aiqbench analysis
ABLE establishes a critical benchmark for evaluating how large language models function as agents within complex biological workflows, specifically assessing their ability to utilize tools like AlphaFold3 and ProteinMPNN. The study reveals significant inconsistency among frontier models in strategic planning and integrating domain knowledge, with several top-tier models refusing dual-use tasks entirely. This research highlights the current gap between theoretical capability and reliable execution in high-stakes protein design applications.
Agentic BAIM-LLM Evaluation (ABLE): Benchmarking LLM Use of Protein Design Tools
arXiv:2609.05818v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We introduce ABLE, a benchmark for evaluating LLM agents' ability to use biological AI models (BAIMs), such as ProteinMPNN and AlphaFold3, in dual-use protein design workflows. ABLE assesses agent performance through a set of tasks spanning structure retrieval, sequence generation, and design validation. We evaluate 15 frontier models and find that seven refuse all tasks, while the remaining models exhibit substantial performance differences. Claude Sonnet 4 and Gemini 3 Pro achieve the highest scores across information retrieval, tool selection, and tool use. We further compare model performance on a subset of tasks against an expert human baseline. Our results suggest that current LLMs can substantially lower barriers to protein design, but remain inconsistent in planning, strategy generation, and integrating biological knowledge with tool use.
Abstract:We introduce ABLE, a benchmark for evaluating LLM agents' ability to use biological AI models (BAIMs), such as ProteinMPNN and AlphaFold3, in dual-use protein design workflows. ABLE assesses agent performance through a set of tasks spanning structure retrieval, sequence generation, and design validation. We evaluate 15 frontier models and find that seven refuse all tasks, while the remaining models exhibit substantial performance differences. Claude Sonnet 4 and Gemini 3 Pro achieve the highest scores across information retrieval, tool selection, and tool use. We further compare model performance on a subset of tasks against an expert human baseline. Our results suggest that current LLMs can substantially lower barriers to protein design, but remain inconsistent in planning, strategy generation, and integrating biological knowledge with tool use.
Last revised in February 2026; presented without further revision. An earlier revision at was presented at the NeurIPS 2025 Workshop on Biosecurity Safeguards for Generative AI; see this https URL
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computers and Society (cs.CY); Quantitative Methods (q-bio.QM)
arXiv:2609.05818 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2609.05818v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.05818 arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 179 words
Related coverage

Claude Fable 5 and Claude Mythos 5
Anthropic · Jun 9, 2026

Reviewing failure modes in science as we prepare for AI researchers
LessWrong · Oct 8, 2026

Humanity’s Last Invention — Richard Socher of Recursive
Latent Space · Sep 14, 2026
Links #3: 2026/06 Part 1
LessWrong · Jun 15, 2026