Beyond SMILES: Evaluating Agentic Systems for Drug Discovery

All six frameworks evaluated assume small-molecule representations (SMILES strings, molecular fingerprints, docking scores). Task classes 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 (peptide-specific workflows) receive zero coverage across all frameworks. No framework supports protein language models (ProtBERT, ESM-2, ProGen) as first-class components for sequence-based therapeutics design.

As a diagnostic, we probed four frontier LLMs on matched pharmaceutical knowledge questions to test whether the small-molecule bias extends to the foundation models powering these agents (§2.5). All four models demonstrate competent peptide reasoning across all five categories (Table 3, fig. 2). Across 200 paired observations, peptide questions receive marginally higher scores than small-molecule questions (aggregate gap = $-0.115$, 95% CI: $[-0.255,0.02]$). No model shows a statistically significant peptide deficit (all $p>0.6$, Bonferroni-adjusted $p=1.0$), and the Friedman consistency test confirms this holds uniformly across all four models ($\chi^{2}=0.454$, $p=0.929$). Four of five categories favor peptides; Optimization Approaches shows the largest pro-peptide gap ($+0.225$).

Expert validation revealed that models produce directionally correct but quantitatively overconfident reasoning in both domains equally, consistent with a depth limitation rather than a modality-specific knowledge gap. The paired within-model comparisons driving the statistical tests are robust to calibration differences between expert and automated scoring (see §5.1 for details).

The diagnostic isolates the defect: the peptide expertise is present in foundation models but stranded behind small-molecule-only agent architectures. LLMs reason competently about peptide SAR, ADMET properties, generative design, optimization, and assay interpretation. The knowledge exists; no current agent provides a pathway to surface it through peptide-aware tools, protein language model integration, or sequence-native workflows. This strengthens rather than undermines Gap 1: the fix requires building the integration pipeline, not retraining the models.

Therapeutic peptides (2 to 50 amino acids) bridge small molecules and biologics. Unlike rigid small molecules, peptides are conformationally flexible, sampling diverse structural states. They achieve high selectivity through induced-fit binding but face aggregation, protease degradation, and permeability barriers. These challenges extend beyond peptides to biologics broadly: antibodies require CDR loop modeling, nanobodies need single-domain folding, and fusion proteins demand multi-domain interaction prediction. The small-molecule bias is a biologics-wide limitation.

Peptide discovery diverges from small-molecule workflows. Structure-activity relationships do not transfer; conservative substitutions can abolish activity while drastic changes improve potency. Stability dominates. In neurological injury indications, efficacy-stability trade-offs exceeded potency concerns. A bioactive peptide with minute-scale serum half-life has no therapeutic value. Protease resistance requires modeling interactions across dozens of enzyme families. Immunogenicity demands epitope scanning and MHC binding prediction. Aggregation depends on charge distribution and hydrophobic patterning.

Current agents provide no pathway for these requirements. ChemCrow includes RDKit, which does not handle peptide conformational sampling. PharmAgents focuses on small-molecule structure-based design workflows not designed for flexible peptide interactions. ChatInvent mines small-molecule synthesis routes and molecular design, irrelevant to peptide synthesis.

Practitioners encounter immediate friction. SMILES encoding of peptides is error-prone, risking loss of stereochemical and conformational information, particularly for non-natural amino acids. Standard molecular fingerprints (Morgan, MACCS) perform poorly on peptides, which lack equivalent standard representations. Rigid-molecule docking produces unreliable scores. Retrosynthesis metrics are meaningless. Even data storage becomes awkward: sequence variants, post-translational modifications, and assay metadata rarely fit small-molecule databases designed for single canonical structures.

Protein language models define peptide design. ProtBERT [11], ESM-2 [10], and ProGen [19] encode evolutionary and structural priors from millions of protein sequences. ESM-2 embeddings predict receptor types from sequence alone. ProtBERT fine-tuning enables transfer learning from limited labeled data, often requiring only hundreds of examples for task-specific classifiers.

Peptide-aware models are emerging. PepTune [20] uses a masked discrete diffusion model with Monte Carlo Tree Guidance for multi-objective peptide generation, optimizing across binding affinity, permeability, and stability simultaneously. PepMLM [21] fine-tunes ESM-2 to design peptide binders conditioned on target protein sequences, with experimental validation on disease-relevant targets. These are real advances in peptide-specific modeling. However, they are standalone tools, not components of agentic workflows. No current system chains peptide generation with proprietary fine-tuning, active learning, iterative design-test cycles, or multi-endpoint optimization in closed loops. The gap is workflow integration, not individual capability.

Building peptide workflows requires capabilities current agents lack. Developing a receptor binding classifier involves curating training sets, extracting ESM-2 embeddings, training supervised classifiers, validating performance, and iterating hyperparameters. This is gradient-based ML, not API calls. The work also depends on small, noisy datasets where careful cross-validation and calibration matter more than single headline metrics. Exposing these uncertainties clearly is a prerequisite for biologists to prioritize synthesis and testing. Without that, the workflow reverts to manual triage and ad hoc heuristics. No current system supports this autonomously. LLM orchestrators treat models as inference-only APIs (see §3.3 for detailed analysis of this architectural limitation). Agents retrieve embeddings but cannot train task-specific classifiers on proprietary data.

Generative modeling extends this gap. ProtGPT2 [22] fine-tunes on therapeutic sequences for de novo generation. Reinforcement learning optimizes multi-objective reward functions combining bioactivity and stability, requiring reward models, policy networks, gradients, and KL regularization. These ML workflows requiring end-to-end training control exceed current agent architectures.

The gap reflects a missing paradigm, not a missing tool. Protein language models are the foundation of peptide discovery, demanding first-class support for training and fine-tuning. Without this, agents cannot support the core workflows practitioners use to move from sequence space exploration to experimentally validated leads.

A peptide-aware agent meeting this requirement would accept a FASTA file of 200 labeled sequences and return a classifier with per-class AUC-ROC and calibration curves, or accept a generative model specification and return novel sequences with predicted property distributions and diversity metrics.

Peptide-aware architectures require protein language models as core components, not external APIs. First, fine-tuning pipelines: dataset curation, train-validation-test splits, learning rate scheduling, early stopping, checkpointing. Effective frameworks would fine-tune ProtBERT on 200 sequences and return calibrated classifiers with uncertainty estimates.

Second, structural biology integration. AlphaFold [23] structure prediction is central to peptide design. Flexible docking requires conformational sampling. Molecular dynamics provides stability and kinetics insights. These tools would need to integrate into multi-step workflows and feed back into sequence optimization, rather than remaining isolated analyses.

Third, multi-objective optimization. Peptide design balances bioactivity, stability, selectivity, and immunogenicity. We used curriculum learning for in vivo efficacy: initially rewarding bioactivity improvements, then progressively adding stability and toxicity constraints. This prevented local optima and maintained diversity. Current agents provide no framework for multi-stage optimization.

Fourth, diversity-aware generation. Generative models suffer mode collapse, producing reward-maximizing sequences with little variety. Practitioners use diversity penalties and max-min rewards, requiring state maintenance and dynamic sampling. LLM agents treat tool calls as stateless.

Finally, active learning loops. Limited budgets require careful peptide selection via acquisition functions that prioritize uncertain predictions across multiple rounds (see §3.4).

Peptide discovery is a distinct paradigm requiring ML training, structural biology, and multi-objective optimization as core capabilities. It also requires sequence-aware data management: tracking modifications, synthesis constraints, and assay provenance across iterative cycles. The small-molecule bias reflects architectural assumptions that limit current frameworks.

Task classes 4, 9, 12, and 13 (in vivo and imaging tasks) receive zero coverage across all six frameworks. All frameworks terminate at in vitro automation or literature-based hypothesis generation. No framework supports longitudinal data modeling, multi-modal fusion, or causal inference from animal study data.

Lab automation reaches a hard ceiling at in vivo studies. Synthesis platforms and high-throughput screening test thousands of compounds daily. But animal experiments cannot be scaled or automated, requiring specialized facilities, personnel, ethical oversight, and weeks of time.

An agent might design a peptide and predict binding, but cannot integrate a multi-week neurological injury study measuring behavioral recovery, histological regeneration, and transcriptomic neuroprotection. Data formats, temporal structure, and statistical requirements exceed current capabilities.

In vivo studies yield heterogeneous streams. Neurological injury evaluation includes behavioral assessments (motor coordination tests generating ordinal scores), tissue histology (cell proliferation requiring computer vision), RNA sequencing (high-dimensional gene expression needing differential expression and pathway enrichment), and clinical notes (semi-structured weight and adverse events). This multi-modal integration remains outside current agent scope.

Developing composite efficacy metrics exposed this gap. A peptide increasing cell proliferation threefold in vitro shows temporal in vivo dynamics: inflammatory response (days 1-3), progenitor proliferation (days 7-10), functional recovery (day 28). Predicting sustained benefit requires temporal modeling, dataset curation, feature engineering, and validation outside LLM tool-calling scope.

The core challenge is that in vivo data does not fit the tidy CSV format that machine learning pipelines expect (Table 4). Behavioral scores are ordinal and subject to inter-rater variability.

Behavioral phenotyping via DeepLabCut [24] tracks animal poses in videos, generating time-series keypoint coordinates. Computing behavioral metrics from tracked keypoints requires training pose estimation, validating tracking, computing features, and statistical testing. Practitioners must handle this workflow manually, spanning video processing, supervised learning, time-series engineering, and hypothesis testing.

RNA-seq requires quality control, alignment, and quantification into expression matrices. Differential expression identifies treatment effects. Pathway enrichment maps genes to biological processes via KEGG [25] or Gene Ontology. Upstream regulator analysis infers transcription factors driving changes. The FASTQ-to-hypothesis pipeline needs bioinformatics tools (STAR, HISAT2, DESeq2, edgeR, GSEA [26]) that agents do not integrate. Recent systems like Medea [27] have begun addressing multi-omics analysis agenically, handling transcriptomics, protein networks, and pathway analysis. However, these process static datasets rather than longitudinal in vivo time-series, and do not integrate behavioral phenotyping, imaging, or temporal efficacy modeling.

Integrating heterogeneous sources for predictive biomarkers is valuable yet absent. Correlating in vitro bioactivity with in vivo efficacy required extracting features from multiple assays, normalizing across scales, aligning with temporal data (days 3, 7, 14, 28), and training regression models predicting long-term outcomes. This workflow involved feature engineering, imputation, stratified cross-validation, and model selection; these are ML workflows, not LLM reasoning.

In vivo models surface safety-efficacy trade-offs that in silico screens miss. Tenfold bioactivity increases may trigger immune activation or hepatotoxicity. Stability modifications may introduce affinity or aggregation trade-offs (§3.1).

Toxicology requires dose-response analysis via generalized linear mixed models accounting for repeated measures and time-dependent effects. Identifying therapeutic windows where efficacy plateaus but toxicity remains acceptable is a standard requirement in preclinical development. Species translation compounds this: mouse pharmacokinetics extrapolate to humans via allometric scaling, but peptide stability varies by species protease expression and rodent-tolerated peptides may provoke primate antibody responses. Agents cannot construct dose-response curves, compute LD50 confidence intervals, or model cross-species translation uncertainties. We return to the broader multi-objective trade-offs these challenges imply in §3.5.

An agent meeting this requirement would ingest longitudinal in vivo data (behavioral scores, imaging features, transcriptomic profiles across multiple timepoints), produce predictive models for late-stage outcomes with confidence intervals, and generate mechanistic hypotheses linking early biomarkers to treatment response.

Closing the in vivo-in silico gap requires three capabilities absent from current frameworks. First, temporal state-space models for longitudinal in vivo trajectories that capture treatment dynamics across days to weeks. Second, causal inference tools (do-calculus, counterfactual reasoning) to separate correlation from mechanism in complex biological systems. Third, multi-modal data fusion integrating clinical scores, imaging, transcriptomics, and behavioral data into unified predictive models. Until agents ingest longitudinal scores, integrate transcriptomics, quantify dose-response uncertainty, and navigate multi-objective trade-offs under biological variability, utility remains confined to early hit identification. Most development cost and risk lies in translating in vitro activity to in vivo efficacy and safety [28].

All six frameworks use LLM-as-orchestrator architecture: LLM reasoning combined with tool API calls. Task classes requiring model training (1, 2, 6, 14), reinforcement learning (7, 14), or simulation receive no support. No framework supports gradient-based optimization, hyperparameter search, or curriculum learning as first-class primitives.

LLM-centric design treats the language model as central coordinator, invoking external tools via APIs. This works for text-based reasoning and stateless tools.

The paradigm breaks for tasks like training a multi-task neural network predicting peptide bioactivity across four endpoints using 300 sequences. The workflow: dataset preparation (stratified train-validation-test splits), feature extraction (ESM-2 embeddings), architecture selection, hyperparameter tuning, training with early stopping, validation with confidence intervals.

LLMs cannot orchestrate this via API calls. It requires gradient-based ML with end-to-end control over data loading, loss computation, parameter updates, and checkpointing. Agents do not support supervised learning as a first-class primitive they can configure, execute, monitor, and iterate.

The limitation extends beyond supervised learning. Generative modeling, reinforcement learning, Monte Carlo sampling, molecular dynamics, and Bayesian optimization all require iterative optimization with intermediate states, convergence monitoring, branching logic, resource management (GPU allocation, parallelization, checkpointing), and artifact versioning (models, hyperparameters, trajectories). None fit stateless API calls.

Absent paradigms define modern drug discovery [16]: supervised learning (bioactivity prediction [29], toxicity modeling), unsupervised learning (chemical space clustering), generative modeling (de novo design [30]), reinforcement learning (multi-objective optimization [31]), simulation (binding kinetics), and optimization (experimental design).

Across our projects, most computational work involved these paradigms, not LLM reasoning. Peptide-receptor classifiers required ESM-2 embeddings, logistic regression, gradient-boosted trees, cross-validation, and AUC-ROC comparison. RNA-seq needed alignment, normalization, differential expression, clustering, and pathway enrichment. Bone formation quantification trained semantic segmentation models. Peptide optimization via RL required reward models, proximal policy optimization, and diversity penalties.

Projects spanned paradigms in integrated pipelines: generative models produced sequences, supervised models predicted bioactivity, Bayesian optimization selected synthesis batches based on uncertainty, experimental results updated training sets, cycles repeated.

Agents cannot express these workflows. Orchestrators call models for inference but cannot train models, incorporate new data, retrain with hyperparameters, validate on test sets, or coordinate generative, predictive, and experimental design algorithms in closed loops. They assume pre-trained models and inference-only tasks, which is the opposite of how discovery actually proceeds.

Recent systems have begun addressing single-paradigm ML automation. Agentomics [14] achieves autonomous ML experimentation, surpassing human-engineered state-of-the-art on 11 of 20 biomedical benchmark datasets across protein engineering, drug discovery, and regulatory genomics. ML-Agent [15] uses reinforcement learning to train LLM agents for autonomous ML engineering. These demonstrate that agents can automate individual ML workflows. However, neither orchestrates multi-paradigm pipelines: concurrent RL-based generation, supervised bioactivity prediction, Bayesian batch selection, and structural simulation in closed loops. The gap is cross-paradigm integration, not single-paradigm automation.

An agent meeting this requirement would accept a declarative workflow specification (e.g., “train ensemble bioactivity predictors with 5-fold cross-validation”) and produce an executable workflow graph with resource estimates, provenance tracking, and human decision points.

Multi-paradigm architectures treat ML training, RL, simulation, and optimization as core primitives. Practitioners specify workflows declaratively: ”Train ensemble bioactivity predictors (XGBoost, random forests, neural nets) with 5-fold cross-validation and hyperparameter tuning. Return Pareto frontier trading AUC-ROC versus calibration error.” Agents translate specifications into executable workflow graphs, allocate resources, monitor convergence, and track provenance.

Workflow graphs have nodes (data loading, feature extraction, training, evaluation) and edges (data dependencies). They support parallelization (simultaneous hyperparameter configs), checkpointing (cached intermediate results), and branching (automatic hyperparameter search if validation fails), with clear provenance for every artifact. Workflow orchestration exists: Apache Airflow, Kubeflow, Nextflow provide task graphs, dependency resolution, resource allocation, and checkpointing. Missing is agent reasoning integration: inspecting results, diagnosing failures, proposing modifications, learning from executions (deprioritizing architectures that overfit).

Effective interaction would be batch-mode, not chat. Bottlenecks are orchestrating end-to-end analyses, not formulating queries. Small biotechs managing dozens of projects require batch-mode automation with agents intervening only for human decisions (see §3.4).

Human-in-the-loop decision points are explicit and actionable. Agents present Pareto frontiers (accuracy-interpretability trade-offs), candidates with uncertainty estimates. Practitioners select based on context; agents structure decision spaces.

The gap reflects a mismatch with computational drug discovery practice. Current practice relies on systems coordinating paradigms in integrated workflows, batch-mode execution, explicit decision points, and version control for reproducibility, which is absent from current LLM-to-LLM delegation architectures.

All evaluated frameworks assume large-pharma resource levels: abundant proprietary data, cluster-scale compute, and specialized teams. No framework supports few-shot adaptation, active learning, or transfer learning for data-scarce settings. Interactive chat interfaces assume dedicated operator time, impractical for small teams managing multiple projects simultaneously.

Data scarcity is the first constraint. Large pharma accumulates millions of tested molecules enabling high-capacity models. Small biotechs have 50-500 proprietary sequences. Every assay is precious.

Agents assume abundant data, recommending deep neural networks with millions of parameters, hundreds of hyperparameter configs, and dozens of ensemble models. On 100 sequences, deep networks overfit catastrophically. 5-fold cross-validation leaves only 20 examples for evaluation. Ensembles offer no benefit on small datasets.

Small biotechs need data efficiency: models generalizing from few examples via transfer learning, quantifying uncertainty for experimental design. ESM-2 pre-trained on millions of protein sequences enables fine-tuning lightweight classifiers on 50-200 examples. Active learning can substantially reduce experimental burden by prioritizing uncertain predictions [32]; in our peptide projects, this reduced required assays by approximately one-third. Both require workflows agents do not support.

Computational constraints compound scarcity. Small biotechs have 1-2 GPUs, sparse cloud credits, no HPC. RL, molecular dynamics, and docking are expensive. Agents recommend intensive methods without considering infrastructure, ignoring efficiency optimizations (parallelization, caching, cheaper approximations). Resource-aware agents would propose: ”Given one GPU and 24 hours: 100 high-precision docking runs or 1,000 fast approximations?”

Team structure is the third constraint. Large pharma has specialized roles (ML engineers, chemists, biologists, data engineers). Small biotechs have one person doing everything: peptide design, ML modeling, experimental analysis. No dedicated infrastructure support.

This context demands tools for generalists handling infrastructure complexity (dependencies, environments, memory, debugging), where practitioners specify what, not how. Current agents assume infrastructure exists; generated code assumes installed libraries, formatted data, available resources. For small biotechs, these assumptions fail.

Transfer learning leverages public data for small proprietary tasks. Protein language models trained on UniProt’s millions of sequences achieve performance with 50-200 examples that would require tens of thousands if trained from scratch.

Effective transfer learning requires selecting models (ESM-2, ProtBERT, ProGen), choosing fine-tuning layers (freezing early layers is data-efficient), setting learning rates (avoiding catastrophic forgetting or slow convergence), and implementing regularization. These are experimental decisions requiring domain knowledge.

Few-shot learning extends transfer to extreme scarcity. In our experience, prototypical networks achieved reasonable accuracy on peptide-receptor binding classification with tens of examples per type, sufficient for initial screening prioritization though dependent on the number of receptor classes and baseline rates. Agents provide no few-shot pathways, meta-learning support, or confidence interval quantification. A 70

Active learning selects which data to acquire next, prioritizing experiments reducing uncertainty. Acquisition functions (expected improvement, upper confidence bound) balance exploitation and exploration. Developing peptide bioactivity predictors, active learning reduced assays by one-third. Round one: 20 diverse peptides. Round two: 15 targeting high uncertainty. Round three: exploiting predicted best candidates. This iterative loop between models, acquisition functions, and feedback exceeds agent capabilities.

Interactive chat assumes time for conversational interaction. This works for specific queries, not managing multiple projects simultaneously.

Small biotechs need batch-mode automation: ”Analyze eight RNA-seq samples, identify differentially expressed genes, perform pathway enrichment, generate report.” Agents execute autonomously overnight, intervening only for human decisions (which mechanism aligns with biological knowledge?).

Batch-mode requires robustness. If RNA-seq alignment fails (memory limits), effective frameworks would adjust parameters (reduce threads) or flag issues without losing progress. Checkpointing, fault tolerance, and version control enable reproducibility.

Parallelization is a standard requirement for computational drug discovery. Given 100 peptide docking jobs, effective frameworks would automatically parallelize across available resources (eight CPU cores, GPU acceleration), optimizing throughput without manual scheduling.

Current agents support minimal batch capabilities, designed for interactive queries not unsupervised analyses. They lack checkpointing, parallelization, and error handling, assuming interactive debugging impractical for overnight jobs.

An agent meeting this requirement would, given 50–200 labeled sequences and a single GPU, recommend an appropriate modeling strategy, execute transfer learning with uncertainty quantification, and return predictions with calibrated confidence intervals within a 24-hour compute budget.

Small biotech is not large pharma with fewer resources. It is a different operating mode requiring few-shot learning modules for rapid adaptation to new assays, active learning loops with acquisition functions balancing exploration and exploitation, transfer learning pipelines composing public pre-training with private fine-tuning, and batch-mode orchestration enabling unsupervised overnight analyses. Resource-aware frameworks would propose strategies matched to available infrastructure rather than assuming cluster-scale compute. The biotech sector, which accounts for a growing share of therapeutic innovation, remains underserved by current agent architectures designed for large pharma contexts.

All frameworks optimize single objectives or use fixed weighted sums. No framework supports Pareto optimization, constraint satisfaction, or uncertainty-aware candidate selection. Task class 15 (safety/toxicology modeling with multi-objective trade-offs) receives only partial coverage: five of six frameworks provide adjacent capabilities (toxicophore flagging, ADMET prediction) but none supports multi-objective trade-off reasoning, Pareto optimization, or dose-response modeling.

Resource constraints amplify the cost of poor decisions. When every experiment is precious, navigating multi-objective trade-offs becomes critical. Consider three peptide candidates from a development campaign. One shows tenfold higher proliferation bioactivity but triggers hepatotoxicity at effective doses. Another has half the bioactivity but higher tolerated dosing, yielding comparable efficacy with better safety. A third has intermediate bioactivity and safety but superior stability enabling less frequent dosing. ”Optimal” depends on patient population, dosing regimen, and regulatory risk tolerance. No single metric captures this.

Drug discovery is multi-objective optimization: candidates must satisfy bioactivity, selectivity, safety, stability, manufacturability, and cost. Objectives conflict: potency improvements reduce selectivity, stability enhancements increase immunogenicity, high-purity synthesis is expensive. Navigating requires understanding Pareto frontiers (candidates where improving one objective degrades another) and decisions based on risk tolerance, development stage, and context.

Current agents optimize single objectives. ChemCrow optimizes binding affinity or synthetic accessibility [2]. Coscientist targets synthesis yield [1]. Multiple objectives collapse to weighted sums: ”Maximize 0.6×bioactivity + 0.4×drug-likeness” [33]. This discards information: which candidates are Pareto-optimal, how sensitive are rankings to weights, what trade-offs exist. Agents present single ”optimal” solutions, obscuring decision spaces.

Single-metric optimization mirrors ML training objectives: minimize loss, maximize accuracy. This works for unidimensional goals, but drug discovery is multidimensional and context-dependent. Optimality depends on indication, development stage, competitive landscape, and risk tolerance.

Peptide stability illustrates the trap. The stability-activity trade-offs described in §3.1 create a multidimensional decision space where the balance depends on route of administration, therapeutic window, and development timeline.

Agents cannot represent these trade-offs. They predict A $>$ B but cannot articulate: ”A is twice as potent but has a threefold narrower safety margin; choose A if dosing can be tightly controlled, choose B for robustness.” They do not visualize Pareto frontiers or sensitivity to weight changes.

Pareto optimization is the appropriate framework. A candidate is Pareto-optimal if no other improves one objective without degrading another. The Pareto frontier is a curve (two objectives) or surface (three+). Practitioners navigate this frontier based on context.

Frontier visualization reveals trade-off structure. Steep regions require large sacrifices for modest gains; flat regions allow improvements with minimal cost. Clusters suggest distinct strategies (high-potency narrow-margin versus moderate-potency wide-margin). Gaps reveal unexplored regions.

Constructing the frontier requires multi-objective optimization. NSGA-II maintains candidate populations and selects non-dominated solutions. Multi-objective Bayesian optimization models objectives, selects candidates via acquisition functions balancing exploration and Pareto improvement, and updates with experimental results. These require tight integration between generative models, predictive models, and optimizers, which agents do not support.

Standalone multi-objective tools are advancing. PMMG [34] uses Pareto-guided Monte Carlo Tree Search to generate molecules satisfying seven simultaneous objectives with a 51.65% success rate, outperforming baselines by 2.5 times. CheapVS [35] enables human-guided preferential multi-objective Bayesian optimization, allowing chemists to express trade-off preferences via pairwise comparisons. These are effective optimization algorithms, but they are not integrated into agentic workflows providing uncertainty quantification, sensitivity analysis, stage-adaptive recommendations, and interactive decision support across iterative design cycles.

Constraints add complexity: synthesizability, solubility, permeability, absence of toxicophores. Constrained optimization identifies the Pareto frontier within feasible regions, which may be disjoint or conflicting. In peptide design, synthesis feasibility is often binding. Sequences with non-natural residues may be predicted optimal but are unavailable or prohibitively expensive. Regioselective cyclization can be unfeasible. Practitioners must balance optimization with synthetic pragmatism.

Predictions include uncertainty. IC50 equals 10 nM might have a 95

Bayesian optimization handles uncertainty via Gaussian processes providing means and variances. Acquisition functions balance exploitation and exploration (see §3.4 for detailed discussion). Visualizing uncertainty to guide exploration versus exploitation is a key capability gap.

Risk profiles vary by stage. Early discovery tolerates high-risk, high-reward candidates. Late-stage demands well-characterized properties and high confidence. Effective frameworks would adapt recommendations accordingly.

In peptide pipelines, early rounds prioritized diversity, middle rounds balanced exploration and exploitation, final rounds focused on de-risking. This requires dynamic acquisition functions and explicit risk management absent from agents.

Sensitivity analysis is missing. How robust are rankings to model error? If bioactivity predictions have 20

An agent meeting this requirement would, given multi-endpoint assay data, construct a Pareto frontier with confidence intervals, provide interactive filtering by feasibility constraints, and generate sensitivity analyses quantifying ranking robustness to model error.

Closing this gap requires multi-objective Bayesian optimization with constraint handling, Pareto frontier visualization with interactive filtering, uncertainty quantification providing epistemic uncertainty in bioactivity prediction and dose-response confidence bands, and risk-aware candidate selection that adapts recommendations to development stage. The gap analysis identifies Pareto frontier representation, uncertainty quantification, risk-aware decision support, and structured decision spaces as design requirements, replacing the current pattern of outputting single optima.

Input: Fifty peptides with four assay endpoints, receptor structure, synthesis constraints.

Workflow: Fine-tune ESM-2, train multi-task regressor, use it as RL reward, filter by synthesis feasibility and stability, dock top candidates, cluster binding modes, present activity versus safety Pareto frontier with uncertainty.

Output: Ten synthesis candidates with rationales and confidence intervals.

Human decisions: Select among Pareto-optimal candidates based on strategic priorities and budget.

Input: In vitro assays and early in vivo markers for 20 peptides; predict day 28 outcomes.

Workflow: Normalize features, align temporal data with missing values, train regression models with stratified validation, identify early predictors and mechanistic drivers.

Output: Day 28 predictions with uncertainty and mechanistic hypotheses.

Human decisions: Choose peptides for full validation and whether to collect additional early markers.

Input: Four-endpoint data for 100 peptides.

Workflow: Normalize, cluster, validate stability, extract enriched sequence motifs, run pathway enrichment, visualize clusters.

Output: Distinct activity profile clusters with mechanistic hypotheses and selection recommendations.

Human decisions: Validate hypotheses and decide whether to focus on a single cluster or maintain diversity.