CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 1Artificial Intelligence ApplicationsAI-based Problem Solving and PlanningMachine Learning and Data Classification

ML-Master: Towards AI-for-AI via Integration of Exploration and Reasoning

Open access
Liu, Zexi, Cai, Yuzhu, Zhu, Xinyu, Zheng, Yujie, Chen, Runkun, Wen, Ying, Wang, Yanfeng, E, Weinan +1 more·2025·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2506.16499arXiv 2506.16499
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

As AI capabilities advance toward and potentially beyond human-level performance, a natural transition emerges where AI-driven development becomes more efficient than human-centric approaches. A promising pathway toward this transition lies in AI-for-AI (AI4AI), which leverages AI techniques to automate and optimize the design, training, and deployment of AI systems themselves. While LLM-based agents have shown the potential to realize AI4AI, they are often unable to fully leverage the experience accumulated by agents during the exploration of solutions in the reasoning process, leading to inefficiencies and suboptimal performance. To address this limitation, we propose ML-Master, a novel AI4AI agent that seamlessly integrates exploration and reasoning by employing a selectively scoped memory mechanism. This approach allows ML-Master to efficiently combine diverse insights from parallel solution trajectories with analytical reasoning, guiding further exploration without overwhelming the agent with excessive context. We evaluate ML-Master on the MLE-Bench, where it achieves a 29.3% average medal rate, significantly surpassing existing methods, particularly in medium-complexity tasks, while accomplishing this superior performance within a strict 12-hour time constraint-half the 24-hour limit used by previous baselines. These results demonstrate ML-Master's potential as a powerful tool for advancing AI4AI.

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.2506.16499

Cites

Statistics

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

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?

  • Most existing methods couple planning and code implementation into one-shot generation, lacking hierarchical control.

    “Third, most existing methods couple planning and code implementation into one-shot generation, lacking hierarchical control .”

    From MLEvolve: A Self-Evolving Framework for Automated Machine Learning Algorithm Discovery (2026) · cites this paper as [14]

    The Discussions (p. 10) say several existing methods have uncontrollable reasoning that cannot be steered by exploration outcomes, supporting the claim of limited control. But neither that discussion nor the Related Work passages establish that most methods combine planning and code implementation in one-shot generation or lack hierarchical control specifically. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Existing search mechanisms are limited by information isolation between branches and lack adaptive exploration strategies.

    “First, existing search mechanisms are limited by information isolation between branches and lack adaptive exploration strategies.”

    From MLEvolve: A Self-Evolving Framework for Automated Machine Learning Algorithm Discovery (2026) · cites this paper as [14]

    The Discussions (p. 10) say existing methods have fixed memory or cannot steer reasoning using exploration outcomes, supporting the claim that they lack adaptive exploration. The Steerable Reasoning section (p. 10) explains why ML-Master uses information from sibling branches, but the paper does not explicitly identify information isolation between branches as a limitation of existing search mechanisms. (LLM, conf=0.79)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

Cited by 1

Research works printed but not linked: 33

  1. [3][3] Xu Yang, Xiao Yang, Shikai Fang, Bowen Xian, Yuante Li, Jian Wang, Minrui Xu, Haoran Pan, Xinpeng Hong, Weiqing Liu, et al. R&d-agent: Automating data-driven ai solution building through llm-powered automated research, development, and evolution. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.14738, 2025. - · arXiv
  2. [4][4] Jun Shern Chan, Neil Chowdhury, Oliver Jaffe, James Aung, Dane Sherburn, Evan Mays, Giulio Starace, Kevin Liu, Leon Maksin, Tejal Patwardhan, et al. Mle-bench: Evaluating machine learning agents on machine learning engineering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.07095, 2024. - · arXiv
  3. [6][6] Justus Wolff, Josch Pauling, Andreas Keck, and Jan Baumbach. The economic impact of artificial intelligence in health care: systematic review. Journal of medical Internet research, 22(2):e16866, 2020. -
  4. [7][7] Kunal Handa, Alex Tamkin, Miles McCain, Saffron Huang, Esin Durmus, Sarah Heck, Jared Mueller, Jerry Hong, Stuart Ritchie, Tim Belonax, et al. Which economic tasks are performed with ai? evidence from millions of claude conversations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.04761, 2025. - · arXiv
  5. [8][8] Ammar Abulibdeh, Esmat Zaidan, and Rawan Abulibdeh. Navigating the confluence of artificial intelligence and education for sustainable development in the era of industry 4.0: Challenges, opportunities, and ethical dimensions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 437:140527, 2024. -
  6. [9][9] Barret Zoph and Quoc V. Le. Neural architecture search with reinforcement learning. In 5th International Conference on Learning Representations, 2017. -
  7. [11][11] David Silver, Aja Huang, Chris J Maddison, Arthur Guez, Laurent Sifre, George Van Den Driessche, Julian Schrittwieser, Ioannis Antonoglou, Veda Panneershelvam, Marc Lanctot, et al. Mastering the game of go with deep neural networks and tree search. nature, 529(7587):484-489, 2016. -
  8. [12][12] David Silver, Thomas Hubert, Julian Schrittwieser, Ioannis Antonoglou, Matthew Lai, Arthur Guez, Marc Lanctot, Laurent Sifre, Dharshan Kumaran, Thore Graepel, et al. A general reinforcement learning algorithm that masters chess, shogi, and go through self-play. Science, 362(6419):1140-1144, 2018. -
  9. [13][13] Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, et al. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948, 2025. - · arXiv
  10. [16][16] Shujian Zhang, Chengyue Gong, Lemeng Wu, Xingchao Liu, and Mingyuan Zhou. Automl-gpt: Automatic machine learning with gpt. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.02499, 2023. - · arXiv
  11. [20][20] Yizhou Chi, Yizhang Lin, Sirui Hong, Duyi Pan, Yaying Fei, Guanghao Mei, Bangbang Liu, Tianqi Pang, Jacky Kwok, Ceyao Zhang, et al. Sela: Tree-search enhanced llm agents for automated machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.17238, 2024. - · arXiv
  12. [21][21] Qian Huang, Jian Vora, Percy Liang, and Jure Leskovec. Mlagentbench: Evaluating language agents on machine learning experimentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03302, 2023. - · arXiv
  13. [25][25] Zhiqiang Tang, Haoyang Fang, Su Zhou, Taojiannan Yang, Zihan Zhong, Tony Hu, Katrin Kirchhoff, and George Karypis. Autogluon-multimodal (automm): Supercharging multimodal automl with foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.16233, 2024. - · arXiv
  14. [26][26] Randal S Olson and Jason H Moore. Tpot: A tree-based pipeline optimization tool for automating machine learning. In Workshop on automatic machine learning, pages 66-74. PMLR, 2016. -
  15. [27][27] Matthias Feurer, Katharina Eggensperger, Stefan Falkner, Marius Lindauer, and Frank Hutter. Auto-sklearn 2.0: Hands-free automl via meta-learning. arxiv 2020. arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.04074, 2022. - · arXiv
  16. [29][29] Nick Erickson, Jonas Mueller, Alexander Shirkov, Hang Zhang, Pedro Larroy, Mu Li, and Alexander Smola. Autogluon-tabular: Robust and accurate automl for structured data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.06505, 2020. - · arXiv
  17. [30][30] Sijia Liu, Parikshit Ram, Deepak Vijaykeerthy, Djallel Bouneffouf, Gregory Bramble, Horst Samulowitz, Dakuo Wang, Andrew Conn, and Alexander Gray. An admm based framework for automl pipeline configuration. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 4892-4899, 2020. -
  18. [31][31] Herilalaina Rakotoarison, Marc Schoenauer, and Michèle Sebag. Automated machine learning with monte-carlo tree search. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.00170, 2019. - · arXiv
  19. [32][32] Hanxiao Liu, Karen Simonyan, and Yiming Yang. Darts: Differentiable architecture search. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.09055, 2018. - · arXiv
  20. [33][33] Esteban Real, Chen Liang, David R So, and Quoc V Le. Automl-zero: Evolving machine learning algorithms from scratch. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.03384, 2020. - · arXiv
  21. [34][34] Barret Zoph, Vijay Vasudevan, Jonathon Shlens, and Quoc V Le. Learning transferable architectures for scalable image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 8697-8710, 2018. -
  22. [35][35] Bichen Wu, Xiaoliang Dai, Peizhao Zhang, Yanghan Wang, Fei Sun, Yiming Wu, Yuandong Tian, Peter Vajda, Yangqing Jia, and Kurt Keutzer. Fbnet: Hardware-aware efficient convnet design via differentiable neural architecture search. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 10734-10742, 2019. -
  23. [36][36] Lianmin Zheng, Wei-Lin Chiang, Ying Sheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Zhanghao Wu, Yonghao Zhuang, Zi Lin, Zhuohan Li, Dacheng Li, Eric Xing, et al. Judging llm-as-a-judge with mt-bench and chatbot arena. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:46595-46623, 2023. -
  24. [37][37] Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2023. -
  25. [38][38] Binyuan Hui, Jian Yang, Zeyu Cui, Jiaxi Yang, Dayiheng Liu, Lei Zhang, Tianyu Liu, Jiajun Zhang, Bowen Yu, Keming Lu, et al. Qwen2. 5-coder technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12186, 2024. - · arXiv
  26. [39][39] Lei Zhang, Yuge Zhang, Kan Ren, Dongsheng Li, and Yuqing Yang. Mlcopilot: Unleashing the power of large language models in solving machine learning tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.14979, 2023. - · arXiv
  27. [40][40] Ziming Li, Qianbo Zang, David Ma, Jiawei Guo, Tuney Zheng, Minghao Liu, Xinyao Niu, Yue Wang, Jian Yang, Jiaheng Liu, et al. Autokaggle: A multi-agent framework for autonomous data science competitions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.20424, 2024. - · arXiv
  28. [45][45] Eric Zelikman, Yuhuai Wu, Jesse Mu, and Noah D Goodman. Star: Self-taught reasoner bootstrapping reasoning with reasoning. In Proc. the 36th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 1126, 2024. -
  29. [46][46] Guan Xinyu, Zhang Li, Lyna, Liu Yifei, Shang Ning, Sun Youran, Zhu Yi, Yang Fan, and Yang Mao. rstar-math: Small llms can master math reasoning with self-evolved deep thinking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.04519, 2025. - · arXiv
  30. [48][48] Yue Hu, Yuzhu Cai, Yaxin Du, Xinyu Zhu, Xiangrui Liu, Zijie Yu, Yuchen Hou, Shuo Tang, and Siheng Chen. Self-evolving multi-agent collaboration networks for software development. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.16946, 2024. - · arXiv
  31. [50][50] Qi Zehan, Liu Xiao, Iong Iat, Long, Lai Hanyu, Sun Xueqiao, Zhao Wenyi, Yang Yu, Yang Xinyue, Sun Jiadai, Yao Shuntian, Zhang Tianjie, Xu Wei, Tang Jie, and Dong Yuxiao. Webrl: Training llm web agents via self-evolving online curriculum reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.02337, 2024. - · arXiv
  32. [51][51] Xi Zhiheng, Ding Yiwen, Chen Wenxiang, Hong Boyang, Guo Honglin, Wang Junzhe, Yang Dingwen, Liao Chenyang, Guo Xin, He Wei, Gao Songyang, Chen Lu, Zheng Rui, Zou Yicheng, Gui Tao, Zhang Qi, Qiu Xipeng, Huang Xuanjing, Wu Zuxuan, and Jiang Yu-Gang. Agentgym: Evolving large language model-based agents across diverse environments. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.04151, 2024. - · arXiv
  33. [52][52] Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, et al. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948, 2025. · arXiv

Authors
Liu, Z., Cai, Y., Zhu, X., Zheng, Y., Chen, R., Wen, Y., Wang, Y., E, W., & Chen, S.
ORCID
Wen, Ying
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2506.16499
arXiv
2506.16499
OpenAlex
W4417538505
Cited by
1
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Data Classification
Keywords
LLM agents, automated machine learning

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