Explore/benchmark/BixBench3: Benchmarking AI agents on research-study-scale computational biology tasks
B

Zane Koch, Asmamaw T. Wassie, Javier Valdes-Aleman, Jason Lee, Michaela M. Hinks, Samuel G. Rodriques, Andrew D. White, Jon M. Laurent/BixBench3: Benchmarking AI agents on research-study-scale computational biology tasksUnknown

Artificial intelligence (AI) promises to accelerate biological research by automating computational analyses. Yet the ability of AI agents to carry out computational biology at the scale of complete research studies has not been systematically evaluated. Here we introduce BixBench3, a benchmark that measures the capacity of AI agents to process raw biological data through to scientific results. We designed BixBench3 tasks to mirror the delegation of work from a scientist to an agent: the scientist chooses the research question and high-level methods, then delegates implementation of all analyses to the agent. In each task, an agent receives a research objective, methodological guidance, and raw data derived from a published scientific study, and must execute a sequence of analyses to achieve the research objective. The data artifacts resulting from these analyses - such as peak call matrices or differential expression tables - are programmatically graded against the corresponding artifacts generated and reported in the original study. Across 20 BixBench3 tasks encompassing the generation of 138 unique artifacts, we find that 13 frontier models achieve scores ranging from 0.00 for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite to 0.48 for GPT 5.6 Sol. Agents perform worse on tasks with larger raw datasets (0.36 on tasks with <100 GB versus 0.10 on tasks with >100 GB) and on analyses requiring more sequential steps (0.36 at 1-2 steps vs 0.24 at 3+). On average, agents use 6.8 hours, 102 million tokens, and $43 to complete each task, with the longest attempts consuming 24 hours, 1.07 billion tokens, and $525. Notably, the highest-scoring agents used fewer tokens and were cheaper than less performant options. These results reveal that LLMs vary substantially in their ability to (1) execute multiple sequential analysis steps coherently, (2) manage large quantities of raw data, and (3) work across scientific domains.

benchmark
GitHubCompare
Refreshed 7h ago
OverviewActivity52wAlternativesDocs
Stars0
Forks0
HF Downloads—30d
Last commit—
Refreshed7h ago
Project healthUnknownNo activity data.
Production readinessResearch / EarlyBest for exploration and prototyping.
Risk notesUnknown licenseVerify license before production use.
AgentHub Score
55 / 100
Composite score from 6 signals. How we score →
Active project
55Score
Growth
40C
Activity
30C
Documentation
70C+
Maturity
45C
Community
42C
Production
58C
GitHub stars · 2 days observed0 not enough history
snapshots
Repository activity · 2 days observedReal snapshots from pushed_at
inactivepushed
2026-08-282026-08-31
Practical assessment
Should you use it?

✓ Best for

  • Research and experimentation
  • Prototype development
  • Learning agentic patterns

◎ Strengths

  • Active community
  • Open source
  • Well-documented API

✕ Not ideal for

  • Untested at scale without validation
  • Teams without AI/ML expertise

⚠ Watch-outs

  • Review changelog before updating
  • Verify license for commercial use
Technical details
What's inside
Language—
License—
Sourcearxiv
Open source✗ No
Commercial use—
Docs—
Demo—

AgentHub Score

55
Score 55/100
Below average

Alternatives

R
RIFT-Bench: Dynamic Red-teaming For Agentic AI Systems
0 · benchmark
55
B
Benchmarking AI Agents for Hardware Design Automation via MCP Tool Calling
0 · benchmark
55
P
PCFBench: A Diagnostic Benchmark for Product Carbon Footprint Estimation
0 · benchmark
55
S
Security Assessment of DeepSeek Harness with A.I.G: Evaluating Resistance to Indirect Prompt Injection
0 · benchmark
55Compare all →

Recent activity

Latest commit ——
Indexed by AgentHub crawler7h ago
Monitor for new releasesongoing