Pavlo O. Dral, Hassan Nawaz, Arif Ullahphysics.chem-ph cs.AI physics.comp-ph
We are witnessing an explosion of agentic systems for computational chemistry simulations: from half a dozen in 2024 to a dozen in 2025, and the current number approaches fifty, surveyed in this Perspective as of 8 August 2026. The capabilities of these agentic systems are shifting from assisting in performing a selection of computational tasks to autonomous design and execution of \textit{in silico} experiments, their analysis, and even manuscript writing. The ultimate destination is a fully autonomous AI scientist, where the entirety of computational chemistry is performed on a machine by a machine, without human supervision. While we are not there yet, and all reported systems currently involve a human in the loop, the trend is unmistakable. Even building specialized agentic systems for computational chemistry is increasingly commoditized by generalist agents, which may in the end replace the need for the specialized ones altogether, since adding a new capability will be as easy as asking AI to do it for you. Both the explosion in their number and the very limited adoption beyond their own developers point that way, and we close this Perspective on what it leaves us to do. The speed and scale of disruption agentic systems are bringing to computational chemistry leave many of us dumbfounded about the field's future and what we should spend our efforts on, as already established specialists, teachers, and students, and we have no answer.
Arman Rahmim, Nourhan Bayasi, Xiaoxiao Li +2physics.med-ph cs.AI
Medical imaging has served as primary proving ground for clinical artificial intelligence (AI), yet a decade of intense research has not translated into proportionate bedside impact. We argue that this gap is not primarily a product of insufficient algorithmic performance, inadequate regulation, or limited explainability. Rather, it reflects a structural misalignment, between how AI systems are designed and evaluated, and how clinical decisions are made. This Perspective identifies six interconnected dimensions of this misalignment: the dominance of pixel-only models in a multimodal clinical world; the erosion of physician trust through opaque and inflexible systems; the unfulfilled promise of foundation models in data-sparse medical domains; the persistent bottleneck of non-shareable, under-curated datasets; the gap between validated algorithms and deployable clinical platforms; and the failure of prediction-centric AI to generate actionable clinical guidance. For each dimension, we reframe the problem and propose a path forward, culminating in a vision of agentic, physician-aligned AI that extends, rather than replaces, clinical judgment.
World models -- internal simulators that learn the structure and dynamics of an environment -- have become one of the most actively debated concepts in AI. From model-based reinforcement learning and video generation to embodied robotics and ultimately, physical AI, researchers across AI subfields are building systems that they call "world models", yet there is no consensus on what a world model fundamentally is, what it should predict, or how it should be built. This perspective article provides a scientific definition of world models, discussions of their key technical aspects, and a staged roadmap for developing effective world models.
Kirk Roberts, Steven Bedrick, Kurt Miller +2cs.IR cs.CL
Discussions around large language model (LLM) errors in clinical artificial intelligence (AI) generally center around precision errors like hallucinations. This perspective, targeting both clinicians and AI researchers, seeks to shift that discussion to recall errors, particularly in retrieval of patient-level data needed for many clinical AI tools. The perspective outlines types of errors and mitigation strategies, describes research directions in LLMs and retrieval, and provides an overview of retrieval evaluation.