Organizations: The Hong Kong Polytechnic University · IQuest Research · Shanghai Jiaotong University · TU Darmstadt · The University of Manchester · University of Macau · Shanghai University of Finance and Economics · Beihang University
Existing auto-research benchmarks often entangle multiple sources of improvement, including training frameworks, hyperparameters, compute budgets, and data, making it difficult to attribute why one frontier agent outperforms another to specific research capabilities. In this work, we isolate and systematically evaluate Data Intelligence: an agent's ability to understand, manipulate, and improve the data that shapes model capabilities. We introduce AutoDataBench, a controlled testbed built on a conceptual framework of data intelligence spanning data diagnosis, data organization, and data construction, instantiated through three highly curated optimization tasks while holding non-data factors fixed. Across tool use, retrieval, and knowledge injection, we evaluate frontier LLMs' ability to improve training data through iterative experimentation under task-specific resource budgets. Beyond optimization performance, we ask: do LLMs understand what their data interventions do? We compare predictions made before training with observed outcomes to seek evidence of data-effect reasoning beyond trial and error, and explore whether iterative feedback helps LLMs better understand how changes to training data affect model performance. Finally, we show that reusing AutoDataBench trajectories for mid-training improves downstream coding performance, highlighting its value in both evaluating data intelligence and generating high-quality training data. Code and resources are available at https://github.com/AutoDataBench/AutoDataBench.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of AutoDataBench. (a) Three dimensions of data intelligence: data diagnosis and repair, data organization, and data construction. (b) Agents iteratively propose data interventions, construct training datasets, and use feedback from a fixed training and evaluation pipeline. Final evaluation measures target-task improvement and generalization to held-out evaluation distributions.
Tool use
Retrieval
Knowledge
Method
Overall
ID mean
ID best
OOD
ID mean
ID best
OOD
ID mean
ID best
OOD
Baseline
47.98
70.45
–
55.18
34.38
–
31.13
39.10
–
47.84
Expert
56.89
81.65
–
60.23
40.62
–
34.76
48.40
–
48.55
DeepSeek-V4-Flash
55.20
80.97±0.59
81.40
57.26
36.22±1.26
37.59
29.53
48.40±7.71
57.30
49.38
Qwen-3.7-Max
56.80
80.82±0.24
81.00
57.90
39.22±2.51
41.25
30.18
50.37±1.31
51.40
47.33
Claude-4.7
58.31
81.00±0.15
81.15
58.95
38.99±2.31
40.86
29.61
54.93±0.57
55.40
50.37
Table 1: Performance across tasks (scores ×100 ). Overall averages the three task-wise ID means (Novel for knowledge injection). For each LLM and task, Mean/Best denote the mean/maximum across three standard runs; ± indicates sample standard deviation. OOD reports mean hidden-evaluation scores at ID-selected checkpoints: BFCL for tool use, held-out retrieval datasets for retrieval, and Retention for knowledge injection. Bold marks the best LLM result.
Figure 2: Best-so-far ID scores in the best-performing standard run of each LLM on each task (scores ×100 ; Knowledge uses Novel). Runs are selected by their maximum ID score, with ties resolved by the earliest run. Each trajectory ends at its own last successful evaluation; failed evaluations are excluded. These selected runs illustrate optimization behavior, not average performance or equal-compute comparisons.
Figure 3: Predicted and observed scores across training evaluations for GPT-5.6-Sol and Kimi-3. Horizontal lines show the mean best score across standard runs. The first evaluation has no forecast.
MBPP Base
MBPP Plus
CRUXEval Input
LiveCodeBench v5
SWE-bench Multilingual
Control
85.45
72.75
72.00
44.89
27.67
+ Auto-Research
86.24
73.28
74.12
45.80
33.33
Δ
+0.79
+0.53
+2.12
+0.91
+5.66
Table 2: Benchmark as Data Engine: Transfer of auto-research trajectories to general coding tasks. Both models use a 5B-token mid-training budget followed by identical SFT.
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Operator
Operation
Attempt probability
Application count
Argument type error
Convert a numeric or Boolean argument value to a string.
12%
1,516
Missing argument
Delete one supplied argument, prioritizing required parameters and otherwise selecting an optional parameter.
12%
4,139
Extra argument
Add a parameter borrowed from another tool in the same example that is absent from the called tool’s schema.
10%
2,617
Wrong function label
Replace a called function with the most similar alternative among the available tools, using cosine similarity of embeddings of tool names and descriptions.
12%
3,132
Argument value corruption
Replace an argument value with a different value of the same type drawn from the pool of values for the same parameter name.
12%
4,140
Schema inconsistency
Mark an omitted parameter as required, or change the declared type of a supplied parameter.
8%
1,910
Appendix
Table 3: Corruption operators for the tool-use training pool. Attempt probabilities apply to callable examples; application counts record operations that pass their applicability checks. Counts overlap because an example may receive multiple corruptions.
LLM
Run
Evals
First ID
Best ID
At
Last ID
OOD
DeepSeek-V4-Flash
1
10
70.00
81.20
9
81.15
53.83
2
10
75.90
80.30
8
80.20
59.16
3
10
71.45
81.40
8
81.25
58.80
Qwen-3.7-Max
1
10
71.35
81.00
7
79.80
56.85
2
10
77.20
80.55
10
80.55
58.56
3
10
71.35
80.90
10
80.90
58.28
Appendix
Table 4: Tool-use results for individual standard runs (scores ×100 ). ID is macro AST accuracy; OOD is BFCL accuracy.
LLM
Run
Evals
First ID
Best ID
At
Last ID
OOD
DeepSeek-V4-Flash
1
6
32.99
35.10
6
35.10
28.37
2
11
33.98
37.59
11
37.59
30.24
3
13
30.76
35.98
13
35.98
29.99
Qwen-3.7-Max
1
10
34.85
41.25
9
40.86
30.05
2
12
35.14
36.41
11
36.09
29.13
3
10
34.86
39.99
9
38.73
31.35
Appendix
Table 5: Retrieval results for individual standard runs (scores ×100 ). ID is mean nDCG@10; OOD is mean nDCG@10 on the five held-out datasets.
LLM
Run
Evals
First ID
Best ID
At
Last ID
OOD
DeepSeek-V4-Flash
1
3
57.30
57.30
1
55.20
49.55
2
11
41.80
43.90
7
42.90
48.20
3
16
43.80
44.00
2
41.40
50.39
Qwen-3.7-Max
1
13
46.30
48.90
12
48.80
47.34
2
10
49.00
51.40
9
49.10
47.11
3
10
48.10
50.80
10
50.80
47.53
Appendix
Table 6: Knowledge Injection results for individual standard runs (scores ×100 ). ID is Novel accuracy; OOD is hidden Retention accuracy.
Task
Scored runs
Improved runs
Mean gain
Tool use
21
21
8.11
Retrieval
21
21
6.46
Knowledge injection
21
19
4.91
Appendix
Table 7: Refinement across all scored standard runs. Improvement compares each run’s best ID score with its first successful evaluation. Mean gains include runs with no improvement and are measured in score points.
Recursive self-improvement requires turning evidence of model failures into better models. Data-centric post-training research entails diagnosing capability gaps, designing and validating training-data strategies, and learning from checkpoint feedback. Can LLM agents automate this loop? Existing benchmarks entangle research decisions with optimization, serving, evaluation, and systems implementation, obscuring agents' research capability. We introduce RSIBench-Data, a controlled benchmark of LLM agents as data-centric researchers with a fixed post-training stack. Agents iteratively revise training-data strategies for a fixed target model; training and serving use Tinker-backed services, official evaluation runs through Harbor and E2B sandboxes, and budgets are fixed across agents. We evaluate four frontier agents on six benchmarks across software engineering, terminal use, scientific question answering, and mathematics. Agents demonstrate core data-centric research capabilities: in 58.33% of settings, they improve upon the first valid attempt by refining strategies from feedback. However, improvement is inconsistent. Among searches continuing after the best observed score, 78.26% end with a lower-scoring final attempt, while the rest only recover the same peak. A strong candidate may therefore appear early or midway through a run even as later revisions fail. Trajectory analysis identifies four patterns in stronger runs: accurate hypotheses, validation-grounded supervision, behavior-aligned data, and preservation of strong checkpoints. These findings suggest that current agents can make useful data-centric discoveries but cannot yet translate feedback into consistent improvements. RSIBench-Data provides a measurable, auditable testbed for the research capabilities required for recursive self-improvement. We open-source our code at https://github.com/evolvent-ai/RSIBench-Data.
Recent gains in language model capability have come more from data than from architecture. Frontier labs and data companies produce verifiable agentic tasks, which supervised finetuning and reinforcement learning then turn into capability.This production line still rests on human labour and on human-in-the-loop collaboration. Automating task creation would let data production scale with compute rather than with expert headcount, would extend to more domains, and would enable a key step in recursive self-improvement (RSI). Current evaluations of an agent's ability to write such tasks measure how a model performs after training on what the agent produced. That does not match common practice in the data industry, where data is delivered sample by sample and each sample is accepted against a set of criteria rather than put straight into training. No existing evaluation asks whether an individual task meets the acceptance criteria of a data pipeline. We therefore introduce AutoDataBench. Given an original benchmark task and a record of the target model attempting it, an agent must write a new task for the same suite that meets practical acceptance standards on validity, novelty, difficulty and behavioural coverage. Across three benchmarks of executable agent tasks, no agent we evaluate scores above 20 out of 100 at the default time budget of 45 minutes. Giving the strongest agent four times as long improves its score substantially, while the cost of one usable task stays almost unchanged. Current agents can write training tasks of the required quality, but not efficiently. AutoDataBench provides a direct measure of an agent's capacity for autonomous data synthesis: one artifact at a time, judged against the criteria a production pipeline would apply, and without a training run. Code and data are available at https://github.com/StarDewXXX/AutoDataBench.
Large Language Model (LLM) agents have shown great potential in addressing real-world data science problems. LLM-driven data science agents promise to automate the entire machine learning pipeline, yet their real-world effectiveness remains limited. Existing frameworks depend on rigid, pre-defined workflows and inflexible coding strategies; consequently, they excel only on relatively simple, classical problems and fail to capture the empirical expertise that human practitioners bring to complex, innovative tasks. In this work, we introduce AutoMind, an adaptive, knowledgeable LLM-agent framework that overcomes these deficiencies through three key advances: (1) a curated expert knowledge base that grounds the agent in domain expert knowledge, (2) an agentic knowledgeable tree search algorithm that strategically explores possible solutions, and (3) a self-adaptive coding strategy that dynamically tailors code generation to task complexity. Evaluations on two automated data science benchmarks demonstrate that AutoMind delivers superior performance versus state-of-the-art baselines. Additional analyses confirm favorable effectiveness, efficiency, and qualitative solution quality, highlighting AutoMind as an efficient and robust step toward fully automated data science. Code is at https://github.com/zjunlp/AutoMind.
Yujie Luo, Yixin Ou, Jingsheng Zheng +9
Zhejiang University · Zhejiang University - Ant Group Joint Laboratory of Knowledge Graph · Ant Group