Artificial IntelligenceNatural Language Processing
Abstract
Artificial-intelligence (AI) agents hold promise for automating bioimage analysis, yet no benchmark evaluates whether they can carry out real-world analyses end to end. Such analyses are hard for agents because 2D images, 3D volumes and time-lapse sequences are often too large to read as context, so an agent must choose and run an analysis through code, specialized software and rendered views. Published studies make this capability testable, because each pairs raw images with a peer-reviewed result. We introduce BIABench, a benchmark of 16 tasks reconstructed from published biological studies that retain their scientific questions, imaging data and ground truth. The tasks span eleven analysis subtasks and modalities from H&E histology to single-molecule localization microscopy. Each submission receives an outcome score, which compares the output files with the ground truth using field-standard metrics, and a process score, in which a vision-language model judges method choice and quality control against an expert-written rubric. We evaluated general-purpose and biology-specific agents across several language models, with repeated runs of every task. Routine two-dimensional tasks were solved well, but on some tasks that added a third dimension or a time axis no agent scored above 0.19. Neither biological specialization, stronger models nor detailed expert instructions closed this gap. The agents were also unreliable, with scores varying more between repeated runs of one agent than between different agents, and without ground truth a correct run could not be told from a wrong one by its process score or by the time spent. Released openly with its data and code, BIABench provides a verifiable framework for evaluating, and eventually training, agents for reliable long-horizon bioimage analysis.
This paper investigates developing real-world perception for active agents, proposes Gibson Environment for this purpose, and showcases a set of perceptual tasks learned therein.
F. Xia, Amir Zamir, Zhi-Yang He et al.· 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on...· 1,069 citations· ⚡112
This publication proposes a definition and a classification of agile software development approaches and analyses ten software development methods that can be characterized as being "agile" against the defined criterion.
P. Abrahamsson, O. Salo, Jussi Ronkainen et al.· arXiv.org· 727 citations· ⚡54
Consequences of happiness and unhappiness that are beneficial and detrimental for developers' mental well-being, the software development process, and the produced artifacts are found.
D. Graziotin, Fabian Fagerholm, Xiaofeng Wang et al.· Journal of Systems and Softw...· 236 citations· ⚡13
The Mobile-D approach is briefly outlined here and the experiences gained from four case studies are discussed, which helped develop an agile development approach for mobile application development.
P. Abrahamsson, Antti Hanhineva, H. Hulkko et al.· Conference on Object-Oriente...· 225 citations· ⚡18
GAOKAO-Bench is introduced, an intuitive benchmark that employs questions from the Chinese GAOKAO examination as test samples, including both subjective and objective questions that contribute a robust evaluation benchmark for future large language models and offers valuable insights into the advantages and limitations...
Xiaotian Zhang, Chun-yan Li, Yi Zong et al.· arXiv.org· 216 citations· ⚡17
A study with 42 participants investigates the relationship between the affective states, creativity, and analytical problem-solving skills of software developers and offers support for the claim that happy developers are indeed better problem solvers in terms of their analytical abilities.
D. Graziotin, Xiaofeng Wang, P. Abrahamsson· PeerJ· 216 citations· ⚡13