Hunt Globally: Wide Search AI Agents for Drug Asset Scouting in Investing, Business Development, and Competitive Intelligence

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.15019v2
• Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2026 18:58:56 GMT
• Title: Hunt Globally: Wide Search AI Agents for Drug Asset Scouting in Investing, Business Development, and Competitive Intelligence
• Abstract summary: New drug assets now originate outside the United States and are disclosed primarily via regional, non-English channels.<n>We propose a benchmarking methodology for drug asset scouting and a tuned, tree-based self-learning Bioptic Agent.<n>Our Bioptic Agent achieves 79.7% F1 score, outperforming Claude Opus 4.6 (56.2%), Gemini 3 Pro + Deep Research (50.6%), OpenAI GPT-5.2 Pro (46.6%), Perplexity Deep Research (44.2%), and Exa Websets (26.9%)
• Score: 0.2242867844843965
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Bio-pharmaceutical innovation has shifted: many new drug assets now originate outside the United States and are disclosed primarily via regional, non-English channels. Recent data suggests that over 85% of patent filings originate outside the U.S., with China accounting for nearly half of the global total. A growing share of scholarly output is also non-U.S. Industry estimates put China at 30% of global drug development, spanning 1,200+ novel candidates. In this high-stakes environment, failing to surface "under-the-radar" assets creates multi-billion-dollar risk for investors and business development teams, making asset scouting a coverage-critical competition where speed and completeness drive value. Yet today's Deep Research AI agents still lag human experts in achieving high recall discovery across heterogeneous, multilingual sources without hallucination. We propose a benchmarking methodology for drug asset scouting and a tuned, tree-based self-learning Bioptic Agent aimed at complete, non-hallucinated scouting. We construct a challenging completeness benchmark using a multilingual multi-agent pipeline: complex user queries paired with ground-truth assets that are largely outside U.S.-centric radar. To reflect real-deal complexity, we collected screening queries from expert investors, BD, and VC professionals and used them as priors to conditionally generate benchmark queries. For grading, we use LLM-as-judge evaluation calibrated to expert opinions. On this benchmark, our Bioptic Agent achieves 79.7% F1 score, outperforming Claude Opus 4.6 (56.2%), Gemini 3 Pro + Deep Research (50.6%), OpenAI GPT-5.2 Pro (46.6%), Perplexity Deep Research (44.2%), and Exa Websets (26.9%). Performance improves steeply with additional compute, supporting the view that more compute yields better results.

Related papers

• Agents' Last Exam [275.79071391137074]
  Agents' Last Exam (ALE) is a benchmark designed to evaluate AI agents on long horizon, economically valuable, real world tasks with verifiable outcomes.<n>Developed in collaboration with 250+ industry experts, ALE covers non-physical industries defined with reference to O*NET / SOC 2018.<n>Current results show that the hardest tier remains far from saturated: across mainstream harness and backbone configurations, the average full pass rate is below 1%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-03T20:20:46Z)
• AgentIR: Reasoning-Aware Retrieval for Deep Research Agents [76.29382561831105]
  Deep Research agents generate explicit natural language reasoning before each search call.<n> Reasoning-Aware Retrieval embeds the agent's reasoning trace alongside its query.<n>DR- Synth generates Deep Research retriever training data from standard QA datasets.<n>AgentIR-4B achieves 68% accuracy with the open-weight agent Tongyi-DeepResearch.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-04T18:47:26Z)
• ResearchGym: Evaluating Language Model Agents on Real-World AI Research [48.46915933681714]
  We introduce ResearchGym, a benchmark and execution environment for evaluating AI agents on end-to-end research.<n>To instantiate this, we repurpose five oral and spotlight papers from ICML, ICLR, and ACL.<n>In a controlled evaluation of an agent powered by GPT-5, we observe a sharp capability--reliability gap.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-16T19:00:03Z)
• The Strategic Foresight of LLMs: Evidence from a Fully Prospective Venture Tournament [0.19116784879310025]
  We benchmarked forecasts against 346 experienced managers recruited via Prolific and three MBA-trained investors working under monitored conditions.<n>The results are striking: human evaluators achieved rank correlations with actual outcomes between 0.04 and 0.45, while several frontier LLMs exceeded 0.60, with the best (Gemini 2.5 Pro) reaching 0.74.<n>Neither wisdom-of-the-crowd ensembles nor human-AI hybrid teams outperformed the best standalone model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-02T05:52:16Z)
• Can Deep Research Agents Find and Organize? Evaluating the Synthesis Gap with Expert Taxonomies [57.11324429385405]
  We introduce TaxoBench, a diagnostic benchmark derived from 72 computer science surveys.<n>We manually extract expert-authored taxonomy trees containing 3,815 precisely categorized citations as ground truth.<n>Best agent recalls only 20.9% of expert-selected papers, and even with perfect input, the best model achieves only 0.31 ARI in organization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-18T11:57:09Z)
• The Adoption and Usage of AI Agents: Early Evidence from Perplexity [3.3745699838984144]
  This paper presents the first large-scale field study of the adoption, usage intensity, and use cases of general-purpose AI agents.<n>Our analysis centers on Comet, an AI-powered browser developed by Perplexity, and its integrated agent, Comet Assistant.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-08T18:56:10Z)
• AstaBench: Rigorous Benchmarking of AI Agents with a Scientific Research Suite [75.58737079136942]
  We present AstaBench, a suite that provides the first holistic measure of agentic ability to perform scientific research.<n>Our suite comes with the first scientific research environment with production-grade search tools.<n>Our evaluation of 57 agents across 22 agent classes reveals several interesting findings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-24T17:10:26Z)
• Shoot First, Ask Questions Later? Building Rational Agents that Explore and Act Like People [81.63702981397408]
  Given limited resources, to what extent do agents based on language models (LMs) act rationally?<n>We develop methods to benchmark and enhance agentic information-seeking, drawing on insights from human behavior.<n>For Spotter agents, our approach boosts accuracy by up to 14.7% absolute over LM-only baselines; for Captain agents, it raises expected information gain (EIG) by up to 0.227 bits (94.2% of the achievable noise ceiling)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-23T17:57:28Z)
• LLM-Based Agents for Competitive Landscape Mapping in Drug Asset Due Diligence [0.231749519765552]
  We describe and benchmark a competitor-discovery component used within an agentic AI system for fast drug asset due diligence.<n>A competitor-discovery AI agent, given an indication, retrieves all drugs comprising the competitive landscape of that indication.<n>Our competitor-discovery agent achieves 83% recall, exceeding OpenAI Deep Research and Perplexity Labs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-22T17:50:00Z)
• Predicting Empirical AI Research Outcomes with Language Models [27.148683265085012]
  Many promising-looking ideas in AI research fail to deliver, but their validation takes substantial human labor and compute.<n>We build the first benchmark for this task and compare LMs with human experts.<n>We scrape ideas and experimental results from conference papers, yielding 1,585 human-verified idea pairs published after our base model's cut-off date for testing.<n>We develop a system that combines a fine-tuned GPT-4.1 with a paper retrieval agent, and we recruit 25 human experts to compare with.<n>In the NLP domain, our system beats human experts by a large margin (64.4% v.s. 48.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-01T02:46:31Z)
• Exploring Expert Failures Improves LLM Agent Tuning [74.0772570556016]
  We propose Exploring Expert Failures (EEF), which identifies beneficial actions from failed expert trajectories.<n>EEF successfully solves some previously unsolvable subtasks and improves agent tuning performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-17T17:53:54Z)
• RE-Bench: Evaluating frontier AI R&D capabilities of language model agents against human experts [4.06186944042499]
  We introduce RE-Bench, which consists of 7 challenging, open-ended ML research engineering environments and data from 71 8-hour attempts by 61 human experts.<n>We find that the best AI agents achieve a score 4x higher than human experts when both are given a total time budget of 2 hours per environment.<n>Humans currently display better returns to increasing time budgets, narrowly exceeding the top AI agent scores given an 8-hour budget, and achieving 2x the score of the top AI agent when both are given 32 total hours (across different attempts).
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-22T18:30:46Z)
• Tree Search for Language Model Agents [73.97960454223164]
  We propose an inference-time search algorithm for LM agents to perform exploration and multi-step planning in interactive web environments.<n>Our approach is a form of best-first tree search that operates within the actual environment space.<n>It is the first tree search algorithm for LM agents that shows effectiveness on realistic web tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-01T17:07:55Z)
• CSPRD: A Financial Policy Retrieval Dataset for Chinese Stock Market [61.59326951366202]
  We propose a new task, policy retrieval, by introducing the Chinese Stock Policy Retrieval dataset (CSPRD) CSPRD provides 700+ passages labeled by experienced experts with relevant articles from 10k+ entries in our collected Chinese policy corpus. Our best performing baseline achieves 56.1% MRR@10, 28.5% NDCG@10, 37.5% Recall@10 and 80.6% Precision@10 on dev set.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-08T15:40:54Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.