The DOI matches its DataCite record.
Data Interpreter: An LLM Agent For Data Science
Open accessAbstract
Large Language Model (LLM)-based agents have shown effectiveness across many applications. However, their use in data science scenarios requiring solving long-term interconnected tasks, dynamic data adjustments and domain expertise remains challenging. Previous approaches primarily focus on individual tasks, making it difficult to assess the complete data science workflow. Moreover, they struggle to handle real-time changes in intermediate data and fail to adapt dynamically to evolving task dependencies inherent to data science problems. In this paper, we present Data Interpreter, an LLM-based agent designed to automatically solve various data science problems end-to-end. Our Data Interpreter incorporates two key modules: 1) Hierarchical Graph Modeling, which breaks down complex problems into manageable subproblems, enabling dynamic node generation and graph optimization; and 2) Programmable Node Generation, a technique that refines and verifies each subproblem to iteratively improve code generation results and robustness. Extensive experiments consistently demonstrate the superiority of Data Interpreter. On InfiAgent-DABench, it achieves a 25% performance boost, raising accuracy from 75.9% to 94.9%. For machine learning and open-ended tasks, it improves performance from 88% to 95%, and from 60% to 97%, respectively. Moreover, on the MATH dataset, Data Interpreter achieves remarkable performance with a 26% improvement compared to state-of-the-art baselines. The code is available at https://github.com/geekan/MetaGPT.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A review of large language models and autonomous agents in chemistry
Ramos, M. C., Collison, C. J., & White, A. D. (2025) · Chemical Science · doi:10.1039/d4sc03921a · Cited by 274
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
Self-citationGenerative artificial intelligence: implications for biomedical and health professions education
Hersh, W. (2025) · Annual Review of Biomedical Data Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-biodatasci-103123-094756 · Cited by 28
AFlow: Automating Agentic Workflow Generation
Zhang, J., Xiang, J., Yu, Z., Teng, F., Chen, X., Chen, J., Zhuge, M., Cheng, X., Hong, S., Wang, J., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.10762 · Cited by 359
“For the MATH (Hendrycks et al., 2021) dataset, we follow (Hong et al., 2024a) Baselines.”
Self-citationMulti-agent Architecture Search via Agentic Supernet
Zhang, G., Niu, L., Fang, J., Wang, K., Bai, L., & Wang, X. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.04180
“…Nakajima, 2023; Reworkd, 2023) have made remarkable strides in a spectrum of domains, such as question answering (Zhu et al., 2024a), data analysis (Hong et al., 2024; Li et al., 2024), code generation (Shinn et al., 2023), web navigation (Deng et al., 2024), and data synthesis (Butt et al.,…”
EvoFlow: Evolving Diverse Agentic Workflows On The Fly
Zhang, G., Chen, K., Wan, G., Chang, H., Cheng, H., Wang, K., Hu, S., & Bai, L. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.07373
“For the MATH benchmark, we follow (Hong et al., 2024) in selecting a harder subset (617 problems).”
ScoreFlow: Mastering LLM Agent Workflows via Score-based Preference Optimization
Wang, Y., Yang, L., Li, G., Wang, M., & Aragam, B. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.04306
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
- Hong, S., Lin, Y., Liu, B., Liu, B., Wu, B., Zhang, C., Wei, C., Li, D., Chen, J., Zhang, J., Wang, J., Zhang, L., Zhang, L., Yang, M., Zhuge, M., Guo, T., Zhou, T., Tao, W., Tang, X., Lu, X., Zheng, X., Liang, X., Fei, Y., Cheng, Y., Gou, Z., Xu, Z., & Wu, C.
- Affiliations
- Université de Montréal (CA)
- Yale University (US)
- Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen (CN)
- Shenzhen University (CN)
- Fudan University (CN)
- Renmin University of China (CN)
- Chinese Academy of Sciences (CN)
- King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (SA)
- University of Notre Dame (US)
- University of Hong Kong (HK)
- Xiamen University (CN)
- Beijing University of Technology (CN)
- Tsinghua University (CN)
- ORCID
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2402.18679
- OpenAlex
- W4392492277
- Cited by
- 60
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 20 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 7
- 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 › Artificial Intelligence Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Keywords
- LLM agents, code generation, task decomposition, task dependencies
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