The DOI matches its DataCite record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
ML-Bench: Evaluating Large Language Models and Agents for Machine Learning Tasks on Repository-Level Code
Open accessAbstract
Despite Large Language Models (LLMs) like GPT-4 achieving impressive results in function-level code generation, they struggle with repository-scale code understanding (e.g., coming up with the right arguments for calling routines), requiring a deeper comprehension of complex file interactions. Also, recently, people have developed LLM agents that attempt to interact with repository code (e.g., compiling and evaluating its execution), prompting the need to evaluate their performance. These gaps have motivated our development of ML-Bench, a benchmark rooted in real-world programming applications that leverage existing code repositories to perform tasks. Addressing the need for LLMs to interpret long code contexts and translate instructions into precise, executable scripts, ML-Bench encompasses annotated 9,641 examples across 18 GitHub repositories, challenging LLMs to accommodate user-specified arguments and documentation intricacies effectively. To evaluate both LLMs and AI agents, two setups are employed: ML-LLM-Bench for assessing LLMs' text-to-code conversion within a predefined deployment environment, and ML-Agent-Bench for testing autonomous agents in an end-to-end task execution within a Linux sandbox environment. Our findings indicate that while GPT-4o leads with a Pass@5 rate surpassing 50%, there remains significant scope for improvement, highlighted by issues such as hallucinated outputs and difficulties with bash script generation. Notably, in the more demanding ML-Agent-Bench, GPT-4o achieves a 76.47% success rate, reflecting the efficacy of iterative action and feedback in complex task resolution. Our code, dataset, and models are available at https://github.com/gersteinlab/ML-bench.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Existing machine learning software engineering benchmarks are primarily focused on evaluating algorithmic design or straightforward implementations, which are significantly less complex than methods typically described in academic research papers.
“there are several machine learning software engineering benchmarks primarily focused on evaluating algorithmic design or straightforward implementations, which are significantly less complex than the methods typically described in academic research papers.”
From SciReplicate-Bench: Benchmarking LLMs in Agent-driven Algorithmic Reproduction from Research Papers (2025) · cites this paper as Liu et al., 2023
Citations
Cites
Measuring The Impact Of Programming Language Distribution
Orlanski, G., Xiao, K., Garcia, X., Hui, J., Howland, J., Malmaud, J., Austin, J., Singh, R., & Catasta, M. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.01973 · Cited by 21 · cited 1×
“Each repository is chosen for its high-quality contributions to the field and its popularity among the development community, indicated by the number of stars.”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
MetaGPT: Meta Programming for A Multi-Agent Collaborative Framework
Hong, S., Zhuge, M., Chen, J., Zheng, X., Cheng, Y., Zhang, C., Wang, J., Wang, Z., Yau, S. K. S., Lin, Z., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.00352 · Cited by 214
OpenHands: An Open Platform for AI Software Developers as Generalist Agents
Wang, X., Li, B., Song, Y., Xu, F. F., Tang, X., Zhuge, M., Pan, J., Song, Y., Li, B., Singh, J., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.16741 · Cited by 24
Self-citationMLE-bench: Evaluating Machine Learning Agents on Machine Learning Engineering
Chan, J. S., Chowdhury, N., Jaffe, O., Aung, J., Sherburn, D., Mays, E., Starace, G., Liu, K., Maksin, L., Patwardhan, T., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.07095 · Cited by 7
SciReplicate-Bench: Benchmarking LLMs in Agent-driven Algorithmic Reproduction from Research Papers
Xiang, Y., Yan, H., Ouyang, S., Gui, L., & He, Y. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.00255 · Cited by 1
“Recent efforts have developed machine learning-specific benchmarks (Liu et al., 2023; Huang et al., 2023; Chan et al., 2024), but these typically involve implementing algorithms proposed by the models themselves or solving relatively straightforward tasks.”
ReproAgent: Contract-Guided Paper-to-Code Reproduction
Hu, X., Pan, Z., Wang, Z., Liu, Z., Su, Z., & Zhang, W. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.24291
OctoBench: Benchmarking Scaffold-Aware Instruction Following in Repository-Grounded Agentic Coding
Ding, D., Liu, S., Yang, E., Lin, J., Chen, Z., Dou, S., Guo, H., Cheng, W., Zhao, P., Xiao, C., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.10343
DeltaML-Bench: Evaluating Machine Learning Agents on Real-World Research Repositories
Moukpe, J., Aryal, P., & Kenney, M. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.19653
SUPER: Evaluating Agents on Setting Up and Executing Tasks from Research Repositories
Bogin, B., Yang, K., Gupta, S., Richardson, K., Bransom, E., Clark, P., Sabharwal, A., & Khot, T. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.07440
Metadata
- Authors
- Tang, X., Liu, Y., Cai, Z., Shao, Y., Lu, J., Zhang, Y., Deng, Z., Hu, H., An, K., Huang, R., Si, S., Chen, S., Zhao, H., Chen, L., Wang, Y., Liu, T., Jiang, Z., Chang, B., Fang, Y., Qin, Y., Zhou, W., Zhao, Y., Cohan, A., & Gerstein, M.
- Affiliations
- Peking University (CN)
- ORCID
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2311.09835
- OpenAlex
- W4388788714
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Keywords
- large language models, LLM agents, software repositories, benchmark, GPT-4o, hallucinations, autonomous agents, task execution, GitHub repositories
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review