🚀NEW LABGetting Started with Claude AgentsStart lab
← All papers  /  Oct 15, 2026
Agents · Code · Reasoning

ReproBAIT: Can coding agents build their own biological AI tools?

First page
ReproBAIT: Can coding agents build their own biological AI tools?
The curator’s take

Shiv Muthupandiyan, Tolga H. Dur, Mac Walker and colleagues (UK AI Security Institute, SecureBio) introduce ReproBAIT, an evaluation of whether sandboxed coding agents can rebuild and train published biological AI tools from limited descriptions.

Ask this paper

Key points
01

Setup. The agent has no internet access, receives training data, a fixed time and compute budget, and limited information about the tool, and is scored on the rebuilt tool's held-out performance.

02

Tools. ProteinMPNN (inverse folding), RFdiffusion3 (all-atom generative diffusion) and a closed-source molecular design tool.

03

Results. Agents approach the released ProteinMPNN's sequence recovery and match or exceed published molecular validity for the closed tool. No attempt fully succeeds on the scoped RFdiffusion3 task.

04

More information did not help. Giving the full paper instead of only the abstract did not consistently improve results.

05

Memorisation. Diagnostics show moderate evidence consistent with memorisation, varying by agent.

Abstract

Large language models are increasingly competent at leveraging scientific knowledge and existing computational tools to execute complex workflows. At present, little information exists on their ability to reconstruct tools when given limited descriptions of such tools. We introduce an evaluation titled ReproBAIT (Reproducing Biological AI Tools), which measures the ability of coding agents to design, implement, and train biological AI tools taken from published research across a range of information access conditions. The coding agent is securely sandboxed without internet access and receives training data, a fixed time and compute budget, and limited information about the tool to replicate. We then score the reproduced biological AI tool based on its performance (tool-specific metrics) on held-out data. We evaluated a set of biological AI tools of varying complexities: ProteinMPNN, an inverse protein folding tool, RFdiffusion3, an all-atom generative diffusion tool, and a closed-source molecular design tool. We institute a methodology to check for memorisation, as the open source tools are likely to be included in models' pretraining corpus. Across a range of leading closed- and open-source coding agents, we find substantial reproduction capability for some selected tools, though limited capability for a highly complex tool. We find moderate evidence consistent with memorisation, varying across coding agents. These results suggest that tool developers need to be increasingly cautious when releasing information about the tools publicly; re-creation of the tool based on such information could undermine a tool's commercial value or invalidate dual-use managed access strategies.

Every Monday
Get next week’s papers.
Subscribe on Substack