← 研踪 PaperTrailarXiv:2507.08038 · v4
AblationBench: Evaluating Automated Planning of Ablations in Empirical AI Research
首次提交 2025-07-09 20:07
版本更新 2026-11-06 23:07
雷达观测 2026-11-09 13:22
摘要
Language model agents are increasingly used to automate scientific research, yet evaluating their scientific contributions remains a challenge. A key mechanism to obtain such insights is through ablation experiments. To this end, we introduce AblationBench, a benchmark suite for evaluating agents on ablation planning tasks in empirical AI research. It includes two tasks: AuthorAblation, which helps authors propose ablation experiments based on a method section and contains 83 instances, and ReviewerAblation, which helps reviewers find missing ablations in a full paper and contains 350 instances. For both tasks, we develop LM-based judges that serve as an automatic evaluation framework. Our experiments with frontier LMs show that these tasks remain challenging, with the best-performing LM system identifying only 45% of the original ablations on average, below human-level performance. We observe an inverse performance trend between the author and reviewer tasks, which we attribute to differences in model grounding. Lastly, we analyze the limitations of current LMs on these tasks, and find that chain-of-thought prompting outperforms an agent-based approach. Our data is available on https://huggingface.co/collections/ai-coscientist/ablationbench, and our code is available on https://github.com/ai-scientist-bench/ablation-bench .
作者备注:Findings of the EMNLP 2026; Project page: https://ablation-bench.github.io/
观测到的版本
相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。
v4 · 2026-11-06 23:07 · 最新观测版本
AblationBench: Evaluating Automated Planning of Ablations in Empirical AI Research
Language model agents are increasingly used to automate scientific research, yet evaluating their scientific contributions remains a challenge. A key mechanism to obtain such insights is through ablation experiments. To this end, we introduce AblationBench, a benchmark suite for evaluating agents on ablation planning tasks in empirical AI research. It includes two tasks: AuthorAblation, which helps authors propose ablation experiments based on a method section and contains 83 instances, and ReviewerAblation, which helps reviewers find missing ablations in a full paper and contains 350 instances. For both tasks, we develop LM-based judges that serve as an automatic evaluation framework. Our experiments with frontier LMs show that these tasks remain challenging, with the best-performing LM system identifying only 45% of the original ablations on average, below human-level performance. We observe an inverse performance trend between the author and reviewer tasks, which we attribute to differences in model grounding. Lastly, we analyze the limitations of current LMs on these tasks, and find that chain-of-thought prompting outperforms an agent-based approach. Our data is available on https://huggingface.co/collections/ai-coscientist/ablationbench, and our code is available on https://github.com/ai-scientist-bench/ablation-bench .
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗