Pith. sign in

REVIEW 14 cited by

MLGym: A New Framework and Benchmark for Advancing AI Research Agents

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 2502.14499 v1 pith:MJGHZXSX submitted 2025-02-20 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG

classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.LG
keywords researchagentstasksframeworklearningmodelsalgorithmsbenchmark
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

We introduce Meta MLGym and MLGym-Bench, a new framework and benchmark for evaluating and developing LLM agents on AI research tasks. This is the first Gym environment for machine learning (ML) tasks, enabling research on reinforcement learning (RL) algorithms for training such agents. MLGym-bench consists of 13 diverse and open-ended AI research tasks from diverse domains such as computer vision, natural language processing, reinforcement learning, and game theory. Solving these tasks requires real-world AI research skills such as generating new ideas and hypotheses, creating and processing data, implementing ML methods, training models, running experiments, analyzing the results, and iterating through this process to improve on a given task. We evaluate a number of frontier large language models (LLMs) on our benchmarks such as Claude-3.5-Sonnet, Llama-3.1 405B, GPT-4o, o1-preview, and Gemini-1.5 Pro. Our MLGym framework makes it easy to add new tasks, integrate and evaluate models or agents, generate synthetic data at scale, as well as develop new learning algorithms for training agents on AI research tasks. We find that current frontier models can improve on the given baselines, usually by finding better hyperparameters, but do not generate novel hypotheses, algorithms, architectures, or substantial improvements. We open-source our framework and benchmark to facilitate future research in advancing the AI research capabilities of LLM agents.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 14 Pith papers

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

  1. One Run Is Not an Idea: The Implementation Lottery in Automated Research

    cs.MA 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    In audits of 312 LLM research assignments, variation across implementations of the same idea dominates rerun noise and reverses the selected idea winner in 25.6-43.6% of decisions.

  2. NatureBench: Can Coding Agents Match the Published SOTA of Nature-Family Papers?

    cs.CL 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    NatureBench evaluates ten frontier AI coding agents on 90 tasks from Nature papers under web-search-disabled conditions and finds the strongest agent surpasses published SOTA on only 17.8% of tasks, succeeding mainly ...

  3. 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.

  4. Autoresearch with Coding Agents: Generalizers and Metric-Maximizers on Quran Recitation Data

    cs.SE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Claude Code generalizes while OpenAI Codex memorizes evaluation rows under an ungated autoresearch score; disclosing a held-out set removes the memorization but not the optimization drive.

  5. DeepTRACE: Auditing Deep Research AI Systems for Tracking Reliability Across Citations and Evidence

    cs.CL 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    An audit framework and empirical study showing that generative search engines and deep research agents frequently produce one-sided answers and weakly supported citations, with citation accuracy between 40 and 80%.

  6. LLM-First Search: Self-Guided Exploration of the Solution Space

    cs.AI 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    LLM-First Search, where the model itself decides whether to continue or backtrack during reasoning, outperforms MCTS, BestFS, and ToT-BFS on harder Countdown and Sudoku tasks while using fewer tokens.

  7. Agent-X: Evaluating Deep Multimodal Reasoning in Vision-Centric Agentic Tasks

    cs.CV 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Agent-X, a new 828-task benchmark with step-level scoring, finds that the best multimodal agents still fail over half of real-world visual tool-use tasks.

  8. MM-Agent: LLM as Agents for Real-world Mathematical Modeling Problem

    cs.AI 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    MM-Agent, a multi-stage LLM pipeline with a hierarchical modeling method library, is claimed to outperform prior agents and award-winning human solutions on a new 111-problem MCM/ICM-based mathematical modeling benchmark.

  9. Is Inter-Seed Cross-Play Enough? Evaluating the Robustness of Zero-Shot Coordination Algorithms to Implementation Details

    cs.AI 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    For Other-Play in Yokai, agents trained with different implementation details coordinate across implementations about as well as across seeds, supporting inter-seed cross-play as a proxy for cross-implementation evaluation.

  10. TextAtari: 100K Frames Game Playing with Language Agents

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    TextAtari is a text-based Atari benchmark for language agents; 7-8B LLMs stay below 10% of human scores in over 90% of tested conditions, and knowledge injection helps more than chain-of-thought.

  11. AI for Auto-Research: Roadmap & User Guide

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    The paper delivers a stage-by-stage roadmap for AI in research, showing reliable assistance in retrieval and tool tasks but fragility in novelty and judgment, advocating human-governed collaboration.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. Kaleidoscopic Teaming in Multi Agent Simulations

    cs.AI 2025-06

Pith tools