Good Papers

FML-bench: A Controlled Study of AI Research Agent Strategies from the Perspective of Search Dynamics

FML-bench isolates agent strategy from infrastructure across 18 ML tasks, finding greedy hill-climbing nearly matches tree search, while adaptive exploration switching outperforms fixed strategies.

Qiran Zou, Hou Hei Lam, Wenhao Zhao, Tingting Chen, Yiming Tang, Samson Yu, Yingtao Zhu, srinivas anumasa, Zufeng Zhang, Tianyi Zhang, Chang Liu, zhengyao Jiang, Anirudh Goyal, Dianbo Liu

Published 2026Sydney Poster Session 2 · Tue, Dec 8, 5:00 PM–8:00 PM local time · Hall 1-4arXiv ↗OpenReview ↗

88%
OverallMust read
?
OverallMust readVote to see the scoreThe exact score shows once you've voted, so every vote is your own call. The first half of each home page shelf shows its scores.
Readers
–

Only vote on papers you've read. Sign in with GitHub to vote.

AI panel15/20reviewers recommend it
lenient 5/5
medium 9/10
strict 1/5
AI panel?Vote to see what the 20 AI reviewers said

Abstract

AI research agents accelerate ML research by automating hypothesis generation, experimentation, and empirical refinement. Existing agent strategies range from greedy hill-climbing to tree search and evolutionary optimization, yet which strategy choices drive performance remains unclear. Answering this question requires a benchmark that separates agent strategy (e.g., search topology) from execution infrastructure (e.g., code editor), so that performance differences are attributable to strategy rather than infrastructure, and that provides process-level metrics beyond final scores to analyze exploration behaviors. Existing benchmarks offer limited support. We propose FML-Bench, a benchmark of 18 fundamental ML research tasks across 10 domains that separates agent strategy from execution infrastructure and defines 12 process-level behavioral metrics. Evaluating six representative agents, we find that: (1) strategy complexity alone does not guarantee strong performance: a simple greedy hill-climber nearly matches the best-performing tree-search agent, both well above the remaining agents; (2) our analysis suggests this pattern relates to improvement opportunity structure: greedy search tends to be more effective when opportunities are dense, while tree-search and evolutionary strategies tend to be more effective when opportunities are sparse; an adaptive agent built on this insight switches to broader exploration upon detecting improvement stagnation and outperforms the other six agents, lending initial support to this observation; and (3) process-level analysis reveals that early convergence and directionally focused exploration are significantly associated with final performance, while solution diversity and compute cost are not. Our benchmark is available at: https://github.com/qrzou/FML-bench.