsheng Cao, Tianshuo Peng, Jiakang Yuan, Zijie Guo, Zhijie Zhong, Shangheng Du, Weida Wang, Jinxin Shi, Yuhao Zhou, Xiaohan He, Zhiyin Yu, Fangchen Yu, Bihao Zhan, Qihao Zheng, Jiamin Wu, Mianxin Liu, Chi Zhang, Shaowei Hou, Shuya Li, Yankai Jiang, Wenjie Lou, Lil...

    work page arXiv 2026

  17. [17]

    Kapso: A knowledge- grounded framework for autonomous program synthesis and optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.21526, 2026

    Alireza Nadafian, Alireza Mohammadshahi, and Majid Yazdani. Kapso: A knowledge- grounded framework for autonomous program synthesis and optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.21526, 2026

    work page arXiv 2026

  18. [18]

    Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning.Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:8634–8652, 2023

    Noah Shinn, Federico Cassano, Ashwin Gopinath, Karthik Narasimhan, and Shunyu Yao. Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning.Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:8634–8652, 2023

    work page 2023

  19. [19]

    Expel: Llm agents are experiential learners

    Andrew Zhao, Daniel Huang, Quentin Xu, Matthieu Lin, Yong-Jin Liu, and Gao Huang. Expel: Llm agents are experiential learners. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, pages 19632–19642, 2024

    work page 2024

  20. [20]

    Automanual: Constructing instruction manuals by llm agents via interactive environmental learning.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:589–631, 2024

    Minghao Chen, Yihang Li, Yanting Yang, Shiyu Yu, Binbin Lin, and Xiaofei He. Automanual: Constructing instruction manuals by llm agents via interactive environmental learning.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:589–631, 2024

    work page 2024

  21. [21]

    Dynamic cheatsheet: Test-time learning with adaptive memory

    Mirac Suzgun, Mert Yuksekgonul, Federico Bianchi, Dan Jurafsky, and James Zou. Dynamic cheatsheet: Test-time learning with adaptive memory. InProceedings of the 19th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 7080–7106, 2026

    work page 2026

  22. [22]

    V oyager: An open-ended embodied agent with large language models.Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2024

    Guanzhi Wang, Yuqi Xie, Yunfan Jiang, Ajay Mandlekar, Chaowei Xiao, Yuke Zhu, Linxi Fan, and Anima Anandkumar. V oyager: An open-ended embodied agent with large language models.Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2024. ISSN 2835-8856. URL https: //openreview.net/forum?id=ehfRiF0R3a

    work page 2024

  23. [23]

    Agent workflow memory

    Zora Zhiruo Wang, Jiayuan Mao, Daniel Fried, and Graham Neubig. Agent workflow memory. InForty-second International Conference on Machine Learning, 2025. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=NTAhi2JEEE

    work page 2025

  24. [24]

    Memp: Exploring Agent Procedural Memory

    Runnan Fang, Yuan Liang, Xiaobin Wang, Jialong Wu, Shuofei Qiao, Pengjun Xie, Fei Huang, Huajun Chen, and Ningyu Zhang. Memp: Exploring agent procedural memory.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.06433, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    CORAL: Towards Autonomous Multi-Agent Evolution for Open-Ended Discovery

    Ao Qu, Han Zheng, Zijian Zhou, Yihao Yan, Yihong Tang, Shao Yong Ong, Fenglu Hong, Kaichen Zhou, Chonghe Jiang, Minwei Kong, et al. Coral: Towards autonomous multi-agent evolution for open-ended discovery.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.01658, 2026

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2026

  26. [26]

    SkillWeaver: Web Agents can Self-Improve by Discovering and Honing Skills

    Boyuan Zheng, Michael Y Fatemi, Xiaolong Jin, Zora Zhiruo Wang, Apurva Gandhi, Yueqi Song, Yu Gu, Jayanth Srinivasa, Gaowen Liu, Graham Neubig, et al. Skillweaver: Web agents can self-improve by discovering and honing skills.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.07079, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Agent kb: Leveraging cross-domain experience for agentic problem solving.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.06229, 2025

    Xiangru Tang, Tianrui Qin, Tianhao Peng, Ziyang Zhou, Daniel Shao, Tingting Du, Xinming Wei, Peng Xia, Fang Wu, He Zhu, et al. Agent kb: Leveraging cross-domain experience for agentic problem solving.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.06229, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Toolmem: Enhancing multimodal agents with learnable tool capability memory.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.06664, 2025

    Yunzhong Xiao, Yangmin Li, Hewei Wang, Yunlong Tang, and Zora Zhiruo Wang. Toolmem: Enhancing multimodal agents with learnable tool capability memory.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.06664, 2025. 11

    work page arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Mathematical discoveries from program search with large language models

    Bernardino Romera-Paredes, Mohammadamin Barekatain, Alexander Novikov, Matej Balog, M Pawan Kumar, Emilien Dupont, Francisco JR Ruiz, Jordan S Ellenberg, Pengming Wang, Omar Fawzi, et al. Mathematical discoveries from program search with large language models. Nature, 625(7995):468–475, 2024

    work page 2024

  30. [30]

    Efficient evolutionary search over chemical space with large language models

    Haorui Wang, Marta Skreta, Cher Tian Ser, Wenhao Gao, Lingkai Kong, Felix Strieth-Kalthoff, Chenru Duan, Yuchen Zhuang, Yue Yu, Yanqiao Zhu, et al. Efficient evolutionary search over chemical space with large language models. InThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025

    work page 2025

  31. [31]

    Llm-sr: Scientific equation discovery via programming with large language models

    Parshin Shojaee, Kazem Meidani, Shashank Gupta, Amir Barati Farimani, and Chandan K Reddy. Llm-sr: Scientific equation discovery via programming with large language models. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025

    work page 2025

  32. [32]

    AlphaEvolve: A coding agent for scientific and algorithmic discovery

    Alexander Novikov, Ngân V˜u, Marvin Eisenberger, Emilien Dupont, Po-Sen Huang, Adam Zsolt Wagner, Sergey Shirobokov, Borislav Kozlovskii, Francisco JR Ruiz, Abbas Mehrabian, et al. Alphaevolve: A coding agent for scientific and algorithmic discovery.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.13131, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Autonomous chemical research with large language models.Nature, 624(7992):570–578, 2023

    Daniil A Boiko, Robert MacKnight, Ben Kline, and Gabe Gomes. Autonomous chemical research with large language models.Nature, 624(7992):570–578, 2023

    work page 2023

  34. [34]

    Bran, Sam Cox, Oliver Schilter, Carlo Baldassari, Andrew D White, and Philippe Schwaller

    Andres M. Bran, Sam Cox, Oliver Schilter, Carlo Baldassari, Andrew D White, and Philippe Schwaller. Augmenting large language models with chemistry tools.Nature machine intelli- gence, 6(5):525–535, 2024

    work page 2024

  35. [35]

    Accelerating scientific discovery with autonomous goal-evolving agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.21782, 2025

    Yuanqi Du, Botao Yu, Tianyu Liu, Tony Shen, Junwu Chen, Jan G Rittig, Kunyang Sun, Yikun Zhang, Zhangde Song, Bo Zhou, et al. Accelerating scientific discovery with autonomous goal-evolving agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.21782, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Agentomics: An agentic system that autonomously develops novel state-of-the-art solutions for biomedical machine learning tasks.bioRxiv, pages 2026–01, 2026

    Vlastimil Martinek, Andrea Gariboldi, Dimosthenis Tzimotoudis, Mark Galea, Elissavet Zacharopoulou, Aitor Alberdi Escudero, Edward Blake, David ˇCechák, Luke Cassar, Alessan- dro Balestrucci, et al. Agentomics: An agentic system that autonomously develops novel state-of-the-art solutions for biomedical machine learning tasks.bioRxiv, pages 2026–01, 2026

    work page 2026

  37. [37]

    ShinkaEvolve: Towards Open-Ended And Sample-Efficient Program Evolution

    Robert Tjarko Lange, Yuki Imajuku, and Edoardo Cetin. Shinkaevolve: Towards open-ended and sample-efficient program evolution.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.19349, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Claude code documentation

    Anthropic. Claude code documentation. https://code.claude.com/docs/en/overview,

    work page

  39. [39]

    Accessed: 2026-05-06

    work page 2026

  40. [40]

    Practically significant method comparison protocols for machine learning in small molecule drug discovery.Journal of chemical information and modeling, 65(18):9398–9411, 2025

    Jeremy R Ash, Cas Wognum, Raquel Rodríguez-Pérez, Matteo Aldeghi, Alan C Cheng, Djork- Arné Clevert, Ola Engkvist, Cheng Fang, Daniel J Price, Jacqueline M Hughes-Oliver, et al. Practically significant method comparison protocols for machine learning in small molecule drug discovery.Journal of chemical information and modeling, 65(18):9398–9411, 2025

    work page 2025

  41. [41]

    Cheng Fang, Ye Wang, Richard Grater, Sudarshan Kapadnis, Cheryl Black, Patrick Trapa, and Simone Sciabola. Prospective validation of machine learning algorithms for absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion prediction: An industrial perspective.Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 63(11):3263–3274, 2023

    work page 2023

  42. [42]

    Progress towards a public chemogenomic set for protein kinases and a call for contributions

    David H Drewry, Carrow I Wells, David M Andrews, Richard Angell, Hassan Al-Ali, Alison D Axtman, Stephen J Capuzzi, Jonathan M Elkins, Peter Ettmayer, Mathias Frederiksen, et al. Progress towards a public chemogenomic set for protein kinases and a call for contributions. PloS one, 12(8):e0181585, 2017

    work page 2017

  43. [43]

    Deep learning foundation models from classical molecular descriptors

    William Green, Jackson Burns, Akshat Shirish Zalte, Charlles Abreu, Jochen Sieg, Christian Feldmann, and Miriam Mathea. Deep learning foundation models from classical molecular descriptors. 2026

    work page 2026

  44. [44]

    Probability inequalities for sums of bounded random variables.Journal of the American statistical association, 58(301):13–30, 1963

    Wassily Hoeffding. Probability inequalities for sums of bounded random variables.Journal of the American statistical association, 58(301):13–30, 1963. 12 Appendix for DrugSAGE A Benchmark Dataset Summary 15 B Dataset Partition 16 C Per-Baseline Protocols and Prompts 17 C.1 Autoresearch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...

    work page 1963

  45. [45]

    Check results.tsv for experiment history

    work page

  46. [46]

    Read train.py; plan one focused change

    work page

  47. [47]

    Run: python pipeline.py run-exp {DATASET}/{MODEL} --desc "..." --gpu 0

    work page

  48. [48]

    Strategy guide: Quick wins: tune LR, batch size, regularization

    Keep if val metric improved; auto-revert otherwise. Strategy guide: Quick wins: tune LR, batch size, regularization. Medium effort: change model family, add CV. 17 High effort: ensemble methods, custom featurization. NEVER STOP -- continue autonomously until budget exhausted. C.2 ShinkaEvolve ShinkaEvolve [37] is an evolutionary algorithm optimization age...

    work page

  49. [49]

    Use prepare.py: load_data, load_seed_split, evaluate, save_predictions, save_summary, SEEDS

    work page

  50. [50]

    Iterate over ALL 5 seeds and train/evaluate each

    work page

  51. [51]

    Call save_predictions for each seed

    work page

  52. [52]

    Call save_summary() at the end

    work page

  53. [53]

    DATASET, METRIC, OUT variables are FIXED

    work page

  54. [54]

    Idea to implement

    Ensure all predictions are finite (no NaN/inf) STRATEGY: - Tune hyperparameters, feature engineering, architectures - Consider ensemble methods, stacking, or blending - Change ML library if beneficial - Classification: probabilities; Regression: continuous Mutation prompts are constructed by a PromptSampler: fordiffpatches (70% probability), the prompt ap...

    work page

  55. [55]

    Featurization, model, hyperparameters, training loop

    **Create the task files for each task**: -`train.py`: the file you modify. Featurization, model, hyperparameters, training loop. -`prepare.py`(two levels up) : fixed data loading, evaluation, output

    work page

  56. [56]

    **Review experiment history**: Check`results.tsv`for what has already been tried. ## Constraints **What you CAN modify:** -`train.py`: everything is fair game: model hyperparameters, featurization, feature engineering, model architecture, ensemble strategies, preprocessing, training procedure. **What you CANNOT modify:** -`prepare.py`: read-only. Contains...

    work page

  57. [57]

    **Plan**: Look at experiment history in`results.tsv`, and make changes to`train.py`

    work page

  58. [58]

    Keep it focused one idea per experiment

    **Modify`train.py`**: Make your change. Keep it focused one idea per experiment

    work page

  59. [59]

    **Snapshot**: The pipeline automatically saves a copy of`train.py`

    work page

  60. [60]

    **Run**: Run experiments

    work page

  61. [61]

    **Check results**: Read the output

    work page

  62. [62]

    **Record**: Log results

    work page

  63. [63]

    **Decide**: Take results or not

    work page

  64. [64]

    Develop a machine learning model that generalizes well to new unseen data

    **Repeat** until budget exhausted. ## Output Format The`save_summary()`call writes`results/summary.json`with full details. ## NEVER STOP You need to save the best results and standard deviation in folder`./{task}_result/`. C.7 Agentomics Agentomics [36] is a multi-step ML agent that follows a fixed step sequence per iteration: iteration planning → data ex...

    work page arXiv 1900

  65. [65]

    Proof.We follow the standard UCB analysis and carefully track the causal error termξ t(f)

    lnT ∆f + 1 + π2 3 ∆f .(13) This is O(|F |lnT) , identical in asymptotic order to standard UCB; the causal factor only modifies the leading constant viaC 0. Proof.We follow the standard UCB analysis and carefully track the causal error termξ t(f). Step 1: High-probability bound on the optimal arm. By Hoeffding’s inequality [43], with probability at least1−...

    work page

  66. [66]

    lnT ∆2 f , where the last step uses (α+C 0/ p ln(t+ 1)) 2 ≤2(α 2 +C 2

    work page

  67. [67]

    Step 4: Expected number of pulls

    by the AM–GM inequality, valid for allt≤T. Step 4: Expected number of pulls. Using the standard UCB analysis (tail-sum decomposition), E[NT (f)]≤ 8(α2 +C 2

    work page

  68. [68]

    Step 5: Cumulative regret

    lnT ∆2 f + 1 + π2 3 . Step 5: Cumulative regret. Summing over all suboptimal families: RT = X f: ∆f >0 ∆f ·E[N T (f)]≤ X f: ∆f >0 8(α2 +C 2

    work page

  69. [69]

    Key observation.The bound is O(lnT) , matching standard UCB

    lnT ∆f + 1 + π2 3 ∆f . Key observation.The bound is O(lnT) , matching standard UCB. The causal factor contributes only throughC 0, which modifies the constant but not the asymptotic order. If we also consider the node-level regret bound, under the weighted sampler computation in 3, the bonus max(∆CEG(vi),0) now serves as a non-negative multiplicative dete...

    work page