PreprintCited by 60Software Engineering ResearchArtificial Intelligence ApplicationsTopic Modeling

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Data Interpreter: An LLM Agent For Data Science

Open access

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2402.18679

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

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)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4392492277
Cited by
60
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 7
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
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