Frazier N. Baker


2025

pdf bib
LIDDIA: Language-based Intelligent Drug Discovery Agent
Reza Averly | Frazier N. Baker | Ian A Watson | Xia Ning
Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing

Drug discovery is a long, expensive, and complex process, relying heavily on human medicinal chemists, who can spend years searching the vast space of potential therapies. Recent advances in artificial intelligence for chemistry have sought to expedite individual drug discovery tasks; however, there remains a critical need for an intelligent agent that can navigate the drug discovery process. Towards this end, we introduce LIDDiA, an autonomous agent capable of intelligently navigating the drug discovery process in silico. By leveraging the reasoning capabilities of large language models, LIDDiA serves as a low-cost and highly-adaptable tool for autonomous drug discovery. We comprehensively examine LIDDiA, demonstrating that (1) it can generate molecules meeting key pharmaceutical criteria on over 70% of 30 clinically relevant targets, (2) it intelligently balances exploration and exploitation in the chemical space, and (3) it identifies one promising novel candidate on AR/NR3C4, a critical target for both prostate and breast cancers. Code and dataset are available at https://github.com/ninglab/LIDDiA.

pdf bib
Tooling or Not Tooling? The Impact of Tools on Language Agents for Chemistry Problem Solving
Botao Yu | Frazier N. Baker | Ziru Chen | Garrett Herb | Boyu Gou | Daniel Adu-Ampratwum | Xia Ning | Huan Sun
Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2025

To enhance large language models (LLMs) for chemistry problem solving, several LLM-based agents augmented with tools have been proposed, such as ChemCrow and Coscientist. However, their evaluations are narrow in scope, leaving a large gap in understanding the benefits of tools across diverse chemistry tasks. To bridge this gap, we develop ChemAgent, an enhanced chemistry agent over ChemCrow, and conduct a comprehensive evaluation of its performance on both specialized chemistry tasks and general chemistry questions. Surprisingly, ChemAgent does not consistently outperform its base LLMs without tools. Our error analysis with a chemistry expert suggests that: For specialized chemistry tasks, such as synthesis prediction, we should augment agents with specialized tools; however, for general chemistry questions like those in exams, agents’ ability to reason correctly with chemistry knowledge matters more, and tool augmentation does not always help.