CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 0AI-based Problem Solving and PlanningArtificial Intelligence ApplicationsSoftware Engineering Research

MARS: Modular Agent with Reflective Search for Automated AI Research

Open access
Chen, Jiefeng, Mishra, Bhavana Dalvi, Nam, Jaehyun, Meng, Rui, Pfister, Tomas, Yoon, Jinsung·2026·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2602.02660arXiv 2602.02660
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

A critical bottleneck in automating AI research is the execution of complex machine learning engineering (MLE) tasks. MLE differs from general software engineering due to computationally expensive evaluation (e.g., model training) and opaque performance attribution. Current LLM-based agents struggle here, often generating monolithic scripts that ignore execution costs and causal factors. We introduce MARS (Modular Agent with Reflective Search), a framework optimized for autonomous AI research. MARS relies on three pillars: (1) Budget-Aware Planning via cost-constrained Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) to explicitly balance performance with execution expense; (2) Modular Construction, employing a "Design-Decompose-Implement" pipeline to manage complex research repositories; and (3) Comparative Reflective Memory, which addresses credit assignment by analyzing solution differences to distill high-signal insights. MARS achieves state-of-the-art performance among open-source frameworks on MLE-Bench under comparable settings, maintaining competitiveness with the global leaderboard's top methods. Furthermore, the system exhibits qualitative "Aha!" moments, where 63% of all utilized lessons originate from cross-branch transfer, demonstrating that the agent effectively generalizes insights across search paths.

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.2602.02660

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 search frameworks are memoryless and unable to accumulate experience from past interactions.

    “Second, most search frameworks are memoryless and unable to accumulate experience from past interactions [17, 18].”

    From MLEvolve: A Self-Evolving Framework for Automated Machine Learning Algorithm Discovery (2026) · cites this paper as [18]

    Table 1 (page unavailable) lists memory mechanisms in each of the five earlier MLE agent frameworks it compares, including stored designs, results, and strategies. Section 4.3 says standard memory-based agents often fail to learn effectively from past trials because they cannot isolate causal factors—not because they are memoryless or unable to retain past experience. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Most experience reuse methods require additional LLMs for reflection or summarization.

    “While these methods advance experience reuse, most require additional LLMs for reflection or summarization.”

    From MLEvolve: A Self-Evolving Framework for Automated Machine Learning Algorithm Discovery (2026) · cites this paper as [18]

    The Related Work discussion (section “Search Algorithms in Code Generation”; page unavailable) says some prior methods summarize execution logs, and “Solution Improvement via Comparative Reflection” describes MARS using agents for reflection. Neither passage establishes that most experience-reuse methods require additional LLMs. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    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.

Research works printed but not linked: 36

  1. J. S. Chan, N. Chowdhury, O. Jaffe, J. Aung, D. Sherburn, E. Mays, G. Starace, K. Liu, L. Maksin, T. Patwardhan, et al. MLE-bench: Evaluating machine learning agents on machine learning engineering. In International Conference on Learning Representations, volume 2025, pages 50466- 50494, 2025.
  2. S. Forouzandeh, W. Peng, P. Moradi, X. Yu, and M. Jalili. Learning hierarchical procedural memory for llm agents through bayesian selection and contrastive refinement. arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.18950, 2025. · arXiv
  3. Q. Huang, J. Vora, P. Liang, and J. Leskovec. Mlagentbench: Evaluating language agents on machine learning experimentation. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 20271-20309.
  4. PMLR, 2024.
  5. P. Jansen, O. Tafjord, M. Radensky, P. Siangliulue, T. Hope, B. Dalvi Mishra, B. P. Majumder, D. S. Weld, and P. Clark. CodeScientist: End-to-end semi-automated scientific discovery with code-based experimentation. In W. Che, J. Nabende, E. Shutova, and M. T. Pilehvar, editors, Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2025, Vienna, Austria, July 2025. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  6. Z. Jiang, D. Schmidt, D. Srikanth, D. Xu, I. Kaplan, D. Jacenko, and Y. Wu. Aide: Ai-driven exploration in the space of code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.13138, 2025. · arXiv
  7. C. E. Jimenez, J. Yang, A. Wettig, S. Yao, K. Pei, O. Press, and K. Narasimhan. Swe-bench: Can language models resolve real-world github issues? CoRR, abs/2310.06770, 2023. URL https: //doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2310.06770. · DOI · Paper page
  8. L. Kocsis and C. Szepesvári. Bandit based monte-carlo planning. In European conference on machine learning, pages 282-293. Springer, 2006.
  9. A. Li, C. Wu, Z. Ge, Y. H. Chong, Z. Hou, L. Cao, C. Ju, J. Wu, H. Li, H. Zhang, et al. The fm agent. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.26144, 2025. · arXiv
  10. Y. Li, D. Choi, J. Chung, N. Kushman, J. Schrittwieser, R. Leblond, T. Eccles, J. Keeling, F. Gimeno, A. Dal Lago, et al. Competition-level code generation with alphacode. Science, 378(6624):1092- 1097, 2022.
  11. T. Liu, Z. Wang, J. Miao, I. Hsu, J. Yan, J. Chen, R. Han, F. Xu, Y. Chen, K. Jiang, et al. Budget-aware tool-use enables effective agent scaling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.17006, 2025a. · arXiv
  12. Z. Liu, Y. Cai, X. Zhu, Y. Zheng, R. Chen, Y. Wen, Y. Wang, S. Chen, et al. Ml-master: Towards ai-for-ai via integration of exploration and reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.16499, 2025b. · arXiv
  13. C. Lu, C. Lu, R. T. Lange, J. Foerster, J. Clune, and D. Ha. The AI scientist: Towards fully automated open-ended scientific discovery. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.06292, 2024. · arXiv
  14. J. Nam, J. Yoon, J. Chen, J. Shin, S. Arik, and T. Pfister. Mle-star: Machine learning engineering agent via search and targeted refinement. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 38: 116692-116712, 2026.
  15. S. Ouyang, J. Yan, I.-H. Hsu, Y. Chen, K. Jiang, Z. Wang, R. Han, L. Le, S. Daruki, X. Tang, V. Tiru- malashetty, G. Lee, M. Rofouei, H. Lin, J. Han, C.-Y. Lee, and T. Pfister. Reasoningbank: Scaling agent self-evolving with reasoning memory. In The Fourteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2026.
  16. C. Packer, S. Wooders, K. Lin, V. Fang, S. G. Patil, I. Stoica, and J. E. Gonzalez. Memgpt: Towards llms as operating systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.08560, 2023. · arXiv
  17. Y. Pu, T. Lin, and H. Chen. PiFlow: Principle-aware scientific discovery with multi-agent collaboration. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.15047, 2025. · arXiv
  18. S. Schmidgall, Y. Su, Z. Wang, X. Sun, J. Wu, X. Yu, J. Liu, M. Moor, Z. Liu, and E. Barsoum. Agent laboratory: Using LLM agents as research assistants. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2025, pages 5977-6043, 2025.
  19. N. Shinn, F. Cassano, A. Gopinath, K. Narasimhan, and S. Yao. Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:8634-8652, 2023.
  20. G. Starace, O. Jaffe, D. Sherburn, J. Aung, J. S. Chan, L. Maksin, R. Dias, E. Mays, B. Kinsella, W. Thompson, J. Heidecke, A. Glaese, and T. Patwardhan. Paperbench: Evaluating AI's ability to replicate AI research. In Forty-second International Conference on Machine Learning, 2025.
  21. M. Tan, B. Chen, R. Pang, V. Vasudevan, M. Sandler, A. Howard, and Q. V. Le. Mnasnet: Platform-aware neural architecture search for mobile. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2820-2828, 2019.
  22. Z. Tan, J. Yan, I.-H. Hsu, R. Han, Z. Wang, L. Le, Y. Song, Y. Chen, H. Palangi, G. Lee, et al. In prospect and retrospect: Reflective memory management for long-term personalized dialogue agents. In Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 8416-8439, 2025.
  23. J. Tang, L. Xia, Z. Li, and C. Huang. Ai-researcher: Autonomous scientific innovation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 38:9481-9520, 2026.
  24. N. Team, B. Zhang, S. Feng, X. Yan, J. Yuan, Z. Yu, X. He, S. Huang, S. Hou, Z. Nie, et al. Novelseek: When agent becomes the scientist-building closed-loop system from hypothesis to verification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.16938, 2025. · arXiv
  25. M. Tian, L. Gao, S. Zhang, X. Chen, C. Fan, X. Guo, R. Haas, P. Ji, K. Krongchon, Y. Li, et al. Scicode: A research coding benchmark curated by scientists. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:30624-30650, 2024.
  26. E. Toledo, K. Hambardzumyan, M. Josifoski, R. Hazra, N. Baldwin, A. Audran-Reiss, M. Kuchnik, D. Magka, M. Jiang, A. Lupidi, et al. Ai research agents for machine learning: Search, exploration, and generalization in mle-bench. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 38:35309- 35348, 2026.
  27. X. Wang, B. Li, Y. Song, F. F. Xu, X. Tang, M. Zhuge, J. Pan, Y. Song, B. Li, J. Singh, et al. Openhands: An open platform for ai software developers as generalist agents. In International Conference on Learning Representations, volume 2025, pages 65882-65919, 2025.
  28. Y. Weng, M. Zhu, Q. Xie, Q. Sun, Z. Lin, S. Liu, and Y. Zhang. Deepscientist: Advancing frontier-pushing scientific findings progressively. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.26603, 2025. · arXiv
  29. H. Wijk, T. R. Lin, J. Becker, S. Jawhar, N. Parikh, T. Broadley, L. Chan, M. Chen, J. M. Clymer, J. Dhyani, E. Ericheva, K. Garcia, B. Goodrich, N. Jurkovic, M. Kinniment, A. Lajko, S. Nix, L. J. K. Sato, W. Saunders, M. Taran, B. West, and E. Barnes. RE-bench: Evaluating frontier AI r&d capabilities of language model agents against human experts. In Forty-second International Conference on Machine Learning, 2025.
  30. W. Xu, Z. Liang, K. Mei, H. Gao, J. Tan, and Y. Zhang. A-mem: Agentic memory for llm agents. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 38:17577-17604, 2026.
  31. Y. Yamada, R. T. Lange, C. Lu, S. Hu, C. Lu, J. Foerster, J. Clune, and D. Ha. The ai scientist- v2: Workshop-level automated scientific discovery via agentic tree search. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.08066, 2025. · arXiv
  32. J. Yang, C. E. Jimenez, A. Wettig, K. Lieret, S. Yao, K. Narasimhan, and O. Press. SWE-agent: Agent- computer interfaces enable automated software engineering. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:50528-50652, 2024.
  33. X. Yang, X. Yang, S. Fang, Y. Zhang, J. Wang, B. Xian, Q. Li, J. Li, M. Xu, Y. Li, et al. R&d-agent: An llm-agent framework towards autonomous data science. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.14738, 2025. · arXiv
  34. A. Zhao, D. Huang, Q. Xu, M. Lin, Y.-J. Liu, and G. Huang. Expel: Llm agents are experiential learners. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, pages 19632-19642, 2024.
  35. X. Zhu, Y. Cai, Z. Liu, B. Zheng, C. Wang, R. Ye, J. Chen, H. Wang, W.-C. Wang, Y. Zhang, et al. Toward ultra-long-horizon agentic science: Cognitive accumulation for machine learning engineering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.10402, 2026. · arXiv
  36. Saves submission.csv. """ device = torch.device(Config.DEVICE) Reference: "Asymmetric Loss For Multi-Label Classification" (ICCV 2021) """ def __init__( self, gamma_neg=Config.ASL_GAMMA_NEG, gamma_pos=Config.ASL_GAMMA_POS, clip=Config.ASL_CLIP, eps=1e-8, reduction="mean", ):

Authors
Chen, J., Mishra, B. D., Nam, J., Meng, R., Pfister, T., & Yoon, J.
Affiliations
Google (United States) (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2602.02660
arXiv
2602.02660
OpenAlex
W7127617026
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
Keywords
LLM agents, machine learning engineering, Monte Carlo tree search, reflective memory, credit assignment

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