MLS-Bench: A Holistic and Rigorous Assessment of AI Systems on Building Better AI
Open accessAbstract
Modern AI progress has been driven by ML methods that are generalizable across settings and scalable to larger regimes. As large language models demonstrate advanced capabilities in reasoning, coding, and engineering tasks, it is increasingly important to understand whether they can discover such methods rather than only apply existing ones. We introduce MLS-Bench, a benchmark for evaluating whether AI systems can invent generalizable and scalable ML methods. MLS-Bench contains 140 tasks across 12 domains, each requiring an agent to improve one targeted component of an ML system or algorithm and demonstrate that the improvement generalizes across controlled settings and scales. We find that current agents remain far from reliably surpassing human-designed methods, and that engineering-style tuning is easier for them than genuine method invention. We further study the effects of test-time scaling, adaptive compute allocation, and context provision on agents' discovery performance, together with case studies of their behavior. Our analyses suggest that the bottleneck is not only in proposing new methods, but also in the scientific insight needed to plan, validate, and scale claims about them. More search, compute, or context alone does not remove this bottleneck. We build and maintain a community platform for cumulative and comparable iteration, and release the data and code at https://mls-bench.com.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
The rank-level updates compose associatively, so the incoming state of each rank can be recovered by a prefix scan.
“These rank-level updates compose associatively, so the incoming state of each rank can be recovered by a prefix scan [77].”
From Kimi K3: Open Frontier Intelligence (2026) · cites this paper as [77]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kimi K3: Open Frontier Intelligence
Kimi Team, Bai, T., Bai, Y., Bao, Y., C., M., Cai, J., Cai, X., Cao, P., Cao, Y., Chai, Z., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.24653
“• Coding : DeepSWE [31], ProgramBench [96], Terminal-Bench 2.1 [79], FrontierSWE [36], SWE-Marathon [119], PostTrainBench [95], MLS-Bench-Lite [77], and SciCode [123, 8].”
Influential
- Authors
- Lyu, B., Yang, Y., Huang, S., Zhang, J., Xu, Q., Li, X., Han, X., Zhang, Y., Zhang, H., Huang, R., Yang, K., Chen, Z., Guo, W., Yang, J., Ai, X., Chai, W., Cao, Y., Yang, Z., Wang, K., Jiang, D., Gao, H.-A., Tang, S., Shi, C., Du, S. S., Simchowitz, M., Jiao, J., Song, D., & Jin, C.
- Affiliations
- Princeton University (US)
- UC San Diego Health System (US)
- Carnegie Mellon University (US)
- Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Shanghai Jiao Tong University (CN)
- ORCID
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2026
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2605.08678
- OpenAlex
- W7160945459
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (2239297, 2411299)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Data Classification
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Evolutionary Algorithms and Applications
- Keywords
- large language models, generalization across settings, scalability, benchmark, AI agents, test-time scaling, scientific insight
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