AutoResearch at Production Scale: Failure Modes and a Multi-Agent Framework

Auto-research agents have shown the potential to automate hypothesis generation, experiment execution, and iterative refinement. However, scaling this paradigm to industry-scale recommendation models introduces two challenges: (1) long feedback loops, where model training can take days, making serial iteration prohibitively slow and requiring parallel exploration across multiple research directions; and (2) system complexity, where large configurations, fragile infrastructure dependencies, and multi-day GPU jobs require robust and recoverable execution. We present Auto-RecSys, an autonomous research system for long-horizon experimentation on industry-scale recommendation models. Auto-RecSys addresses these challenges through three harness designs: (1) distributed asynchronous execution for running multiple experiments in parallel across servers, (2) centralized cross-server memory for persistent and recoverable execution across sessions and failures, and (3) cognitive-procedural separation, where natural-language skill files guide LLM reasoning while deterministic scripts enforce operational correctness. Auto-RecSys further employs a dual-loop self-evolving architecture: an Execution Evolution Loop in which model-specific playbooks accumulate operational knowledge by recording failed attempts and crystallizing successful pipelines, and an Idea Evolution Loop in which experimental outcomes inform subsequent ideation. Evaluated on recommendation models, Auto-RecSys significantly reduces the human time required per experiment cycle and improves execution reliability as its playbooks mature.

Auto Research uses language-model agents to propose, implement, and evaluate machine-learning changes in a closed loop, but is usually judged by its terminal pipeline. A terminal score cannot reveal which technical decision produced a gain or distinguish a reusable discovery from a change adapted to development feedback. We introduce intervention-centered Auto Research, which validates research decisions rather than only final artifacts and makes their reliability measurable. Feature, Model, Representation, and Data axes are searched independently with inner five-fold feedback. Each axis winner is frozen before an outer-holdout matrix compares all alternatives on evidence the loop never sees. Across 701 agent-executed attempts spanning ten Matbench endpoints, outer evidence confirms the selected intervention on nine of ten endpoints and preserves 89.3% of non-tied intervention orderings. It also rejects an aggregate Representation gain that inner feedback endorsed. The resulting matrix reveals an information-dependent hierarchy. Composition-only tasks support several routes to improvement, whereas structure-informed tasks favor local geometry features and complementary tree ensembles. A subsequent compatibility test combines already frozen Feature and Model code without further search or tuning and raises mean outer-holdout improvement from 19.0% to 26.3%. By validating decisions rather than only artifacts, this design turns adaptive search into reusable evidence wherever agents propose executable alternatives against a fixed evaluator.

We study auto research as a closed empirical loop driven by external measurement. Each submitted trial carries a hypothesis, an executable code edit, an evaluator-owned outcome, and feedback that shapes the next proposal. The output is not a generated paper or a single model checkpoint, but an auditable trajectory of proposals, code diffs, experiments, scores, and failure labels. We instantiate this loop with specialist agents that partition recipe surfaces and share measured lineage across trials. The central empirical finding is that lineage feedback lets agents turn evaluator outcomes, including crashes, budget overruns, size failures, and accuracy-gate misses, into later program-level recipe edits rather than one-shot suggestions. Across 1,197 headline-run trials plus 600 Parameter Golf control trials after one-time setup and launch, humans did not choose proposals, edit recipes, override scores, or repair failed trials during the search. In the three headline runs, the same submitted-trial loop reduces Parameter Golf validation bpb by $0.81\%$, raises NanoChat-D12 CORE by $38.7\%$, and reduces CIFAR-10 Airbench96 wallclock by $4.59\%$, with each task measured by its own external evaluator and legality checks. The trace includes a strict architecture-domain audit of 157 headline-run submissions and program rewrites such as a NanoChat attention-kernel path change. Within this scope the loop autonomously writes code, submits experiments, absorbs feedback, applies and combines known techniques inside each environment, and improves public starting recipes.