# Benchmarking Large Language Models as AI Research Agents

Qian Huang, Jian Vora, Percy Liang, Jure Leskovec
Stanford University
{qhwang, jianv, pliang<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
###### Abstract

Scientific experimentation involves an iterative process of creating
hypotheses, designing experiments, running experiments, and analyzing the
results. Can we build AI research agents to perform these long-horizon tasks?
To take a step towards building and evaluating research agents on such open-
ended decision-making tasks, we focus on the problem of machine learning
engineering: given a task description and a dataset, build a high-performing
model. In this paper, we propose MLAgentBench, a suite of ML tasks for
benchmarking AI research agents. Agents can perform actions like
reading/writing files, executing code, and inspecting outputs. With these
actions, agents could run experiments, analyze the results, and modify the
code of entire machine learning pipelines, such as data processing,
architecture, training processes, etc. The benchmark then automatically
evaluates the agent’s performance objectively over various metrics related to
performance and efficiency. We also design an LLM-based research agent to
automatically perform experimentation loops in such an environment.
Empirically, we find that a GPT-4-based research agent can feasibly build
compelling ML models over many tasks in MLAgentBench, displaying highly
interpretable plans and actions. However, the success rates vary considerably;
they span from almost 90% on well-established older datasets to as low as 10%
on recent Kaggle Challenges – unavailable during the LLM model’s pretraining –
and even 0% on newer research challenges like BabyLM. Finally, we identify
several key challenges for LLM-based research agents such as long-term
planning and hallucination. Our code is released at https://github.com/snap-
stanford/MLAgentBench.

##  1 Introduction

Human researchers have the ability to carry out scientific discoveries that
involve open-ended decision-making at every step, diving deep into the realms
of the unknown. Equipped with accumulated scientific knowledge, human
researchers tread paths less traveled, making groundbreaking discoveries along
the way. Such exploratory prowess raises an intriguing question: Is it
possible to construct AI research agents with similar capacities? A competent
research agent, armed with extensive prior knowledge, should have the
capability to independently i) hypothesisize new research ideas, and ii)
validate these ideas through well-crafted experimental trials. The help of
such research agents will enable human researchers to pursue more diverse and
ambitious research directions efficiently.

However, evaluating the performance of such research agents that can interact
with the environment freely and make open-ended decisions is challenging: the
interaction process could be slow, resource-intensive, and hard to evaluate
quantitatively. Consequently, we focus on the domain of ML research, where the
experiment cycle is relatively short and digital with clear objective metrics
(e.g. model accuracy), yet still open-ended and challenging with the execution
of arbitrarily complex code and the interactions with different types of data.

Specifically, we focus on the problem of having research agents develop/edit
ML models given a task description and a dataset. Such an ML-focused research
agent could be very helpful simply for automating the engineering portion of
ML research. It would allow ML researchers to carry out many more explorations
by instructing research agents to implement and test specific algorithms. To
accomplish this, we first need a reliable and deterministic benchmarking
environment where an agent can operate, its performance can be measured
quantitatively, and be compared with different agents.

Figure 1: Overview of MLAgentBench. Each task is specified with a task
description (i.e. the goal) and a set of files (which include code and data).
Given these, a research agent can perform actions such as reading/writing
files and executing python code. During the interaction, we collect
interaction traces including each action, observation, and snapshot of the
workspace. Finally, the agent is evaluated based on the interaction trace and
the final artifact produced (e.g., submission.csv).

In this paper, we propose MLAgentBench, the first benchmark for evaluating AI
research agents capable of open-ended decision-making (Figure 1). In essence,
our MLAgentBench introduces a general framework for specifying well-scoped
executable research tasks and automatically evaluates research agents on these
tasks. Concretely, each research task is specified with a task description and
a set of necessary files (including starter code and data e.g. Kaggle data
package). Given these, a research agent can perform actions like
reading/writing files and executing code, similar to the interface used by a
human researcher. During the agent’s interaction with the environment, we
collect its interaction traces, i.e. agent actions and intermediate snapshots
of the workspace, for evaluation. We evaluate the research agent along three
aspects: 1) competence in accomplishing the objectives, e.g. success rate and
the average amounts of improvements, 2) reasoning and research process, e.g.
how the agent achieved the result or what mistakes it made, and 3) efficiency,
measured by the amount of time and resources spent by the agent.

As an initial curation effort, we include 15 ML engineering tasks from diverse
domains ranging in various difficulties and recency (Table 1), where the
experiments are generally fast to perform and inexpensive. We provide simple
starter codes for some of these tasks to ensure that the agent can make
submissions properly. For example, one task is to increase a baseline
Convolution Neural Networks (CNN) model performance on the cifar10 dataset
(Krizhevsky, 2009) by more than 10%. Beyond very well-established datasets
like cifar10, we also include a few months old Kaggle challenges and other
newer research datasets to see whether the research agent can extrapolate to
newer datasets unseen during (pre-)training. In the future, we aim to expand
our tasks set to more diverse scientific research tasks in different domains.

In light of the recent development of generative agents based on Large
language models (LLMs) (Yao et al., 2022; Shinn et al., 2023; Wang et al.,
2023; aut, 2023; Schick et al., 2023; Park et al., 2023), we also design a
simple LLM-based research agent that can automatically make research plans,
read/edit scripts, perform experiments, interpret results, and continue with
next-step experiments over MLAgentBench environments. LLMs have demonstrated
impressive prior knowledge ranging from everyday common sense knowledge to
specific scientific disciplines as well as great reasoning and tool-using
abilities, making them able to act and react to the broader world beyond just
direct textual chatting (OpenAI, 2023; Bubeck et al., 2023). On the high
level, we simply prompt the LLMs out-of-the-box to provide the next step
action, given an automatically constructed prompt based on all known
information about the task and prior actions. Many specific components in
constructing the prompt take general inspiration from popular techniques for
building other LLM-based generative agents, including reasoning before action
(Yao et al., 2022), reflection (Shinn et al., 2023), step-by-step planning
(aut, 2023), and managing a research log as a memory stream (Park et al.,
2023). In addition, we also use hierarchical action and fact-checking step to
further improve the stability and factualness of the AI research agent. See
more details in Section 3.

Over MLAgentBench, we find that our AI research agent, especially when based
on GPT-4, is able to successfully build a better ML model over many tasks and
generate highly interpretable dynamic research plans along the process, though
still with many drawbacks. On well-established tasks like training a better
model over the ogbn-arxiv dataset (Hu et al., 2020), it is able to improve
upon baseline prediction successfully almost 90% of the time , with an average
improvement of 48.18%. However, the research agent struggles with Kaggle
Challenges and BabyLM (Warstadt et al., 2023), with only a 0 to 30% success
rate. We then compare results between different variants of our research agent
as well as the adaptation of other existing agents. Interestingly, we found
that maintaining the memory stream could actively hurt the performance on
simple tasks, potentially as a distraction and encouraging agent to pursue
complex changes. We also identify several key challenges for LLM-based
research agent designs, e.g. how to effectively plan and replan over long
horizons and hallucination about the current progress, and show how our design
handles them qualitatively. Overall, our research agent demonstrates
preliminary feasibility and success with LLM-based research agents, but there
is still a long way until they can succeed reliably.

##  2 MLAgentBench: Benchmarking ML Research Agents

Our MLAgentBench introduces a general framework for specifying well-scoped
executable research tasks and automatically evaluating agents on these tasks.
The benchmark provides for a disentangled environment and agent side that
captures the entire interaction trace of the agent with the environment for
evaluation. We then include 15 concrete and diverse machine learning tasks in
the benchmark. In the subsequent subsections, we shall be describing some key
components of MLAgentBench.

###  2.1 Task Specification

Our task specification scheme is designed to be general and similar to the
human-facing interface, making it easy to add new tasks and translate to
collaborating with human researchers in the future. Each research task is
specified in two parts:

#### Task description.

In MLAgentBench, the task description describes the desired goal and
evaluation metric, e.g. “Given a training script on a dataset train.py,
improve upon the current model accuracy”, and how the research agent should
submit the final answer for evaluation, e.g. “Save per class probabilities for
test set examples to submission.csv”. The description could also include
constraints like limiting the model size and training epochs, or occasionally
include specific directions to approach the problem like “by fine-tuning a
pretrained BERT model”.

#### Files.

In MLAgentBench, we provide the agent with a prepared set of files and data
necessary for each task so that the agent should not need to browse the
internet. This typically includes training and testing data (without test
labels), detailed data and metric descriptions, and some starter code. The
starter code is based on diverse ML frameworks, including PyTorch (Paszke et
al., 2019), TensorFlow (Abadi et al., 2015), JAX (Bradbury et al., 2018),
Keras Chollet et al. (2015), etc. The starter code mostly implements a simple
baseline model that we can compare with during evaluation, but some tasks do
have have any baseline implementation, and the agent is responsible for coding
up the model from scratch from the task description and dataset files.

###  2.2 Task Environment

With a task specification as described above, each task in MLAgentBench can be
seen as an RL environment where AI research agents can perform actions and
receive observations. Some primitive actions that are available in the
benchmark include file system operations (read, write, append, copy, edit,
undo edit), execution of any arbitrary Python script111More broadly this can
include more specialized actions like running a biology experiment for a
Biology research agent. This has been restricted to Python code execution for
an ML research agent., and a final answer declaration action. Each action is
specified with a name, description, usage, return value description, and a
Python implementation.

The set of actions that an agent could execute could be augmented with hand-
written or generated high-level actions, which have the same interface as a
primitive action but perform a composition of multiple actions interleaved
with other operations like LLM calls. This can be seen as a modular skill
library that provides transferrable high-level skills to all agents across all
tasks. At the beginning of each task, MLAgentBench will first prepare a
workspace directory for the research agent by copying relevant files and data
from the task specification. The task description and information of all
available actions are also stored as queriable variables of the environment
object.

The research agent can then submit an action name and action arguments as a
dictionary to the environment object, which will return back the proper
observation as a string. For example, the agent could call
env.execute(Action("Read File", "train.py")), and obtain the content of the
file train.py in the working directory as the observation. The agent can
interact with the environment many times until it decides to submit the final
answer, or the environment shuts down itself due to exceeding a maximum number
of actions or maximum time (both of which are specified as environment
variables).

Finally, all actions and snapshots of the workspace after each action is
executed are recorded as an interaction trace. We keep track of all the
primitive actions which makes it possible to reproduce and analyze the
performance irrespective of differing composite skills used by different
agents. Thus, the interaction trace captured by the environment is agnostic to
agent implementation and can be compared directly across agents.

###  2.3 Evaluation

Given the interaction traces collected, we can then evaluate the AI research
agent from three aspects:

#### Competence in accomplishing the objectives.

We evaluate a single performance metric based on each final snapshot of the
working directory. For most of the tasks, we can simply evaluate the
performance (e.g. accuracy) based on the final "submission.csv". We then
compute aggregated metrics like success rate at fulfilling the research
objective and the average amount of improvement (e.g. upon the baseline
solution in the starter code) over multiple runs to test reliability and
generalizability.

#### Reasoning and research process.

With the interaction trace collected, we can further evaluate the agent in
terms of interpretability and more detailed error modes. We found this
process-based evaluation to be more helpful for agent development than a
single black box score. To automate this, we can evaluate the interaction
trace against a set of rubrics, such as whether the agent was stuck on
debugging, by prompting GPT-3.5. However, here we performed a human evaluation
due to the unreliability of an LLM-based evaluation.

#### Efficiency.

We evaluate the efficiency in terms of the total amount of wall clock time
spent and the total amount of resource cost (i.e. number of tokens for LLM-
based agents).

###  2.4 Concrete Tasks

We include $15$ tasks from diverse domains including Natural Language
Processing, Computer Vision, Time Series prediction, Graph ML, and Tabular
data as shown in Table 1. Our tasks include both well-studied datasets like
cifar10 and open challenges like Parkinson’s disease progression prediction
from Kaggle which were not present in the language model pre-training. The
tasks are chosen such that they range in various difficulties and recency to
test the generalizability of the research agent and avoid data contamination.
They are divided to the following categories:

Type | Task | Modality | Dataset Name
---|---|---|---
Canonical | Classification | Image | cifar10 (Krizhevsky, 2009)
Tasks | Classification | Text | imdb (Maas et al., 2011)
| Node Classification | Graph | ogbn-arxiv (Hu et al., 2020)
Classic | Regression | Tabular | house-price (Anna Montoya, 2016)
Kaggle | Classification | Tabular | spaceship-titanic (Howard et al., 2022)
| Regression | Time Series | parkinsons-disease (Kirsch et al., 2023)
Kaggle | Classification | Image | fathomnet (Woodward et al., 2023)
Challenges | Regression | Text | feedback (Franklin et al., 2022)
| Segmentation | Images | identify-contrails (Sarna et al., 2023)
Current | Node Regression | Graph | CLRS (Veličković et al., 2022)
Research | Language Modeling | Text | BabyLM (Warstadt et al., 2023)
Improve | Improve speed | Text | llama-inference
Code | Improve speed | Image | vectorization
LLM | Implement tool | n/a | literature-review-tool
Tools | Implement tool | n/a | bibtex-generation
Table 1: MLAgentBench tasks.

#### Canonical Tasks.

We included cifar10 (image classification) (Krizhevsky, 2009), imdb (sentiment
classification) (Maas et al., 2011), and ogbn-arxiv (paper category
classification over citation network) (Hu et al., 2020) as canonical tasks
that are well-studied and easy to iterate on. For cifar10 and ogbn-arxiv, the
task was to improve a baseline model, but for imdb, the agent was expected to
write the model from scratch which involved finetuning a BERT model as
mentioned in the task description.

#### Classic Kaggle.

House-price (Anna Montoya, 2016) and spaceship-titanic (Howard et al., 2022)
are two introductory Kaggle challenges for tabular regression and
classification. These tasks mainly involve feature engineering, writing, and
training models from scratch (no baselines provided), and properly following
the Kaggle submission format.

#### Kaggle Challenges.

We select four recent Kaggle Challenges launched from 2 to 10 months ago to
test research agents’ ability to generalize to more realistic and out-of-
distribution tasks.

#### Current Research.

We include CLRS (Veličković et al., 2022) and BabyLM (Warstadt et al., 2023)
as two example datasets that are actively being researched and do not yet have
a consensus on the best approaches. CLRS dataset involves modeling classic
algorithms over graphs and lists. BabyLM requires training a language model
over 10M words.

#### Improve Code.

We include llama-inference and vectorization as two examples where AI research
agent is asked to improve the runtime of code instead of optimizing its
prediction performance. llama-inference is about improving the autoregressive
generation speed of the Llama 7B model (Touvron et al., 2023), and
vectorization is about speeding up the inference of a convolutional model with
stacks of for loops in the forward pass.

#### LLM Tools.

We also design two scenarios where the research agent is instructed to write
LLM-based research tools, which can perform literature review and generate
BibTeX from sketch.

More details on the benchmark setup can be found in Appendix A. The above
tasks are incorporated as an initial curation and we hope to continuously
expand this benchmark with the help of the open-source community.

##  3 LLM-based Research Agent

Figure 2: Overview of our LLM-based research agent.

We design a simple LLM-based research agent as shown in Figure 2. On a high
level, we prompt the LLM to provide the next step action and action arguments
in a JSON format. The prompt starts with a description of all the tools
available, the task description, research-specific instructions, a template to
instruct LLM to produce text in parsable format, and the historical steps
taken (see Appendix D for a full example of what prompt the agent sees at each
interaction step). Given the LLM response, we post-process it to action and
action arguments for the environment to execute. In the subsequent
subsections, we detail some important components of our LLM-based research
agent.

###  3.1 Thinking before Acting

One important component is specifying the response format, so that LLM can
first think in specific ways before proposing action. Specifically, we
instruct LLM to include a list of entries in the response. In our research
agent prototype, this includes Reflection, Research Plan and Status, Fact
Check, Thought, and then Action and Action Input. Among these, Thought and
Reflection are inspired by React and Reflexion (Yao et al., 2022; Shinn et
al., 2023). Research Plan and Status entry is designed to produce better
planning and keep track of what has been done; Fact Check is added to double-
check whether a result has been confirmed or hallucinated. We discuss this
more in Appendix B.1 and B.2.

###  3.2 Research Log

Since the research agent can perform many actions during the entire
interaction, it is often infeasible to simply put all historical responses in
the context length of LLM. Thus, reducing prompt length is one of the key
challenges for generative agents. In our research agent, we use a design
similar to the memory stream paradigm from (Park et al., 2023). Specifically,
we append a summary of the LLM response and the observation in each step to a
Research Log file. Then we can retrieve relevant information from this
Research Log, and concatenate with several recent full LLM responses to form
the historical context. With this design, the Research Log file itself then
also becomes a normal file available for the agent to query and modify, as
exemplified by the Reflection action below.

###  3.3 Hierarchical actions

We manually designed a few commonly useful high-level actions that perform
several primitive environment actions and separate modular LLM calls together.
The most important ones are:

#### Understand File.

This action reads a long file and calls another LLM to summarize and retrieve
information relevant to a short input query from it.

#### Reflection.

It allows the agent to perfom reflection by reading in the content of the
Research Log file and prompting another LLM to reflect on a short input query.

#### Edit Script.

This action first reads in a file, calls another LLM to perform an edit of a
file given a short input instruction from the main Research agent, then writes
the modified version back. We also include a different version,  Edit Script
Segment, which also takes start and end lines as arguments and only edits the
segment in between, when the task involves a large code base (i.e. CLRS and
BabyLM).

##  4 Experiments

We evaluate our designed research agent with GPT-4 (OpenAI, 2023) and Claude-1
(Anthropic, 2023) on MLAgentBench. Aside from the full form, we consider a no-
retrieval variant, where the Research Log component is removed, and hence the
agent has no long-term memory.

We also benchmark the direct adaptation of several existing generative agents:
1) AutoGPT, a popular open-source project for general-purpose autonomous AI
agents (aut, 2023), and 2) LangChain, another popular framework that
implements various generative agent. Here we use "zero-shot-react-description"
which implements ReAct (Yao et al., 2022). We use Claude-1 for both agents.

We conduct 25 runs for all agents using Claude-1, and 8 runs for GPT-4 agents
to average out the evaluation metrics. For Claude-1 runs, we allow a maximum
of $50$ actions in the environment, whereas for GPT-4 runs we only allow 30
actions due to the cost associated with GPT-4 API calls.

###  4.1 Competence in Accomplishing The Objectives

Figure 3: Success Rate, i.e. the percentages of runs that achieve more than
10% improvement at the last step over the average performance of the baseline
in starter code.

As shown in Figure 3 and 4, the GPT-4 agent achieves the best results over
almost all tasks, but with varying degrees of success from more than 80% over
ogbn-arxiv to 0% over BabyLM. The average improvements made are also generally
large and positive. Agents with Claude-1 perform generally worse, except on
house-price dataset. We excluded the LLM Tools tasks in our plots since they
do not have numerical scores as others. In general, we did not observe any
runs that successfully completed the two tasks, though a few runs came close
with only minor issues left to debug.

Interestingly, agents without a Research Log perform better than those with it
for easier tasks. The most notable example is on canonical tasks (cifar10,
imdb, and ogbn-arxiv): we observe that no Research Log surprisingly
outperforms with Research Log significantly and Claude-1 without Research Log
could even outperform GPT-4 with Research Log on cifar10. This could be due to
the simplicity of cifar10, that too much past history becomes more of a
distraction compared to just operating locally and greedily. With Research
Log, the agent is also generally more prone to pursue bigger changes that
cause it to stuck in debugging. However, on more complex tasks beyond
canonical tasks, Research Log seems generally helpful.

Comparing our proposed research agent with existing agents with Claude-1, our
research agent achieves a much better success rate on cifar10, ogbn-arxiv,
house-price, spaceship-titanic, and CLRS. However, the close to zero success
rates of all Claude-1-based agents on other datasets make it hard to draw a
definite conclusion.

Figure 4: Average Improvement over the baseline in starter code among the runs
that made a valid submission at the last step.

###  4.2 Reasoning and Research Process

We show a full example (without the Research Log for simplicity) on cifar10 to
demonstrate what our research agent actually does qualitatively in Appendix D.
As shown in the full example, our research agent generally follows the cycle
of making/revising research plans, editing scripts, performing experiments,
interpreting results, etc. To more carefully evaluate the reasoning and
research process of the agent, we analyze the traces of runs for cifar10 and
categorize most runs as shown in Figure 6:

  1. 1.

Hallucination, where the agent claims to know something or fabricates some
results such as claiming performance increase without even executing any edits
in the training script.

  2. 2.

Debugging, where the agent fails to debug its modification to the code. For
the benchmark, most of this is related to mismatched shapes and variable
names, and indentation errors.

  3. 3.

Token Length, where the agent fails because the automatically constructed
prompt was too long, exceeding the context length of the language model.

  4. 4.

Bad Plan, where the agent fails to make a plan that brings direct progress
(such as dropping some features of the data before finding the utility of
those in predicting that target). Most of these bad plans occur in the initial
steps and recovery of the agent is difficult post that.

  5. 5.

Success, where the agent knowingly completes the task given and declares a
final answer.

Note that GPT-4 based research agent is able to avoid hallucination and
debugging problems, but tends to fail more due to bad plans. We show more
detailed quantitative analysis in Appendix B, which shows the benefit of
Research Plan and Status entries for long-term interpretable planning and Fack
Check entries against hallucination.

Figure 5: Percentage of runs over cifar10 task that falls into different
categories for reasoning and research process evaluation.

Figure 6: Comparing different agents in terms of efficiency, i.e. the number
of tokens spent (on x axis and the smaller the better) and success rate (on y
axis and the higher the better).

###  4.3 Efficiency

We compare the average amount of tokens and time spent by different agents for
all tasks in Figure 6, for each task in Figure 7 and 8 in the Appendix. On
average, GPT-4 based agents are the most efficient, spending 119.1% less
tokens due to their efficiency in finishing the task and submitting early,
while having the highest success rate too. Note that it does spend more time
due to the slower API and longer time spent on running experiments. Converting
with the current API prices, each run on each task only costs a few dollars.
However, the actual cost becomes prominent quickly when divided by the success
rate, making reliability important for the usability of the research agents.

##  5 Related Works

###  5.1 AI for Science

Numerous research endeavors seek to enhance the pace of manual observations
and experiments through automated ML predictions (Berens et al., 2023; Zhang
et al., 2023b; Jumper et al., 2021; Adam-Bourdarios et al., 2016; Schwaller et
al., 2017). On the other hand, significant line of inquiry revolves around
constructing closed-loop systems capable of conducting ongoing experiments and
breakthroughs within specific domains (Kramer et al., 2023; Kitano, 2021). For
example, Robot Scientist “Adam” is developed to autonomously generate
functional genomics hypotheses about the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae and
experimentally test these hypotheses by using laboratory automation (King et
al., 2009; 2004). Nevertheless, these existing systems are highly tailored to
process specific types of data for designated tasks and domains. Our work aims
to push toward the ultimate goal of a general and versatile research agent
that can perform open-ended decision-making.

###  5.2 Generative agents

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive prior knowledge
ranging from everyday common sense knowledge to specific scientific
disciplines like Computer Science and Chemistry (OpenAI, 2023; Bubeck et al.,
2023). Meanwhile, LLMs are also shown to have great reasoning and tool-using
abilities, making them able to act and react to the broader world beyond just
direct textual chatting (Yao et al., 2022; Schick et al., 2023). This
combination of strong prior knowledge and action/reaction abilities of LLMs
gives rise to explorations of developing various LLM-based generative agents,
such as generative agents for simulating interactions between humans (Park et
al., 2023), Voyager for playing Minecraft (Wang et al., 2023), Say-Can for
physical robotics (Ahn et al., 2022), as well as open source projects like
AutoGPT (aut, 2023) for everything and commercial product like Adapt.ai for
internet interactions. However, it is hard to evaluate the performance and
reliability of these agents, especially over a long horizon of complex
interactions. Moreover, such under-studied experimental generative agents can
become increasingly dangerous when allowed to interact directly with personal
data, the internet, or even bank accounts and military devices. From this
perspective, our MLAgentBench offers a test bed for generative agents with the
desired combination of containability, complexity, evaluability, and practical
usefulness.

###  5.3 LLMs for AutoML

Several concurrent works have explored using LLMs for AutoML type of tasks:
AutoML-GPT (Zhang et al., 2023c) repeatedly prompts LLMs with data and model
cards and predicts training logs to perform efficient hyperparameter tuning;
MLcopilot (Zhang et al., 2023a) prompts LLMs with past experiences and
knowledge to predict one final categorized hyperparameter setting (e.g. low or
high weight decay). In contrast, our work focuses on benchmarking and
developing research agents that can perform very open-ended decisions by
interacting with file systems and executing code with full flexibility. For
future work, it would interesting to incorporate these existing works into our
research agents to further improve their efficiency and ability to learn from
past experience continuously.

##  6 Conclusion

In this paper, we propose MLAgentBench for benchmarking AI research agents on
performing ML research tasks end-to-end with access to a compute cluster. We
also develop an LLM-based prototype research agent that can accomplish many
tasks in MLAgentBench with varying success rates. In the future, we would like
to pursue a more robust research agent and expand MLAgentBench with more
complex and creative tasks accordingly. We would also like to explore the
usability of AI research agents from a human-AI collaboration perspective with
real user studies.

## References

  * aut (2023) Significant-gravitas/auto-gpt: An experimental open-source attempt to make gpt-4 fully autonomous.  https://github.com/Significant-Gravitas/Auto-GPT, 2023.
  * Abadi et al. (2015) Martín Abadi, Ashish Agarwal, Paul Barham, Eugene Brevdo, Zhifeng Chen, Craig Citro, Greg S. Corrado, Andy Davis, Jeffrey Dean, Matthieu Devin, Sanjay Ghemawat, Ian Goodfellow, Andrew Harp, Geoffrey Irving, Michael Isard, Yangqing Jia, Rafal Jozefowicz, Lukasz Kaiser, Manjunath Kudlur, Josh Levenberg, Dandelion Mané, Rajat Monga, Sherry Moore, Derek Murray, Chris Olah, Mike Schuster, Jonathon Shlens, Benoit Steiner, Ilya Sutskever, Kunal Talwar, Paul Tucker, Vincent Vanhoucke, Vijay Vasudevan, Fernanda Viégas, Oriol Vinyals, Pete Warden, Martin Wattenberg, Martin Wicke, Yuan Yu, and Xiaoqiang Zheng.  TensorFlow: Large-scale machine learning on heterogeneous systems, 2015.  URL https://www.tensorflow.org/.  Software available from tensorflow.org.
  * Adam-Bourdarios et al. (2016) Claire Adam-Bourdarios, Glen Cowan, Cécile Germain, Isabelle M Guyon, Balázs Kégl, and David Rousseau.  How machine learning won the higgs boson challenge.  In _The European Symposium on Artificial Neural Networks_ , 2016.
  * Ahn et al. (2022) Michael Ahn, Anthony Brohan, Noah Brown, Yevgen Chebotar, Omar Cortes, Byron David, Chelsea Finn, Keerthana Gopalakrishnan, Karol Hausman, Alexander Herzog, Daniel Ho, Jasmine Hsu, Julian Ibarz, Brian Ichter, Alex Irpan, Eric Jang, Rosario Jauregui Ruano, Kyle Jeffrey, Sally Jesmonth, Nikhil Jayant Joshi, Ryan C. Julian, Dmitry Kalashnikov, Yuheng Kuang, Kuang-Huei Lee, Sergey Levine, Yao Lu, Linda Luu, Carolina Parada, Peter Pastor, Jornell Quiambao, Kanishka Rao, Jarek Rettinghouse, Diego M Reyes, Pierre Sermanet, Nicolas Sievers, Clayton Tan, Alexander Toshev, Vincent Vanhoucke, F. Xia, Ted Xiao, Peng Xu, Sichun Xu, and Mengyuan Yan.  Do as i can, not as i say: Grounding language in robotic affordances.  In _Conference on Robot Learning_ , 2022.
  * Anna Montoya (2016) DataCanary Anna Montoya.  House prices - advanced regression techniques, 2016.  URL https://kaggle.com/competitions/house-prices-advanced-regression-techniques.
  * Anthropic (2023) Anthropic.  Introducing claude, 2023.  URL https://www.anthropic.com/index/introducing-claude.
  * Berens et al. (2023) Philipp Berens, Kyle Cranmer, Neil D. Lawrence, Ulrike von Luxburg, and Jessica Montgomery.  Ai for science: An emerging agenda.  _ArXiv_ , abs/2303.04217, 2023.
  * Bradbury et al. (2018) James Bradbury, Roy Frostig, Peter Hawkins, Matthew James Johnson, Chris Leary, Dougal Maclaurin, George Necula, Adam Paszke, Jake VanderPlas, Skye Wanderman-Milne, and Qiao Zhang.  JAX: composable transformations of Python+NumPy programs, 2018.  URL http://github.com/google/jax.
  * Bubeck et al. (2023) Sébastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, John A. Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuan-Fang Li, Scott M. Lundberg, Harsha Nori, Hamid Palangi, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, and Yi Zhang.  Sparks of artificial general intelligence: Early experiments with gpt-4.  _ArXiv_ , abs/2303.12712, 2023.
  * Chollet et al. (2015) Francois Chollet et al.  Keras, 2015.  URL https://github.com/fchollet/keras.
  * Franklin et al. (2022) Alex Franklin, Maggie, Meg Benner, Natalie Rambis, Perpetual Baffour, Ryan Holbrook, Scott Crossley, and ulrichboser.  Feedback prize - english language learning, 2022.  URL https://kaggle.com/competitions/feedback-prize-english-language-learning.
  * Howard et al. (2022) Addison Howard, Ashley Chow, and Ryan Holbrook.  Spaceship titanic, 2022.  URL https://kaggle.com/competitions/spaceship-titanic.
  * Hu et al. (2020) Weihua Hu, Matthias Fey, Marinka Zitnik, Yuxiao Dong, Hongyu Ren, Bowen Liu, Michele Catasta, and Jure Leskovec.  Open graph benchmark: Datasets for machine learning on graphs.  _ArXiv_ , abs/2005.00687, 2020.
  * Jumper et al. (2021) John M. Jumper, Richard Evans, Alexander Pritzel, Tim Green, Michael Figurnov, Olaf Ronneberger, Kathryn Tunyasuvunakool, Russ Bates, Augustin Zídek, Anna Potapenko, Alex Bridgland, Clemens Meyer, Simon A A Kohl, Andy Ballard, Andrew Cowie, Bernardino Romera-Paredes, Stanislav Nikolov, Rishub Jain, Jonas Adler, Trevor Back, Stig Petersen, David A. Reiman, Ellen Clancy, Michal Zielinski, Martin Steinegger, Michalina Pacholska, Tamas Berghammer, Sebastian Bodenstein, David Silver, Oriol Vinyals, Andrew W. Senior, Koray Kavukcuoglu, Pushmeet Kohli, and Demis Hassabis.  Highly accurate protein structure prediction with alphafold.  _Nature_ , 596:583 – 589, 2021.
  * King et al. (2004) Ross D. King, Ken E. Whelan, Ffion Mair Jones, Philip G. K. Reiser, Christopher H. Bryant, Stephen H. Muggleton, Douglas B. Kell, and Stephen G. Oliver.  Functional genomic hypothesis generation and experimentation by a robot scientist.  _Nature_ , 427:247–252, 2004.
  * King et al. (2009) Ross D. King, Jem J. Rowland, Stephen G. Oliver, Michael Young, Wayne Aubrey, Emma Byrne, Maria Liakata, Magdalena Markham, Pınar Pir, Larisa N. Soldatova, Andrew Sparkes, Ken E. Whelan, and Amanda Clare.  The automation of science.  _Science_ , 324:85 – 89, 2009.
  * Kirsch et al. (2023) Leslie Kirsch, Sohier Dane, Stacey Adam, and Victoria Dardov.  Amp®-parkinson’s disease progression prediction, 2023.  URL https://kaggle.com/competitions/amp-parkinsons-disease-progression-prediction.
  * Kitano (2021) Hiroaki Kitano.  Nobel turing challenge: creating the engine for scientific discovery.  _NPJ Systems Biology and Applications_ , 7, 2021.
  * Kramer et al. (2023) Stefan Kramer, Mattia Cerrato, Saso Dzeroski, and Ross D. King.  Automated scientific discovery: From equation discovery to autonomous discovery systems.  _ArXiv_ , abs/2305.02251, 2023.
  * Krizhevsky (2009) Alex Krizhevsky.  Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images.  2009\.
  * Maas et al. (2011) Andrew L. Maas, Raymond E. Daly, Peter T. Pham, Dan Huang, Andrew Y. Ng, and Christopher Potts.  Learning word vectors for sentiment analysis.  In _Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies_ , pp. 142–150, Portland, Oregon, USA, June 2011. Association for Computational Linguistics.  URL http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P11-1015.
  * OpenAI (2023) OpenAI.  Gpt-4 technical report.  _ArXiv_ , abs/2303.08774, 2023.
  * Park et al. (2023) Joon Sung Park, Joseph C. O’Brien, Carrie J. Cai, Meredith Ringel Morris, Percy Liang, and Michael S. Bernstein.  Generative agents: Interactive simulacra of human behavior.  _ArXiv_ , abs/2304.03442, 2023.
  * Paszke et al. (2019) Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, Alban Desmaison, Andreas Kopf, Edward Yang, Zachary DeVito, Martin Raison, Alykhan Tejani, Sasank Chilamkurthy, Benoit Steiner, Lu Fang, Junjie Bai, and Soumith Chintala.  Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library.  In _Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32_ , pp. 8024–8035. Curran Associates, Inc., 2019.  URL http://papers.neurips.cc/paper/9015-pytorch-an-imperative-style-high-performance-deep-learning-library.pdf.
  * Sarna et al. (2023) Aaron Sarna, Carl Elkin, inversion, Joe Ng, Maggie, and Walter Reade.  Google research - identify contrails to reduce global warming, 2023.  URL https://kaggle.com/competitions/google-research-identify-contrails-reduce-global-warming.
  * Schick et al. (2023) Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Roberto Dessì, Roberta Raileanu, Maria Lomeli, Luke Zettlemoyer, Nicola Cancedda, and Thomas Scialom.  Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools.  _ArXiv_ , abs/2302.04761, 2023.
  * Schwaller et al. (2017) Philippe Schwaller, Théophile Gaudin, David Lanyi, Constantine Bekas, and Teodoro Laino.  “found in translation”: predicting outcomes of complex organic chemistry reactions using neural sequence-to-sequence models† †electronic supplementary information (esi) available: Time-split test set and example predictions, together with attention weights, confidence and token probabilities. see do.  _Chemical Science_ , 9:6091 – 6098, 2017.
  * Shinn et al. (2023) Noah Shinn, Beck Labash, and Ashwin Gopinath.  Reflexion: an autonomous agent with dynamic memory and self-reflection.  _ArXiv_ , abs/2303.11366, 2023.
  * Touvron et al. (2023) Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, Aur’elien Rodriguez, Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, and Guillaume Lample.  Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models.  _ArXiv_ , abs/2302.13971, 2023.
  * Veličković et al. (2022) Petar Veličković, Adrià Puigdomènech Badia, David Budden, Razvan Pascanu, Andrea Banino, Misha Dashevskiy, Raia Hadsell, and Charles Blundell.  The clrs algorithmic reasoning benchmark.  _arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.15659_ , 2022.
  * Wang et al. (2023) Guanzhi Wang, Yuqi Xie, Yunfan Jiang, Ajay Mandlekar, Chaowei Xiao, Yuke Zhu, Linxi (Jim) Fan, and Anima Anandkumar.  Voyager: An open-ended embodied agent with large language models.  _ArXiv_ , abs/2305.16291, 2023.
  * Warstadt et al. (2023) Alex Warstadt, Leshem Choshen, Aaron Mueller, Adina Williams, Ethan Gotlieb Wilcox, and Chengxu Zhuang.  Call for papers - the babylm challenge: Sample-efficient pretraining on a developmentally plausible corpus.  _ArXiv_ , abs/2301.11796, 2023.
  * Woodward et al. (2023) Ben Woodward, eor123, GenevievePatterson, and Lilli Carlsen.  Fathomnet 2023, 2023.  URL https://kaggle.com/competitions/fathomnet-out-of-sample-detection.
  * Yao et al. (2022) Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao.  React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models.  _ArXiv_ , abs/2210.03629, 2022.
  * Zhang et al. (2023a) Lei Zhang, Yuge Zhang, Kan Ren, Dongsheng Li, and Yuqing Yang.  Mlcopilot: Unleashing the power of large language models in solving machine learning tasks.  _ArXiv_ , abs/2304.14979, 2023a.  URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:258418182.
  * Zhang et al. (2023b) Mengchun Zhang, Maryam Qamar, Taegoo Kang, Yuna Jung, Chenshuang Zhang, Sung-Ho Bae, and Chaoning Zhang.  A survey on graph diffusion models: Generative ai in science for molecule, protein and material.  _ArXiv_ , abs/2304.01565, 2023b.
  * Zhang et al. (2023c) Shujian Zhang, Chengyue Gong, Lemeng Wu, Xingchao Liu, and Mi Zhou.  Automl-gpt: Automatic machine learning with gpt.  _ArXiv_ , abs/2305.02499, 2023c.  URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:258480269.

##  Appendix A Benchmark Details

For Canonical Tasks, Classic Kaggle, Kaggle Challenges and Current Research,
we require the research agent to generate a submission.csv file that contains
its prediction on test set to evaluate its performance. For CLRS and BabyLM,
we evaluate the checkpoints saved by the model directly. For these tasks, we
provide a starter code train.py that can already generate the required
submission files properly with a baseline model or dummy predictions. These
starter codes are based on diverse ML frameworks, including PyTorch,
TensorFlow, JAX, Keras, etc. For most of the tasks, the starter code
implements a simple baseline model that we then compare with, except house-
price, spaceship-titanic, imdb, and fathomnet where the given code does not
run by itself and we compare against trivial random prediction e.g. 0.5
accuracy for imdb. For Improve Code tasks, we simply time the produced code.
For LLM Tools, we perform preliminary human evaluation.

##  Appendix B Qualitative Examples

Bellow, we show some examples to demonstrate the benefits of each component in
our research agent as well as the failure modes.

###  B.1 Research Plan and Status

The Research Plan and Status entries produced by our research agent at each
step are highly detailed and interpretable, so it is both useful for guiding
the agent through the exploration process (especially no retrieval agent) and
for human understanding. Here we present one example from the no retrieval
agent with Claude-1 for cifar10 training.

At step 0, the agent comes up the following plan:

⬇

Research Plan and Status:

1. Understand the train.py script and dataset. Get familiar with the model architecture and hyperparameters.

2. Come up with a plan to improve the model performance:

- Try different hyperparameters (learning rate, batch size, etc)

- Add regularization (dropout, weight decay, etc)

- Change model architecture (more layers or nodes)

3. Define a baseline by running the original train.py script. Record accuracy on test set.

4. Try the planned improvements one by one, evaluating performance after each trial. Compare to baseline.

5. Once improved performance of at least 10% is achieved within 10 epochs, save per class probabilities for test set to submission.csv.

6. Submit final answer with details on model configuration and performance.

At step 10 before the agent submit the final answer, the agent’s plan and
status is updated to below:

⬇

Research Plan and Status:

1. Understand the train.py script and dataset. Got familiar with the model architecture (simple CNN) and hyperparameters (lr=0.1, momentum=0.9, batch size=128). Dataset is CIFAR-10.

2. Come up with a plan to improve the model performance:

- Try different hyperparameters (learning rate, batch size, etc) Increase learning rate to 0.3, decrease batch size to 64 Tried increasing LR to 0.3 in train_lr03.py but resulted in much lower accuracy

- Add regularization (dropout, weight decay, etc) Add dropout with p=0.5 after conv layers and fc layers in train_dropout.py. Improved performance but lower accuracy.

- Change model architecture (more layers or nodes) Increase number of filters in conv layers to 32 and 64 in train_arch.py. Test accuracy 64.31% after 5 epochs.

3. Define a baseline by running the original train.py script. Record accuracy on test set. Baseline test accuracy is 52.53% after 5 epochs.

4. Try the planned improvements one by one, evaluating performance after each trial. Compare to baseline. Tried increasing LR to 0.3, evaluating performance after running train_lr03.py. Performance much worse. Added dropout to train_dropout.py, test accuracy 49.34% after 5 epochs. Modified architecture in train_arch.py, test accuracy 64.31% after 5 epochs.

5. Once improved performance of at least 10% is achieved within 10 epochs, save per class probabilities for test set to submission.csv. Saved test set probabilities to submission.csv after running train_arch_submission.py.

6. Submit final answer with details on model configuration and performance.

Between these two steps, the agent gradually updated the Research Plan and
Status entry after editing the file and executing it as recorded. See the full
example in the appendix.

However, one common failure mode that this entry fails to prevent is when the
agent plans to carry out too complex an edit and becomes stuck with debugging,
which occurs in 40% of the runs for Claude-1 as shown in 6. Reflection action
is sometimes helpful for the agent to zoom back to the high-level problem, but
this also makes the agent prone to just keep reflecting without actually
performing actions.

###  B.2 Fact Check

The Fact Check entry allows the agent to double-check whether the update to
Research Plan and Status is factual. One common failure mode during our
prelimiary experiments is that the model hallucinates improvement after
modifying the file without ever executing it. With the Fact Check entry, it
will show the model that the performance of the updated model is still
unknown, e.g.

⬇

Fact Check: Performance after running train_dropout.py still needs to be
evaluated. Other facts unchanged.

Of course, this does not guard against hallucination completely. We observe
some examples where the agent hallucinates that it already knows a lot of
things about the training file through inspection even though it has not done
so. In some other cases, the model declares improvement even though the
baseline number is listed right above (e.g. 51.80%) and clearly is higher:
"Achieved test accuracy of 26.35% which improves over baseline by 10%". As
shown in 6, this happens to 20% of the runs for Claude-1

⬇

Research Plan and Status:

1. Understand the existing train.py script and extract the baseline performance. Done. Baseline test accuracy is 51.80%.

2. Analyze the hyperparameters and model architecture to determine ways of improving the performance. In progress.

3. Run experiments with new hyperparameters and model architecture. Done. Tried increasing learning rate to 0.3 and 10 epochs. Achieved test accuracy of 26.35% which improves over baseline by 10%.

...

Fact Check: The statement "**Increased learning rate to 0.3 and trained for 10
epochs. Achieved test accuracy of 26.35% which improves over baseline by 10%,
meeting the performance goal.**" is confirmed by running the train_lr03.py
script and observing the output.

###  B.3 Research Problem Misspecification

One "failure mode" we observe during the development of this benchmark is that
the research problem specification can be critical to agent performance. The
research problem description needs to clearly specify what file and what
metrics will be evaluated. In one of the extreme case, we actually observed
that our agent tried to increase SMAPE score on amp-parkinsons-disease-
progression-prediction dataset, since it does not know that SMAPE is the lower
the better:

⬇

Assistant:

Reflection: The output shows that executing the updated train.py script with
the tuned random forest model achieved a cross validation score of 76.16,
which is an improvement over the baseline score of 61.40. This confirms that
reshaping the 1D data to 2D and tuning the random forest hyperparameters
improved model performance.

...

We compare the average amount of tokens and time spent by different agents for
each task in Figure 7 and 8. Note that the total tokens is the sum prompt and
completion tokens. However, the vast majority of them are prompt tokens and
reused across steps.

##  Appendix C Efficiency

Figure 7: Average number of tokens used. Figure 8: Average total time.

##  Appendix D Full Example

⬇

You are a helpful research assistant. You have access to the following tools:

- List Files:

Use this to navigate the file system.

Usage:

‘‘‘

Action: List Files

Action Input: {

"dir_path": [a valid relative path to a directory, such as "." or
"folder1/folder2"]

}

Observation: [The observation will be a list of files and folders in dir_path
or current directory is dir_path is empty, or an error message if dir_path is
invalid.]

‘‘‘

- Copy File:

Use this to copy a file to a new location with a new name.

Usage:

‘‘‘

Action: Copy File

Action Input: {

"source": [a valid file name with relative path to current directory if
needed],

"destination": [a valid file name with relative path to current directory if
needed]

}

Observation: [A success message if the file is copied successfully, or an
error message if the file cannot be copied.]

‘‘‘

- Undo Edit Script:

Use this to undo the last edit of the python script.

Usage:

‘‘‘

Action: Undo Edit Script

Action Input: {

"script_name": [a valid python script name with relative path to current
directory if needed]

}

Observation: [The observation will be the content of the script before the
last edit. If the script does not exist, the observation will be an error
message.]

‘‘‘

- Execute Script:

Use this to execute the python script. The script must already exist.

Usage:

‘‘‘

Action: Execute Script

Action Input: {

"script_name": [a valid python script name with relative path to current
directory if needed]

}

Observation: [The observation will be output of the script or errors.]

‘‘‘

- Final Answer:

Use this to provide the final answer to the current task.

Usage:

‘‘‘

Action: Final Answer

Action Input: {

"final_answer": [a detailed description on the final answer]

}

Observation: [The observation will be empty.]

‘‘‘

- Understand File:

Use this to read the whole file and understand certain aspects. You should
provide detailed description on what to look for and what should be returned.
To get a better understanding of the file, you can use Inspect Script Lines
action to inspect specific part of the file.

Usage:

‘‘‘

Action: Understand File

Action Input: {

"file_name": [a valid file name with relative path to current directory if
needed],

"things_to_look_for": [a detailed description on what to look for and what
should returned]

}

Observation: [The observation will be a description of relevant content and
lines in the file. If the file does not exist, the observation will be an
error message.]

‘‘‘

- Inspect Script Lines:

Use this to inspect specific part of a python script precisely, or the full
content of a short script. The number of lines to display is limited to 100
lines. This is especially helpful when debugging.

Usage:

‘‘‘

Action: Inspect Script Lines

Action Input: {

"script_name": [a valid python script name with relative path to current
directory if needed],

"start_line_number": [a valid line number],

"end_line_number": [a valid line number]

}

Observation: [The observation will be the content of the script between
start_line_number and end_line_number . If the script does not exist, the
observation will be an error message.]

‘‘‘

- Edit Script (AI):

Use this to do a relatively large but cohesive edit over a python script.
Instead of editing the script directly, you should describe the edit
instruction so that another AI can help you do this.

Usage:

‘‘‘

Action: Edit Script (AI)

Action Input: {

"script_name": [a valid python script name with relative path to current
directory if needed. An empty sctipt will be created if it does not exist.],

"edit_instruction": [a detailed step by step description on how to edit it.],

"save_name": [a valid file name with relative path to current directory if
needed]

}

Observation: [The observation will be the edited content of the script. If the
script does not exist, the observation will be an error message. You should
always double check whether the edit is correct. If it is far from correct,
you can use the Undo Edit Script action to undo the edit.]

‘‘‘

Research Problem: Given a training script on a dataset train.py, improve upon
the current model performance (trained with current hyperparmeters in
train.py) for more than 10%. The training epochs should be within 10 to save
time. Save per class probabilities for test set examples to submission.csv as
shown in train.py.

You do not know anything about this problem so far.

Follow these instructions and do not forget them:

- First, come up with a high level plan based on your understanding of the problem and available tools and record it in the Research Plan and Status. You can revise the plan later.

- Research Plan and Status should well organized and succinctly keep track of 1) high level plan (can be revised), 2) what steps have been done and what steps are in progress, 3) short results and conclusions of each step after it has been performed.

- Research Plan and Status must only include progress that has been made by previous steps. It should not include results not directly confirmed by the previous observation.

- Performance numbers and estimates can only be confirmed and included in the status by running the code and observing the output.

- You should come up with a good experiment design that addresses the problem, and whenever applicable, define and measure the baseline performance of the relevant system or model before attempting any improvements.

- Follow the plan and try to achieve the goal as straightforwardly as possible.

- Highlight the supporting experiment results and reasoning before drawing any conclusions.

- Do not try installing any new packages or libraries.

- If you believe you have solved the problem, you can use the Final Answer action to submit your answer. You can only submit once, so double check that you have achieved the goal before submitting.

Always respond in this format exactly:

Reflection: What does the observation mean? If there is an error, what caused
the error and how to debug?

Research Plan and Status: The full high level research plan, with current
status and confirmed results of each step briefly annotated. It must only
include progress that has been made by previous steps. If there is any update,
enclose the new update text in double asterisks **like this**. If there is no
update, just copy the previous step Research Plan and Status. The high level
plan from the previous step should be fully retained, unless it is
intentionally revised.

Fact Check: List all objective statements in the updates to Research Plan and
Status one by one and point out whether it is guessed versus directly
confirmed by the previous observation directly above. Performance numbers can
only be confirmed by running the code and observing the output.

Thought: What you are currently doing, what actions to perform and why

Action: the action to take, should be one of the names of the tools

Action Input: the input to the action as a valid JSON string

Observation:

‘‘‘

the result of the action

‘‘‘

Step 0:

Assistant:

Reflection: I have read the problem description and tools available. The goal
is to improve the model performance on a dataset by at least 10% within 10
epochs of training.

Research Plan and Status:

1. Understand the train.py script and dataset. Get familiar with the model architecture and hyperparameters.

2. Come up with a plan to improve the model performance:

- Try different hyperparameters (learning rate, batch size, etc)

- Add regularization (dropout, weight decay, etc)

- Change model architecture (more layers or nodes)

3. Define a baseline by running the original train.py script. Record accuracy on test set.

4. Try the planned improvements one by one, evaluating performance after each trial. Compare to baseline.

5. Once improved performance of at least 10% is achieved within 10 epochs, save per class probabilities for test set to submission.csv.

6. Submit final answer with details on model configuration and performance.

Fact Check: No factual claims have been made yet, so no fact check needed.

Thought: I will start by listing the files to understand what is in the
current directory.

Action: List Files

Action Input: {"dir_path": "."}

Observation:

‘‘‘

backup/

data/

train.py

‘‘‘

Step 1:

Assistant:

Reflection: The current directory contains:

- backup folder: likely contains backup of files

- data folder: likely contains the dataset files

- train.py: the script to train the model

Research Plan and Status:

1. Understand the train.py script and dataset. Get familiar with the model architecture and hyperparameters. Listed files in current directory. train.py likely trains the model, data folder likely contains dataset.

2. Come up with a plan to improve the model performance:

- Try different hyperparameters (learning rate, batch size, etc)

- Add regularization (dropout, weight decay, etc)

- Change model architecture (more layers or nodes)

3. Define a baseline by running the original train.py script. Record accuracy on test set.

4. Try the planned improvements one by one, evaluating performance after each trial. Compare to baseline.

5. Once improved performance of at least 10% is achieved within 10 epochs, save per class probabilities for test set to submission.csv.

6. Submit final answer with details on model configuration and performance.

Fact Check: Confirmed that the data and train.py files likely serve their
assumed purposes based on filenames, but actual content not confirmed yet.

Thought: Next I will inspect the train.py script to understand the model
architecture and hyperparameters.

Action: Inspect Script Lines

Action Input: {"script_name": "train.py", "start_line_number": 1,
"end_line_number": 100}

Observation:

‘‘‘

Here are the lines (the file ends at line 106):

import torch

import torch.nn.functional as F

from torchvision import transforms, datasets

from torch.utils.data import DataLoader

import torch.nn as nn

# Add data augmentation transforms

transform = transforms.Compose([

transforms.ToTensor(),

transforms.Normalize((0.5, 0.5, 0.5), (0.5, 0.5, 0.5))

])

# Define the neural network model

class Net(nn.Module):

def __init__(self):

super().__init__()

self.conv1 = nn.Conv2d(3, 6, 5)

self.pool = nn.MaxPool2d(2, 2)

self.conv2 = nn.Conv2d(6, 16, 5)

self.fc1 = nn.Linear(16 * 5 * 5, 120)

self.fc2 = nn.Linear(120, 84)

self.fc3 = nn.Linear(84, 10)

def forward(self, x):

x = self.pool(F.relu(self.conv1(x)))

x = self.pool(F.relu(self.conv2(x)))

x = torch.flatten(x, 1) # flatten all dimensions except batch

x = F.relu(self.fc1(x))

x = F.relu(self.fc2(x))

x = self.fc3(x)

return x

# Set device for training

device = torch.device("cuda:0" if torch.cuda.is_available() else "cpu")

# Load the CIFAR-10 dataset

train_dataset = datasets.CIFAR10(root=’./data’, train=True, download=True,
transform=transform)

test_dataset = datasets.CIFAR10(root=’./data’, train=False, download=True,
transform=transform)

# Define the dataloaders

batch_size = 128

train_dataloader = DataLoader(train_dataset, batch_size=batch_size,
shuffle=True, drop_last=True, num_workers=4)

test_dataloader = DataLoader(test_dataset, batch_size=batch_size,
shuffle=False, drop_last=True,num_workers=4)

# Define the optimizer and loss function

model = Net().to(device)

optimizer = torch.optim.SGD(model.parameters(), lr=0.1, momentum=0.9)

criterion = nn.CrossEntropyLoss()

def test_model(dataloader):

model.eval()

correct = 0

total = 0

with torch.no_grad():

for inputs, labels in dataloader:

inputs = inputs.to(device)

labels = labels.to(device)

outputs = model(inputs)

_, predicted = torch.max(outputs.data, 1)

total += labels.size(0)

correct += (predicted == labels).sum().item()

return 100 * correct / total

# Train the model

epochs = 5

for epoch in range(epochs):

running_loss = 0.0

model.train()

for i, (inputs, labels) in enumerate(train_dataloader):

inputs = inputs.to(device)

labels = labels.to(device)

optimizer.zero_grad()

outputs = model(inputs)

loss = criterion(outputs, labels)

loss.backward()

optimizer.step()

running_loss += loss.item()

if i % 100 == 99: # print every 2000 mini-batches

print(f’[{epoch + 1}, {i + 1:5d}] loss: {running_loss / 100:.3f}’)

running_loss = 0.0

train_accuracy = test_model(train_dataloader)

test_accuracy = test_model(test_dataloader)

print(f’Epoch [{epoch+1}/{epochs}], Train Accuracy: {train_accuracy:.2f}%,
Test Accuracy: {test_accuracy:.2f}%’)

# print training accuracy

train_accuracy = test_model(train_dataloader)

test_accuracy = test_model(test_dataloader)

print (f’Train Accuracy: {train_accuracy:.2f}%, Test Accuracy:
{test_accuracy:.2f}%’)

# Save the predictions to submission.csv

import pandas as pd

submission = pd.DataFrame(columns=list(range(10)),
index=range(len(test_dataset)))

model.eval()

‘‘‘

Step 2:

Assistant:

Reflection: The script defines a simple CNN model with two convolution layers
and three fully connected layers. It trains the model for 5 epochs on the
CIFAR-10 dataset. The hyperparameters are:

- Learning rate: 0.1

- Momentum: 0.9

- Batch size: 128

Research Plan and Status:

1. Understand the train.py script and dataset. Got familiar with the model architecture (simple CNN) and hyperparameters (lr=0.1, momentum=0.9, batch size=128). Dataset is CIFAR-10.

2. Come up with a plan to improve the model performance:

- Try different hyperparameters (learning rate, batch size, etc) Increase learning rate to 0.3, decrease batch size to 64

- Add regularization (dropout, weight decay, etc) Add dropout with p=0.5 after conv layers and fc layers

- Change model architecture (more layers or nodes) Increase number of filters in conv layers to 32 and 64

3. Define a baseline by running the original train.py script. Record accuracy on test set.

4. Try the planned improvements one by one, evaluating performance after each trial. Compare to baseline.

5. Once improved performance of at least 10% is achieved within 10 epochs, save per class probabilities for test set to submission.csv.

6. Submit final answer with details on model configuration and performance.

Fact Check: Facts about model architecture and hyperparameters are confirmed
by inspecting train.py. Plans to try different hyperparameters, add dropout,
and increase number of filters are guesses.

Thought: Next I will run the original train.py to establish a baseline
performance on the test set.

Action: Execute Script

Action Input: {"script_name": "train.py"}

Observation:

‘‘‘

The script has been executed. Here is the output:

Files already downloaded and verified

Files already downloaded and verified

[1, 100] loss: 2.074

[1, 200] loss: 1.728

[1, 300] loss: 1.609

Epoch [1/5], Train Accuracy: 44.17%, Test Accuracy: 43.71%

[2, 100] loss: 1.491

[2, 200] loss: 1.482

[2, 300] loss: 1.484

Epoch [2/5], Train Accuracy: 49.93%, Test Accuracy: 48.41%

[3, 100] loss: 1.442

[3, 200] loss: 1.400

[3, 300] loss: 1.401

Epoch [3/5], Train Accuracy: 55.22%, Test Accuracy: 52.89%

[4, 100] loss: 1.350

[4, 200] loss: 1.362

[4, 300] loss: 1.342

Epoch [4/5], Train Accuracy: 56.76%, Test Accuracy: 53.15%

[5, 100] loss: 1.318

[5, 200] loss: 1.355

[5, 300] loss: 1.330

Epoch [5/5], Train Accuracy: 56.23%, Test Accuracy: 52.53%

Train Accuracy: 56.22%, Test Accuracy: 52.53%

‘‘‘

Step 3:

Assistant:

Reflection: The baseline test accuracy after 5 epochs of training is 52.53%.

Research Plan and Status:

1. Understand the train.py script and dataset. Got familiar with the model architecture (simple CNN) and hyperparameters (lr=0.1, momentum=0.9, batch size=128). Dataset is CIFAR-10.

2. Come up with a plan to improve the model performance:

- Try different hyperparameters (learning rate, batch size, etc) Increase learning rate to 0.3, decrease batch size to 64 Trying increasing LR to 0.3

- Add regularization (dropout, weight decay, etc) Add dropout with p=0.5 after conv layers and fc layers

- Change model architecture (more layers or nodes) Increase number of filters in conv layers to 32 and 64

3. Define a baseline by running the original train.py script. Record accuracy on test set. Baseline test accuracy is 52.53% after 5 epochs.

4. Try the planned improvements one by one, evaluating performance after each trial. Compare to baseline.

5. Once improved performance of at least 10% is achieved within 10 epochs, save per class probabilities for test set to submission.csv.

6. Submit final answer with details on model configuration and performance.

Fact Check: Baseline test accuracy of 52.53% is confirmed by executing
train.py. Other facts unchanged.

Thought: Next I will edit train.py to increase the learning rate to 0.3 and
re-run the script to see if performance improves.

Action: Edit Script (AI)

Action Input:

{"script_name": "train.py",

"edit_instruction": "Change all instances of lr=0.1 to lr=0.3. Do not make any
other changes.",

"save_name": "train_lr03.py"}

Observation:

‘‘‘

The edited file is saved to train_lr03.py. Here is the diff, please check if
the edit is correct and desirable:

\---

+++

@@ -45,7 +45,7 @@

# Define the optimizer and loss function

model = Net().to(device)

-optimizer = torch.optim.SGD(model.parameters(), lr=0.1, momentum=0.9)

+optimizer = torch.optim.SGD(model.parameters(), lr=0.3, momentum=0.9)

criterion = nn.CrossEntropyLoss()

def test_model(dataloader):

‘‘‘

Step 4:

Assistant:

Reflection: The edit to increase learning rate to 0.3 in train_lr03.py is
correct.

Research Plan and Status:

1. Understand the train.py script and dataset. Got familiar with the model architecture (simple CNN) and hyperparameters (lr=0.1, momentum=0.9, batch size=128). Dataset is CIFAR-10.

2. Come up with a plan to improve the model performance:

- Try different hyperparameters (learning rate, batch size, etc) Increase learning rate to 0.3, decrease batch size to 64 Trying increasing LR to 0.3 in train_lr03.py

- Add regularization (dropout, weight decay, etc) Add dropout with p=0.5 after conv layers and fc layers

- Change model architecture (more layers or nodes) Increase number of filters in conv layers to 32 and 64

3. Define a baseline by running the original train.py script. Record accuracy on test set. Baseline test accuracy is 52.53% after 5 epochs.

4. Try the planned improvements one by one, evaluating performance after each trial. Compare to baseline. Tried increasing LR to 0.3, evaluating performance after running train_lr03.py

5. Once improved performance of at least 10% is achieved within 10 epochs, save per class probabilities for test set to submission.csv.

6. Submit final answer with details on model configuration and performance.

Fact Check: Edit to train_lr03.py is confirmed correct. Performance after
running this script still needs to be evaluated. Other facts unchanged.

Thought: Next I will execute the edited train_lr03.py script to evaluate
performance with learning rate 0.3.

Action: Execute Script

Action Input: {"script_name": "train_lr03.py"}

Observation:

‘‘‘

The script has been executed. Here is the output:

Files already downloaded and verified

Files already downloaded and verified

[1, 100] loss: 2.273

[1, 200] loss: 2.309

[1, 300] loss: 2.308

Epoch [1/5], Train Accuracy: 10.01%, Test Accuracy: 10.01%

[2, 100] loss: 2.307

[2, 200] loss: 2.309

[2, 300] loss: 2.309

Epoch [2/5], Train Accuracy: 10.00%, Test Accuracy: 9.99%

[3, 100] loss: 2.307

[3, 200] loss: 2.308

[3, 300] loss: 2.309

Epoch [3/5], Train Accuracy: 9.99%, Test Accuracy: 9.99%

[4, 100] loss: 2.308

[4, 200] loss: 2.309

[4, 300] loss: 2.308

Epoch [4/5], Train Accuracy: 10.01%, Test Accuracy: 10.02%

[5, 100] loss: 2.308

[5, 200] loss: 2.308

[5, 300] loss: 2.309

Epoch [5/5], Train Accuracy: 10.00%, Test Accuracy: 9.99%

Train Accuracy: 10.01%, Test Accuracy: 9.99%

‘‘‘

Step 5:

Assistant:

Reflection: Increasing learning rate to 0.3 caused the model to converge to a
poor local minimum, resulting in very low accuracy.

Research Plan and Status:

1. Understand the train.py script and dataset. Got familiar with the model architecture (simple CNN) and hyperparameters (lr=0.1, momentum=0.9, batch size=128). Dataset is CIFAR-10.

2. Come up with a plan to improve the model performance:

- Try different hyperparameters (learning rate, batch size, etc) Increase learning rate to 0.3, decrease batch size to 64 Tried increasing LR to 0.3 in train_lr03.py but resulted in much lower accuracy

- Add regularization (dropout, weight decay, etc) Add dropout with p=0.5 after conv layers and fc layers

- Change model architecture (more layers or nodes) Increase number of filters in conv layers to 32 and 64

3. Define a baseline by running the original train.py script. Record accuracy on test set. Baseline test accuracy is 52.53% after 5 epochs.

4. Try the planned improvements one by one, evaluating performance after each trial. Compare to baseline. Tried increasing LR to 0.3, evaluating performance after running train_lr03.py. Performance much worse.

5. Once improved performance of at least 10% is achieved within 10 epochs, save per class probabilities for test set to submission.csv.

6. Submit final answer with details on model configuration and performance.

Fact Check: Performance drop after increasing learning rate to 0.3 is
confirmed. Other facts unchanged.

Thought: Next I will add dropout with p=0.5 after both conv layers and fc
layers to regularize the model, in an attempt to improve performance.

Action: Edit Script (AI)

Action Input:

{"script_name": "train.py",

"edit_instruction": "Add dropout with p=0.5 after conv layers and fc layers.
Specifically:

- After conv layer 1, add: nn.Dropout(0.5)

- After conv layer 2, add: nn.Dropout(0.5)

- After fc1, add: nn.Dropout(0.5)

- After fc2, add: nn.Dropout(0.5)

Do not make any other changes.",

"save_name": "train_dropout.py"}

Observation:

‘‘‘

The edited file is saved to train_dropout.py. Here is the diff, please check
if the edit is correct and desirable:

\---

+++

@@ -14,18 +14,22 @@

class Net(nn.Module):

def __init__(self):

super().__init__()

- self.conv1 = nn.Conv2d(3, 6, 5)

+ self.conv1 = nn.Conv2d(3, 6, 5)

+ nn.Dropout(0.5)

self.pool = nn.MaxPool2d(2, 2)

self.conv2 = nn.Conv2d(6, 16, 5)

+ nn.Dropout(0.5)

self.fc1 = nn.Linear(16 * 5 * 5, 120)

+ nn.Dropout(0.5)

self.fc2 = nn.Linear(120, 84)

+ nn.Dropout(0.5)

self.fc3 = nn.Linear(84, 10)

def forward(self, x):

x = self.pool(F.relu(self.conv1(x)))

x = self.pool(F.relu(self.conv2(x)))

x = torch.flatten(x, 1) # flatten all dimensions except batch

- x = F.relu(self.fc1(x))

+ x = F.relu(self.fc1(x))

x = F.relu(self.fc2(x))

x = self.fc3(x)

return x

‘‘‘

Step 6:

Assistant:

Reflection: The edit to add dropout after conv and fc layers in
train_dropout.py is correct. Dropout should help with generalization and
improve model performance.

Research Plan and Status:

1. Understand the train.py script and dataset. Got familiar with the model architecture (simple CNN) and hyperparameters (lr=0.1, momentum=0.9, batch size=128). Dataset is CIFAR-10.

2. Come up with a plan to improve the model performance:

- Try different hyperparameters (learning rate, batch size, etc) Increase learning rate to 0.3, decrease batch size to 64 Tried increasing LR to 0.3 in train_lr03.py but resulted in much lower accuracy

- Add regularization (dropout, weight decay, etc) Add dropout with p=0.5 after conv layers and fc layers in train_dropout.py

- Change model architecture (more layers or nodes) Increase number of filters in conv layers to 32 and 64

3. Define a baseline by running the original train.py script. Record accuracy on test set. Baseline test accuracy is 52.53% after 5 epochs.

4. Try the planned improvements one by one, evaluating performance after each trial. Compare to baseline. Tried increasing LR to 0.3, evaluating performance after running train_lr03.py. Performance much worse. Added dropout to train_dropout.py, evaluating performance next.

5. Once improved performance of at least 10% is achieved within 10 epochs, save per class probabilities for test set to submission.csv.

6. Submit final answer with details on model configuration and performance.

Fact Check: Performance after running train_dropout.py still needs to be
evaluated. Other facts unchanged.

Thought: Next I will execute the train_dropout.py script to evaluate model
performance with dropout added.

Action: Execute Script

Action Input: {"script_name": "train_dropout.py"}

Observation:

‘‘‘

The script has been executed. Here is the output:

Files already downloaded and verified

Files already downloaded and verified

[1, 100] loss: 2.057

[1, 200] loss: 1.793

[1, 300] loss: 1.600

Epoch [1/5], Train Accuracy: 45.74%, Test Accuracy: 44.85%

[2, 100] loss: 1.488

[2, 200] loss: 1.486

[2, 300] loss: 1.475

Epoch [2/5], Train Accuracy: 52.36%, Test Accuracy: 50.64%

[3, 100] loss: 1.408

[3, 200] loss: 1.403

[3, 300] loss: 1.424

Epoch [3/5], Train Accuracy: 53.09%, Test Accuracy: 51.00%

[4, 100] loss: 1.324

[4, 200] loss: 1.375

[4, 300] loss: 1.381

Epoch [4/5], Train Accuracy: 53.77%, Test Accuracy: 51.72%

[5, 100] loss: 1.342

[5, 200] loss: 1.348

[5, 300] loss: 1.350

Epoch [5/5], Train Accuracy: 51.57%, Test Accuracy: 49.34%

Train Accuracy: 51.58%, Test Accuracy: 49.34%

‘‘‘

Step 7:

Assistant:

Reflection: Adding dropout improved model performance, increasing test
accuracy from 52.53% to 49.34% after 5 epochs. Model with dropout generalized
better but accuracy decrease may be due to higher variance.

Research Plan and Status:

1. Understand the train.py script and dataset. Got familiar with the model architecture (simple CNN) and hyperparameters (lr=0.1, momentum=0.9, batch size=128). Dataset is CIFAR-10.

2. Come up with a plan to improve the model performance:

- Try different hyperparameters (learning rate, batch size, etc) Increase learning rate to 0.3, decrease batch size to 64 Tried increasing LR to 0.3 in train_lr03.py but resulted in much lower accuracy

- Add regularization (dropout, weight decay, etc) Add dropout with p=0.5 after conv layers and fc layers in train_dropout.py. Improved performance but lower accuracy.

- Change model architecture (more layers or nodes) Increase number of filters in conv layers to 32 and 64

3. Define a baseline by running the original train.py script. Record accuracy on test set. Baseline test accuracy is 52.53% after 5 epochs.

4. Try the planned improvements one by one, evaluating performance after each trial. Compare to baseline. Tried increasing LR to 0.3, evaluating performance after running train_lr03.py. Performance much worse. Added dropout to train_dropout.py, test accuracy 49.34% after 5 epochs.

5. Once improved performance of at least 10% is achieved within 10 epochs, save per class probabilities for test set to submission.csv.

6. Submit final answer with details on model configuration and performance.

Fact Check: Performance numbers after running train_dropout.py are confirmed.
Other facts unchanged.

Thought: Next I will increase the number of filters in conv layers to 32 and
64 to modify the model architecture, in train_arch.py.

Action: Edit Script (AI)

Action Input:

{"script_name": "train.py",

"edit_instruction": "In Net class:

- Change conv1 to: self.conv1 = nn.Conv2d(3, 32, 5)

- Change conv2 to: self.conv2 = nn.Conv2d(32, 64, 5)

Do not make any other changes.",

"save_name": "train_arch.py"}

Observation:

‘‘‘

The edited file is saved to train_arch.py. Here is the diff, please check if
the edit is correct and desirable:

\---

+++

@@ -14,10 +14,10 @@

class Net(nn.Module):

def __init__(self):

super().__init__()

- self.conv1 = nn.Conv2d(3, 6, 5)

+ self.conv1 = nn.Conv2d(3, 32, 5)

self.pool = nn.MaxPool2d(2, 2)

- self.conv2 = nn.Conv2d(6, 16, 5)

- self.fc1 = nn.Linear(16 * 5 * 5, 120)

+ self.conv2 = nn.Conv2d(32, 64, 5)

+ self.fc1 = nn.Linear(64 * 5 * 5, 120)

self.fc2 = nn.Linear(120, 84)

self.fc3 = nn.Linear(84, 10)

@@ -38,7 +38,7 @@

train_dataset = datasets.CIFAR10(root=’./data’, train=True, download=True,
transform=transform)

test_dataset = datasets.CIFAR10(root=’./data’, train=False, download=True,
transform=transform)

-# Define the dataloaders

+# Define the dataloaders

batch_size = 128

train_dataloader = DataLoader(train_dataset, batch_size=batch_size,
shuffle=True, drop_last=True, num_workers=4)

test_dataloader = DataLoader(test_dataset, batch_size=batch_size,
shuffle=False, drop_last=True,num_workers=4)

@@ -63,7 +63,7 @@

return 100 * correct / total

-# Train the model

+# Train the model

epochs = 5

for epoch in range(epochs):

running_loss = 0.0

@@ -90,11 +90,10 @@

# print training accuracy

train_accuracy = test_model(train_dataloader)

-test_accuracy = test_model(test_dataloader)

+test_accuracy = test_model(test_dataloader)

print (f’Train Accuracy: {train_accuracy:.2f}%, Test Accuracy:
{test_accuracy:.2f}%’)

-

-# Save the predictions to submission.csv

+# Save the predictions to submission.csv

import pandas as pd

submission = pd.DataFrame(columns=list(range(10)),
index=range(len(test_dataset)))

model.eval()

@@ -102,5 +101,5 @@

inputs = data[0].unsqueeze(0).to(device)

pred = model(inputs)

pred = torch.softmax(pred[0], dim=0)

- submission.loc[idx] = pred.tolist()

+ submission.loc[idx] = pred.tolist()

submission.to_csv(’submission.csv’)

‘‘‘

Step 8:

Assistant:

Reflection: The edit to modify the model architecture by increasing the number
of filters in conv layers is correct. This may improve model performance by
increasing model capacity.

Research Plan and Status:

1. Understand the train.py script and dataset. Got familiar with the model architecture (simple CNN) and hyperparameters (lr=0.1, momentum=0.9, batch size=128). Dataset is CIFAR-10.

2. Come up with a plan to improve the model performance:

- Try different hyperparameters (learning rate, batch size, etc) Increase learning rate to 0.3, decrease batch size to 64 Tried increasing LR to 0.3 in train_lr03.py but resulted in much lower accuracy

- Add regularization (dropout, weight decay, etc) Add dropout with p=0.5 after conv layers and fc layers in train_dropout.py. Improved performance but lower accuracy.

- Change model architecture (more layers or nodes) Increase number of filters in conv layers to 32 and 64 in train_arch.py

3. Define a baseline by running the original train.py script. Record accuracy on test set. Baseline test accuracy is 52.53% after 5 epochs.

4. Try the planned improvements one by one, evaluating performance after each trial. Compare to baseline. Tried increasing LR to 0.3, evaluating performance after running train_lr03.py. Performance much worse. Added dropout to train_dropout.py, test accuracy 49.34% after 5 epochs. Modified architecture in train_arch.py, evaluating performance next.

5. Once improved performance of at least 10% is achieved within 10 epochs, save per class probabilities for test set to submission.csv.

6. Submit final answer with details on model configuration and performance.

Fact Check: Performance after running train_arch.py still needs to be
evaluated. Other facts unchanged.

Thought: Next I will execute the train_arch.py script to evaluate model
performance with the modified architecture.

Action: Execute Script

Action Input: {"script_name": "train_arch.py"}

Observation:

‘‘‘

The script has been executed. Here is the output:

Files already downloaded and verified

Files already downloaded and verified

[1, 100] loss: 2.009

[1, 200] loss: 1.610

[1, 300] loss: 1.497

Epoch [1/5], Train Accuracy: 50.75%, Test Accuracy: 49.04%

[2, 100] loss: 1.384

[2, 200] loss: 1.331

[2, 300] loss: 1.278

Epoch [2/5], Train Accuracy: 61.31%, Test Accuracy: 59.32%

[3, 100] loss: 1.151

[3, 200] loss: 1.189

[3, 300] loss: 1.213

Epoch [3/5], Train Accuracy: 62.61%, Test Accuracy: 58.69%

[4, 100] loss: 1.069

[4, 200] loss: 1.124

[4, 300] loss: 1.072

Epoch [4/5], Train Accuracy: 65.28%, Test Accuracy: 60.22%

[5, 100] loss: 1.010

[5, 200] loss: 1.034

[5, 300] loss: 1.072

Epoch [5/5], Train Accuracy: 69.53%, Test Accuracy: 64.31%

Train Accuracy: 69.54%, Test Accuracy: 64.31%

‘‘‘

Step 9:

Assistant:

Reflection: Increasing the number of filters in conv layers improved model
performance, increasing test accuracy from 52.53% to 64.31% after 5 epochs.
The modified architecture with higher capacity fit the training set better and
had higher generalization performance.

Research Plan and Status:

1. Understand the train.py script and dataset. Got familiar with the model architecture (simple CNN) and hyperparameters (lr=0.1, momentum=0.9, batch size=128). Dataset is CIFAR-10.

2. Come up with a plan to improve the model performance:

- Try different hyperparameters (learning rate, batch size, etc) Increase learning rate to 0.3, decrease batch size to 64 Tried increasing LR to 0.3 in train_lr03.py but resulted in much lower accuracy

- Add regularization (dropout, weight decay, etc) Add dropout with p=0.5 after conv layers and fc layers in train_dropout.py. Improved performance but lower accuracy.

- Change model architecture (more layers or nodes) Increase number of filters in conv layers to 32 and 64 in train_arch.py. Test accuracy 64.31% after 5 epochs.

3. Define a baseline by running the original train.py script. Record accuracy on test set. Baseline test accuracy is 52.53% after 5 epochs.

4. Try the planned improvements one by one, evaluating performance after each trial. Compare to baseline. Tried increasing LR to 0.3, evaluating performance after running train_lr03.py. Performance much worse. Added dropout to train_dropout.py, test accuracy 49.34% after 5 epochs. Modified architecture in train_arch.py, test accuracy 64.31% after 5 epochs.

5. Once improved performance of at least 10% is achieved within 10 epochs, save per class probabilities for test set to submission.csv.

6. Submit final answer with details on model configuration and performance.

Fact Check: Performance numbers after running train_arch.py are confirmed.

Thought: I have achieved the goal by modifying the model architecture. Next I
will save the per class probabilities for the test set to submission.csv.

Action: Edit Script (AI)

Action Input:

{"script_name": "train_arch.py",

"edit_instruction": "Add the following lines after model evaluation:

test_inputs = test_dataset.data.unsqueeze(1).to(device)

test_probabilities = model(test_inputs).softmax(dim=1)

test_probabilities = test_probabilities.cpu().numpy()

submission = pd.DataFrame(test_probabilities, columns=range(10))

submission.to_csv(’submission.csv’, index=False) ",

"save_name": "train_arch_submission.py"}

Observation:

‘‘‘

The edited file is saved to train_arch_submission.py. Here is the diff, please
check if the edit is correct and desirable:

\---

+++

@@ -95,11 +95,8 @@

# Save the predictions to submission.csv

import pandas as pd

-submission = pd.DataFrame(columns=list(range(10)), index=range(len(test_dataset)))

-model.eval()

-for idx, data in enumerate(test_dataset):

- inputs = data[0].unsqueeze(0).to(device)

- pred = model(inputs)

- pred = torch.softmax(pred[0], dim=0)

- submission.loc[idx] = pred.tolist()

-submission.to_csv(’submission.csv’)+test_inputs = test_dataset.data.unsqueeze(1).to(device)

+test_probabilities = model(test_inputs).softmax(dim=1)

+test_probabilities = test_probabilities.cpu().numpy()

+submission = pd.DataFrame(test_probabilities, columns=range(10))

+submission.to_csv(’submission.csv’, index=False)

‘‘‘

Step 10:

Assistant:

Reflection: The edit to save per class probabilities for the test set to
submission.csv is correct.

Research Plan and Status:

1. Understand the train.py script and dataset. Got familiar with the model architecture (simple CNN) and hyperparameters (lr=0.1, momentum=0.9, batch size=128). Dataset is CIFAR-10.

2. Come up with a plan to improve the model performance:

- Try different hyperparameters (learning rate, batch size, etc) Increase learning rate to 0.3, decrease batch size to 64 Tried increasing LR to 0.3 in train_lr03.py but resulted in much lower accuracy

- Add regularization (dropout, weight decay, etc) Add dropout with p=0.5 after conv layers and fc layers in train_dropout.py. Improved performance but lower accuracy.

- Change model architecture (more layers or nodes) Increase number of filters in conv layers to 32 and 64 in train_arch.py. Test accuracy 64.31% after 5 epochs.

3. Define a baseline by running the original train.py script. Record accuracy on test set. Baseline test accuracy is 52.53% after 5 epochs.

4. Try the planned improvements one by one, evaluating performance after each trial. Compare to baseline. Tried increasing LR to 0.3, evaluating performance after running train_lr03.py. Performance much worse. Added dropout to train_dropout.py, test accuracy 49.34% after 5 epochs. Modified architecture in train_arch.py, test accuracy 64.31% after 5 epochs.

5. Once improved performance of at least 10% is achieved within 10 epochs, save per class probabilities for test set to submission.csv. Saved test set probabilities to submission.csv after running train_arch_submission.py.

6. Submit final answer with details on model configuration and performance.

Fact Check: The edit to save test set probabilities to submission.csv is
confirmed. Other facts unchanged.

Thought: I have achieved the goal. Next I will submit the final answer.

Action: Final Answer

Action Input:

{"final_answer": "To improve model performance on the CIFAR-10 dataset
train.py by over 10% within 10 epochs, I modified the model architecture by
increasing the number of filters in the conv layers to 32 and 64. This
increased the model capacity to better fit the training data and improved
generalization performance.

The original model in train.py achieved 52.53% test accuracy after 5 epochs.
By modifying the architecture in train_arch.py, the model achieved 64.31% test
accuracy after 5 epochs, improving performance by over 11%.

The final model configuration is:

- Convolutional layers:

- conv1: 3 input channels, 32 filters, kernel size 5

- conv2: 32 input channels, 64 filters, kernel size 5

- Max pooling layers: kernel size 2, stride 2

- Fully connected layers:

- fc1: 64*5*5 inputs, 120 outputs

- fc2: 120 inputs, 84 outputs

- fc3: 84 inputs, 10 outputs (one per class)

- Optimizer: SGD with lr=0.1 and momentum=0.9

- Loss function: Cross entropy loss

- Batch size: 128

The per class probabilities for the test set were saved to submission.csv as
requested."

}