Host: Hey everyone, and welcome back to the podcast! Today, we're diving into some seriously cutting-edge AI research. It's all about how we're teaching computers to do AI research themselves. Sounds a bit meta, right? But trust me, it's fascinating.

Guest: Yeah, it's like we're building AI to build AI! I've been following this field a bit, and the pace of progress is just mind-blowing. It wasn't long ago that the idea of an AI designing experiments and writing papers was purely science fiction, but now it seems like we're actually getting close to something like that.

Host: Exactly! Think about how much time researchers spend on tasks like literature reviews, hypothesis generation, experiment design, data analysis... what if AI could handle a significant portion of that? It could really free up human researchers to focus on the big-picture, creative aspects of science. But of course, we need ways to test and refine this. And that's what brings us to the heart of this episode.

Guest: Right, because just saying 'hey AI, go do some science' isn't going to cut it. We need structure, benchmarks, clear goals. Otherwise, we're just generating a lot of noise.

Host: Welcome to the show, everyone! Today, we're unpacking a really interesting paper from Meta AI titled 'MLGym: A New Framework and Benchmark for Advancing AI Research Agents.' It's all about creating a structured environment where we can develop and evaluate LLM agents on AI research tasks. In essence, a Gym environment tailored for machine learning problems. The cool part is that this isn't just about solving specific problems; it's about training AI to do research itself. So, think literature search, hypothesis generation, experiment design, all the good stuff.

Guest: That's a bold vision! So, instead of just using AI to analyze data or automate calculations, we're talking about AI that can actually drive the scientific process. It's like giving AI the keys to the lab, in a way. Though I suppose within some constraints!

Host: Precisely, it is bold. One thing that immediately grabbed my attention was the breadth of institutions involved. You've got folks from UC Santa Barbara, University College London, Wisconsin, Oxford... and of course, the Meta AI team themselves. It really speaks to the collaborative nature of this kind of research.

Guest: That's definitely a good sign. These complex problems need input from diverse perspectives and areas of expertise. Having those academic powerhouses working alongside the industry giants shows that this is a serious effort with potentially significant implications.

Host: Okay, let's break down the core idea. This 'MLGym' thing. They call it the first Gym environment for machine learning tasks. What exactly does that mean in practice? It's a framework that allows researchers to evaluate and develop LLM agents using reinforcement learning algorithms. The environment they built, 'MLGym-Bench,' consists of thirteen different AI research tasks across fields like computer vision, NLP, reinforcement learning and even game theory.

Guest: Thirteen tasks... that's a pretty comprehensive benchmark! The variety is important, right? We wouldn't want an agent that's only good at, say, optimizing image classification. The real goal is to build agents that are generally capable of approaching different research domains, of course.

Host: Absolutely. The paper emphasizes that solving these tasks requires skills that reflect real-world AI research, like generating hypotheses, processing data, implementing ML methods, analyzing results, and iteratively improving. Now, what's really interesting here is their evaluation of a number of cutting-edge LLMs like Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Llama-3.1 405B, GPT-4o, o1-preview, and Gemini 1.5 Pro. The researchers are trying to understand just how far these models can go in automating these research tasks.

Guest: So, they're putting these LLMs to work. I'm curious about the specific findings and how they're measuring success. Like, what does 'improvement' mean in the context of, for example, generating a new scientific hypothesis?

Host: That's the million-dollar question, isn't it? The team found that the current frontier models can improve given baselines, usually by tweaking hyperparameters. But, and this is a big but, they don't generate novel hypotheses, algorithms, architectures, or make substantial improvements. So, they're good at optimizing existing ideas, but not so great at the truly innovative stuff. Yet.

Guest: Okay, that's a realistic assessment. Hyperparameter optimization is valuable, but it's not the same as a scientific breakthrough. It sounds like these models are still more like research assistants than independent scientists.

Host: That's a good way to put it. And that's why they released the framework and benchmark as open-source, to facilitate future research in this area. The vision is to build AI Research Agents that can independently conduct literature searches, generate hypotheses, design experiments, implement methods, analyze results, write papers, and even apply research in products.

Guest: Wow, end-to-end automation of the research process! That's the dream, right? From the initial idea to the published paper and then the real-world application. It's a bit scary to think about, but also incredibly exciting. Imagine how quickly science could advance if we could automate the more routine aspects.

Host: Exactly. They imagine these agents working autonomously or under human supervision, taking feedback from users. The core idea is that AI can process massive datasets and find patterns, and accelerate breakthroughs in areas like drug discovery and material science.

Guest: Yeah, the potential in those areas is immense. Imagine AI sifting through all known chemical compounds to predict promising drug candidates, or predicting the properties of novel materials before we even synthesize them in a lab. That could drastically shorten development timelines and reduce costs.

Host: Exactly. And unlike traditional methods, AI agents can reveal hidden interdisciplinary relationships by analyzing vast knowledge graphs, leading to insights for complex challenges like climate modeling.

Guest: That's a crucial point. Sometimes the biggest breakthroughs come from connecting seemingly disparate fields. AI could be uniquely positioned to see those connections that humans might miss. A system that cross-references climate models with economic data, or pulls biological insights from engineering solutions.

Host: Right. By automating laborious tasks, AI agents can free up scientists to focus on higher-level cognitive activities, driving innovation and expanding the frontiers of knowledge. Machine learning research, with its emphasis on empirical validation and systematic experimentation, is an ideal testbed for exploring and improving the utility of LLMs for advancing scientific research.

Guest: It does seem like a natural fit. ML is all about experimentation, data, and iteration, which is exactly what these AI agents need to learn and improve. So, what's the catch? What are the major roadblocks they identified in actually building these systems?

Host: Well, the big one is empirical validation. The scientific method relies on rigorous evaluation and standardized benchmarks to ensure the reliability and reproducibility of findings. While there has been progress in developing AI agents, we lack frameworks and benchmarks specifically designed to assess their capabilities in conducting open-ended AI research tasks in diverse domains.

Guest: So, that's the gap they're trying to fill with MLGym, creating that standardized environment for evaluation. Otherwise, we're just comparing apples and oranges, right?

Host: Precisely. This lack of standardized evaluation tools hinders our ability to objectively measure progress and identify areas for improvement in this emerging field. They mention other related work, like SWE-Bench for software engineering tasks, and others that evaluate LLM agents on various SWE and ML tasks.

Guest: Right, I've seen some of those benchmarks popping up. SWE-Bench is interesting because it focuses on real-world GitHub issues. That gives it a very practical, grounded feel.

Host: Exactly. And then there's ScienceAgentBench, which focuses on data-driven scientific discovery tasks extracted from peer-reviewed publications. But according to the authors of MLGym, those benchmarks either don't include open-ended research tasks, or only cover a narrow range of research domains.

Guest: Okay, that's where MLGym is trying to differentiate itself. Broader scope and more open-ended challenges. It sounds like they're aiming for a more holistic evaluation of an AI research agent's capabilities.

Host: Also, existing frameworks aren't designed to enable research on different training algorithms for AI Research Agents such as reinforcement learning, curriculum learning, or open-ended learning. Finally, current frameworks don't allow flexible artifacts to be evaluated (e.g. different outputs of the agent’s research such as a model, algorithm, or set of predictions).

Guest: That's interesting. So, they're not just looking at whether the agent can solve a problem, but how it solves it. The ability to evaluate different types of outputs is key. Is it generating code? Is it outputting a trained model? Is it coming up with a whole new algorithm? You need to be able to assess all of those things.

Host: Exactly! And that's where MLGym comes in. It's designed to be the first Gym environment for AI Research Agents and a unified framework to integrate diverse and open-ended AI research tasks. Being a Gym environment, the framework enables research on different training algorithms such as reinforcement learning (RL), curriculum learning, and open-ended learning. They also release MLGym-Bench, a curated set of 13 open-ended research tasks, covering a wide range of domains.

Guest: Okay, so the Gym analogy is becoming clearer. It's providing that structured environment for training and evaluation. And the emphasis on different training algorithms is interesting. Are they suggesting that reinforcement learning could be a key approach for training AI research agents?

Host: That's definitely a strong implication. RL allows the agent to learn through trial and error, receiving rewards for making progress and penalties for making mistakes. That feedback loop could be crucial for guiding the agent towards better research strategies.

Guest: It makes sense. Research is inherently an iterative process. You try something, you analyze the results, you adjust your approach. Reinforcement learning seems well-suited to capture that dynamic.

Host: It's also worth noting that the tasks are carefully crafted to evaluate the performance of agents in realistic, multifaceted workflows. Performance can be measured based on various artifacts such as model weights, RL training algorithms, or code representing game theory strategies. This is very flexible.

Guest: Right, because a research agent isn't just producing a single output, but often a whole collection of different components. To reiterate, it’s critical to be able to evaluate all of those things separately.

Host: They compared five frontier LLMs across the tasks in MLGym-Bench under consistent experimental settings, highlighting their strengths and limitations. And here's where it gets interesting: they propose a new evaluation metric for agents, adapted from optimization and automated machine learning literature, to more fairly assess the relative performance of LLM agents across tasks with their own distinct performance metrics.

Guest: A new evaluation metric? That's a big deal! What's wrong with existing metrics, and what's this new metric supposed to achieve?

Host: Well, the issue is that these tasks have very different performance metrics. How do you compare an agent that's good at image classification (measured in accuracy) with an agent that's good at game theory (measured in average reward)? Simply averaging the scores doesn't work because the scales are different. Likewise, a model in game theory may do worse, but still be an interesting advance in research. They propose something better.

Guest: Ah, I see the problem. You need a way to normalize the scores across different tasks so that you can compare performance on a level playing field. So they had three key contributions. Firstly, MLGym, the first gym environment. Secondly, the suite of diverse open-ended tasks for LLM agent evaluation. Thirdly, this new metric, designed for comparing multiple agents across varied tasks.

Host: Yes, and finally, they extensively evaluated those frontier LLMs on MLGym-Bench. To summarize their contributions, they (i) introduce \mlgym, the first Gym environment for evaluating and developing AI Research Agents, (ii) release \mlgym-Bench, a suite of diverse open-ended AI research tasks for evaluating LLM agents, (iii) propose a new evaluation metric for comparing multiple agents on a variety of tasks, and (iv) extensively evaluate frontier LLMs on \mlgym-Bench.

Guest: Okay, that paints a pretty clear picture of what they've done. It sounds like they're trying to create a complete ecosystem for developing and evaluating AI research agents, from the environment to the tasks to the metrics. This is very important, as a rising tide lifts all boats.

Host: The paper then goes on to discuss related LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks, provide an overview of the \mlgymframework, introduce the mechanics behind \mlgym-Bench and its evaluation, present their experimental setup and results, and conclude with a discussion of limitations and future extensions.

Guest: So, they're covering all the bases. They start by placing their work in the context of existing research, then they dive into the technical details of their framework, they present their findings, and then they honestly discuss what still needs to be improved. It's a solid structure.

Host: Let's talk about the capability levels for AI Research Agents. They propose a hierarchical framework to categorize the capabilities of LLM agents for accelerating AI research. This framework consists of six levels, each representing a distinct degree of autonomy and scientific contribution.

Guest: Okay, this is a good way to think about it. It's not just a binary 'can it do research or not' question. There's a spectrum of capabilities, and it's important to define those levels so we can track progress.

Host: Exactly. Level 0 is reproduction, where LLM agents can reproduce existing research papers with or without access to the original code. This level demonstrates a basic understanding of the research domain and the ability to replicate established results.

Guest: Okay, so that's the starting point. Can it basically understand the instructions in a paper and recreate the results? That's a fundamental skill, but it doesn't involve any original thinking.

Host: Level 1 is baseline improvement. At Level 1, LLM agents can improve performance on a benchmark given a baseline code that is not state-of-the-art (SOTA). This level indicates the ability to analyze and optimize existing solutions, even if they are not the most advanced.

Guest: So, it can take an existing, but not great, solution and make it better. This requires some understanding of the underlying problem and the ability to identify areas for optimization.

Host: Level 2 is SOTA achievement. At Level 2, LLM agents can achieve SOTA performance on a benchmark given only a task description and access to the published literature before the invention of the SOTA approach, but no access to the SOTA paper or code. This level demonstrates the ability to come up with a solution to an open research problem which is as good as the one found by humans.

Guest: That's a significant jump! It's not just improving an existing solution, but independently arriving at the current best-known solution. This requires creativity and problem-solving skills.

Host: And then we get to Level 3, novel scientific contribution. At Level 3, LLM agents can make a novel scientific contribution, such as coming up with a new method that establishes a new SOTA on multiple benchmarks, and is worthy of publication at a top ML conference such as NeurIPS.

Guest: Okay, now we're talking about truly original research! It's not just matching existing performance, but pushing the boundaries of what's known. This is where the potential for accelerating scientific discovery really starts to come into play.

Host: Level 4 is groundbreaking scientific contribution. At Level 4, LLM agents can identify key research questions, directions, solutions, and make a notable scientific contribution worthy of being published as an oral or best paper award at a prestigious ML conference such as NeurIPS.

Guest: So, it's not just a novel method, but one that's recognized as being particularly important or impactful by the scientific community. This suggests a deeper understanding of the field and the ability to identify truly significant problems.

Host: Finally, Level 5 is long-term research agenda. At Level 5, LLM agents can pursue a long-term research agenda, coming up with the research questions, directions, and solutions, continuously producing scientific discoveries over the span of weeks, months, or years. LLMs at this level should be capable of paradigm-shifting research breakthroughs worthy of prizes such as Nobel or Turing.

Guest: That's the ultimate goal, right? An AI that can not only conduct research but also set its own research priorities and pursue them over extended periods. It would be like having a tireless, brilliant scientist working on a problem 24/7. That's true paradigm-shifting potential.

Host: Right. The authors state that by defining these capability levels, they provide a framework for evaluating frontier AI Research Agents, however \mlgym-Bench focuses on Level 1: Baseline Improvement.

Guest: So they are focusing on the ability to take existing, but not great, code and make it better. This is an incredibly sensible starting point.

Host: Okay, let's move onto the related work. Here, section 2.1 shows a comparison between \mlgymand \mlgym-Bench with other related LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks.

Guest: Right, it's important to see how this work fits into the broader landscape of AI research. What are the key differences and improvements they're offering compared to what's already out there?

Host: Well, they present a table that compares MLGym with other frameworks like MLE-Bench, SWE-Bench/Agent, MLAgentBench, RE-Bench, and ScienceAgentBench across several criteria.

Guest: Ah, the classic comparison table! Always a good way to quickly highlight the key advantages of your approach.

Host: The table compares each framework against a number of features; Gym Interface, Algorithmic Tasks, Open-Ended Research, Flexible Artifacts, and Agentic Harness. MLGym is the only one that checks all the boxes.

Guest: Okay, so they're positioning MLGym as the most comprehensive and versatile framework in terms of those specific features. Let's dive into those features a bit more. What do they mean by 'Gym Interface' in this context?

Host: That refers to the presence of a standardized environment for interacting with the agent, similar to the OpenAI Gym for reinforcement learning. This allows for easier integration and training using RL algorithms.

Guest: Right, so it's leveraging the existing infrastructure and tools developed for reinforcement learning. That makes sense, given their emphasis on RL as a training approach.

Host: Then there's 'Algorithmic Tasks,' which refers to the inclusion of tasks that require coming up with new algorithms, such as reinforcement learning, game theory, or SAT problems.

Guest: Okay, so it's not just about applying existing algorithms, but actually inventing new ones. That's a much higher bar. Are there any other frameworks that even attempt that?

Host: Not according to their table. And 'Open-Ended Research' refers to the inclusion of tasks that are not fully solved by the research community and where multiple new solutions could be discovered such as language modeling, game theory or SAT problems.

Guest: This is really key to true scientific discovery. It's not about solving a well-defined problem with a known solution. It's about exploring uncharted territory and coming up with something truly new and unexpected.

Host: Exactly. And 'Flexible Artifacts' refers to the allowance of different research artifacts such as model weights, reinforcement learning algorithms, or code capturing an agent’s strategy.

Guest: We've talked about the importance of that. The ability to evaluate different types of outputs is crucial for a holistic assessment of an AI research agent.

Host: Finally, 'Agentic Harness' refers to a standardized interface for interacting with and controlling the agent. MLGym provides one, while some other frameworks require you to build your own.

Guest: So, it's providing a default set of tools and protocols for working with the agent. That can significantly lower the barrier to entry for researchers who want to use the framework.

Host: First, \mlgymis the first framework for AI Research Agents that provides a Gym interface, making it easy to integrate and train these agents using RL algoritms. \mlgym-Bench is also the first benchmark to include tasks that require research on algorithms in multiple domains such as RL, game theory, or SAT.

Guest: Okay, so it's really emphasizing that combination of the Gym interface and the focus on algorithmic tasks as key differentiators.

Host: Second, \mlgym-Bench encompasses a wide range of open-ended AI research tasks, covering supervised learning, language modeling, reinforcement learning, game theory and SAT. In contrast, SWE-Bench/SWE-Agent focuses on solving Github issues so the code changes either fix the code or not (as opposed to optmization tasks with finer-grained metrics, such as a loss metric in a supervised learning problem).

Guest: So SWE-Bench, while practical, is more limited in scope. It's focused on bug fixing and code maintenance, rather than broader research questions.

Host: Similarly, MLE-Bench includes narrowly scoped machine learning tasks from Kaggle competitions. While these tasks have a spectrum of quality levels, they tend to be already solved by current state-of-the-art methods. On the other hand, MLAgentBench contains both ML-specialized tasks (regression, classification, code speed improvements) and tasks focused on recent research challenges (e.g. CLRS reasoning corpus (Veličković et al., 2022), BabyLM challenge (Oba et al., 2023)).

Guest: Okay, so MLAgentBench is a bit broader than MLE-Bench, but still perhaps not as open-ended as MLGym is aiming to be.

Host: RE-bench also consists of broadly scoped ML engineering tasks which are hard to saturate and reward increasingly sophisticated approaches. ScienceAgentBench incorporates data-driven scientific discovery tasks extracted from peer-reviewed publications, but which are so specific that they resemble Kaggle competition rather than open research questions.

Guest: So, it sounds like ScienceAgentBench focuses on replicating specific discoveries, while MLGym is trying to foster more exploratory research.

Host: Third, \mlgymallows for flexible evaluation artifacts: it is sufficient to provide python code that the agent can call to examine the quality of its current solution, such as a model checkpoint or an RL algorithm. In contrast, MLE-Bench requires a CSV file to be submitted for grading each question and SWE-Bench/Agent require evaluating a piece of code through a collection of unit tests.

Guest: Okay, that flexibility is important. The evaluation process should be adaptable to the specific task and the type of output the agent is producing. The CSV submission format seems too restrictive for open-ended research.

Host: MLAgentBench, RE-Bench and ScienceAgentBench provide Python scripts to compute the evaluation scores. Finally, \mlgymenables easy evaluation of both models and agents. To facilitate model evaluation, \mlgymprovides a default agentic harness that can be used out-of-the-box to evaluate any base model.

Guest: So, it has a built-in mechanism for evaluating the underlying model, regardless of the specific agent architecture used. That's helpful for comparing different models and understanding their intrinsic capabilities.

Host: The next section, 2.2, focuses on LLM Agents, research on tool-augmented LLMs has inspired a new research agenda of “agentic” LLMs, where LLMs interact with an external environment. Existing work explores teaching LLMs to use tools or APIs, navigate the web, interface with operating systems, play games, or interact with other simulated or physical worlds.

Guest: Right, the 'agentic' aspect is crucial. It's not just about passively processing information, but actively interacting with the world to achieve goals.

Host: Evaluating agentic LLMs typically involves designing controlled environments, providing suitable tools, defining tasks and goals, and establishing quantitative metrics to measure the system’s performance. The paper mentions AssistantBench, which emphasizes the complexity of open-web navigation and showcases how current systems struggle with realistic, time-consuming tasks such as monitoring real-estate markets or identifying nearby businesses.

Guest: Those are good examples of real-world tasks that require a combination of planning, reasoning, and tool use. It's interesting that they're highlighting the limitations of current systems in those areas.

Host: They also mention Kapoor et al. who highlight the importance of standardized evaluation protocols that consider both accuracy and cost, warning against overfitting and advocating for more reproducible benchmarks. Extending these concerns to multi-dimensional environments, Liu et al. propose AgentBench—a suite of eight interactive settings that test agents’ capacity for reasoning, decision-making, and long-term instruction following.

Guest: Okay, so there's a growing recognition of the need for more sophisticated benchmarks that go beyond just measuring accuracy. Cost, efficiency, and the ability to generalize to new situations are all important factors.

Host: Mialon et al. focus on holistic planning skills through GAIA, a benchmark designed to assess performance on real-world questions requiring robust tool-use and multimodal reasoning, revealing substantial gaps between human-level proficiency and current LLMs. And Trivedi et al. emphasize the necessity of sophisticated tool integration with AppWorld, an interactive environment where agents must operate diverse applications via APIs and generate complex code in an iterative fashion.

Guest: So GAIA is pushing the boundaries of planning and reasoning, while AppWorld is focused on the practical challenge of interacting with real-world applications. It sounds like there's a lot of interesting work happening in this area.

Host: The authors state that collectively, these works underscore not only the breadth of agentic LLM capabilities but also the pressing need for systematic, multifaceted benchmarks that capture complex tasks with verifiable results and foster reproducible progress in the field. However, none of these works focuses on evaluating or developing LLM agents for open-ended AI research tasks.

Guest: Right, that's the key point. While there's progress in other areas, there's still a gap when it comes to specifically evaluating AI agents doing research.

Host: Section 2.3 discusses Agents for Software Engineering and Data Science. Recent work has explored how agents can tackle code-level challenges in controlled settings that permit systematic evaluation. SWE-agent operates within a constrained agent-computer interface to facilitate file creation, repository navigation, and code testing. Wang et al describe OpenHands, a platform that restricts agent interactions to sandboxed environments for safer command execution and verifiable web browsing.

Guest: Those are good examples of how to create controlled environments for evaluating specific skills. Software engineering tasks are particularly well-suited to this approach because the outcomes are relatively easy to verify. But I would suggest that this does not automatically extend to AI research agents.

Host: Zhang et al. achieve competitive perforemance on SWE-bench with AutoCodeRover, which, unlike the agentic approaches, solves Github issues by combining LLM-based programming with program representation as an abstract syntax tree. Towards the goal of automating data science work, Li et al. introduce AutoKaggle, a multi-agent human-assisting system, and Grosnit et al. present AgentK v1.0, an end-to-end autonomous data science agent.

Guest: So, there's a spectrum of approaches, from fully autonomous agents to systems that assist human data scientists. It's not clear yet which approach will ultimately be the most effective.

Host: The paper also mentions SWE-Search, a multi-agent framework that marries Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) with iterative refinement, enabling agents to continuously evaluate and improve their approaches to repository-level tasks.

Guest: MCTS is an interesting technique. It allows the agent to explore different possible solutions and learn from its mistakes. It seems well-suited to complex problems where the optimal solution is not immediately obvious.

Host: Xia et al. demonstrate that even relatively simple approaches can excel when thoroughly monitored: an ’agentless’ system follows a three-step process and outperforms more complex agent-based methods on SWE-bench Lite, underscoring the value of constrained, verifiable environments in driving reproducible gains for autonomous SWE agents.

Guest: That's a good reminder that complexity isn't always better. Sometimes a simpler, more well-defined approach can be more effective, especially in the early stages of development.

Host: Lastly, the paper discusses Agents for Scientific Research in section 2.4. They argue that controlled SWE contexts build the foundation for more complex automation while maintaining a reproducible and verifiable approach. However, just the software foundations alone are not sufficient to address the remaining gaps towards the goal of science acceleration.

Guest: Right, you need more than just good coding skills to do scientific research. You need creativity, intuition, and the ability to think critically about complex problems.

Host: host

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

Summary

Discussion