Skip to content

About

An experiment on running a discovery campaign using AI scientists on PlayMolecule AI

Resources

Stars

0 stars

Watchers

0 watching

Forks

Latest commit

 

History

6 Commits

Folders and files

NameName
Last commit message
Last commit date
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Repository files navigation

ai-lab-notes

Open notes from an experiment in running a real drug-discovery campaign with a bounded virtual lab of AI scientists, supervised by a single human, on PlayMolecule AI.

Research question: can one human supervisor operate a bounded lab of AI scientists and obtain useful, traceable work on a real molecular discovery program?

The experiment tests scientific usefulness, evidence quality, failure behaviour, escalation, human intervention, compute use, and prospective decision value. It does not assume that AI scientists are faster, more accurate, more autonomous, or better than a human team.

The target program is IL23R-p19 for psoriasis, an existing Acellera internal program. The official program continues independently under its own scientific leadership; this repository is a separate computational experiment and cannot authorize synthesis, assays, or program decisions.

Repository layout

Path Contents
experiment-0/ Exploratory starting artifacts — seven IL23R-p19 target assessments and their comparison
LICENSE MIT

experiment-0 — seven reports from one prompt

Seven systems were given the same prompt: produce a validated, publicly-sourced report on IL23R with structural information, small-molecule discovery strategies, and a preclinical TPP for a small-molecule inhibitor of the IL23R-p19 interaction in psoriasis.

The outputs were scored blind against a ten-criterion rubric (five TPP, five strategy, 0–4 each) with targeted primary-source, structural, and numerical checks. Full scoring, rubric, and audit: IL23R_report_comparison_named.pdf.

Report System TPP /20 Strategy /20 Total /40
report_3693.pdf PlayMolecule AI on Astra-high 18 19 37
report_b577.pdf ChatGPT 6 Astra-high 18 18 36
report_68bd.pdf ChatGPT 5.6-Sol-ultra 15 16 31
report_edea.pdf Claude-Opus5-extra 10 12 22
report_cbe0.pdf PlayMolecule AI on Gemini-3.8-flash 8 9 17
report_327e.pdf PlayMolecule AI on GLM5.3-flash 7 10 17
report_750e.pdf PlayMolecule AI on Qwen3.8-27B, local, RTX 5090 5 6 11

deck_750e.pdf is the slide version of report_750e. models.md is the code-to-system key used during blind scoring.

What the comparison found

  • The PlayMolecule AI on Astra-high report gives the strongest starting experimental framework; ChatGPT 6 Astra-high gives the strongest dose-feasibility analysis.
  • Recurring weaknesses across systems: unsupported binding-to-inhibition assumptions, and disconnected potency, exposure, and dose targets.
  • The evidence supports a gated feasibility campaign — reproducible binding to native interaction blockade, to selective human-cell activity, to achievable unbound skin exposure.
  • Safety and mechanism errors can override an attractive total score. Two reports contain mechanism errors that must be repaired before their experimental instructions are reused.

How to read the scores

Scores are editorial judgments under the rubric, not measurements of success probability. Differences of one or two points are not meaningful; the tier separation is more robust than the exact totals. Scores assess the supplied reports as decision documents, not the underlying LLMs or harnesses — inputs, tools, context, and execution conditions differ materially between systems and are not controlled.

These are proposed starting points, not results or accepted program decisions. They were not preregistered and cannot be described as such.

Contact

Gianni De Fabritiis — g.defabritiis@acellera.com

License

MIT — see LICENSE.

About

An experiment on running a discovery campaign using AI scientists on PlayMolecule AI

Resources

Stars

0 stars

Watchers

0 watching

Forks

Releases

Packages

Used by

Contributors