Pith. sign in

REVIEW 10 cited by

ML-Bench: Evaluating Large Language Models and Agents for Machine Learning Tasks on Repository-Level Code

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2311.09835 v5 pith:I7R2ORFJ submitted 2023-11-16 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords codellmsagentsml-benchmodelsargumentscomplexenvironment
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Despite Large Language Models (LLMs) like GPT-4 achieving impressive results in function-level code generation, they struggle with repository-scale code understanding (e.g., coming up with the right arguments for calling routines), requiring a deeper comprehension of complex file interactions. Also, recently, people have developed LLM agents that attempt to interact with repository code (e.g., compiling and evaluating its execution), prompting the need to evaluate their performance. These gaps have motivated our development of ML-Bench, a benchmark rooted in real-world programming applications that leverage existing code repositories to perform tasks. Addressing the need for LLMs to interpret long code contexts and translate instructions into precise, executable scripts, ML-Bench encompasses annotated 9,641 examples across 18 GitHub repositories, challenging LLMs to accommodate user-specified arguments and documentation intricacies effectively. To evaluate both LLMs and AI agents, two setups are employed: ML-LLM-Bench for assessing LLMs' text-to-code conversion within a predefined deployment environment, and ML-Agent-Bench for testing autonomous agents in an end-to-end task execution within a Linux sandbox environment. Our findings indicate that while GPT-4o leads with a Pass@5 rate surpassing 50%, there remains significant scope for improvement, highlighted by issues such as hallucinated outputs and difficulties with bash script generation. Notably, in the more demanding ML-Agent-Bench, GPT-4o achieves a 76.47% success rate, reflecting the efficacy of iterative action and feedback in complex task resolution. Our code, dataset, and models are available at https://github.com/gersteinlab/ML-bench.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 10 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. MLS-Bench: A Holistic and Rigorous Assessment of AI Systems on Building Better AI

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    MLS-Bench shows that current AI agents fall short of reliably inventing generalizable ML methods, with engineering tuning easier than genuine invention.

  2. AbGen: Evaluating Large Language Models in Ablation Study Design and Evaluation for Scientific Research

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A benchmark of 1,500 expert-annotated ablation study designs from 807 NLP papers shows frontier LLMs underperform human experts and that LLM-as-a-judge evaluations correlate weakly with human judgments.

  3. AgentHPOBench: A Benchmark For Evaluating LLM Agents as Sequential Hyperparameter Optimizers

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new 30-task benchmark shows LLM agents can improve real ML experiments through sequential hyperparameter choices, but their gains are uneven and often not retained.

  4. Compiling Large Multi-Modal Requirement Documents into Runnable Software Systems: From an Agentic Test-Driven Perspective

    cs.SE 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    ARC compiles DSL-based requirement documents into runnable web apps by generating interface tests top-down, then using those tests to gate bottom-up code generation, achieving higher GUI pass rates than baseline codin...

  5. Reinforcement Learning for Machine Learning Engineering Agents

    cs.LG 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    RL-trained Qwen2.5-3B outperforms prompted Claude-3.5-Sonnet and GPT-4o on 12 MLEBench tasks by an average of 22% and 24%, using two targeted RL modifications.

  6. LMR-BENCH: Evaluating LLM Agent's Ability on Reproducing Language Modeling Research

    cs.SE 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    LMR-BENCH measures LLM agents on reproducing masked functions from 23 NLP papers, and every tested model and agent passes under 43% of the unit tests.

  7. RepoMaster: Autonomous Exploration and Understanding of GitHub Repositories for Complex Task Solving

    cs.SE 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    RepoMaster, a repository-aware code agent, lifts the task pass rate from 40.7% to 62.9% and cuts token use by about 95% versus OpenHands on the new GitTaskBench benchmark.

  8. Matryoshka Agent: Unfolding Sub-Agents for Long-Horizon Machine Learning Engineering

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Matryoshka Agent’s orchestrator–sub-agent hierarchy plus tree-ranked RL raises MLE-Dojo HumanRank, letting a 4B orchestrator approach o4-mini and giving a 30B coder up to 36.7% relative gain.

  9. Deep Research Agents: A Systematic Examination And Roadmap

    cs.AI 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A survey that organizes LLM-powered deep research agents into static versus dynamic workflows and single versus multi agent architectures, and reviews their benchmarks and open challenges.

  10. Evolutionary Perspectives on the Evaluation of LLM-Based AI Agents: A Comprehensive Survey

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A survey that classifies AI agent evaluation benchmarks along environment and capability axes, and proposes five traits that distinguish agents from chatbots.

Pith tools