arXiv preprint ·
DataSense-Bench: The First Step Toward an AI Scientist
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Published in
- arXiv
- DOI
- 10.48550/arxiv.2610.12190
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Cited by
- 0 works, as OpenAlex counts them
- Topics
In brief
Can AI Pick Its Own Training Data?
The authors introduce a benchmark where agents select and rank subsets of training examples, then evaluate those choices by fine-tuning a small language model. The results show that gains over random selection are limited and that an agent’s ranking skill can change from one task to another.
What they found: Across terminal problem solving and tool use, agents’ gains over random data selection were limited, and they did not reliably rank their chosen groups. Ranking performance also varied by task: Astra identified the best group in all three tool-use runs but in only one of three terminal runs. The experiments used TBLite for terminal problem solving and BFCL for tool use, showing that success in one setting did not consistently carry over to the other.
AI-written summary. Check anything you rely on against the original paper.
Abstract
As claims about recursive self-improvement (RSI) and artificial general intelligence (AGI) proliferate, we ask a simple question: do frontier AI models have a sense of data, i.e., can they reliably select the right data for training? We introduce DataSense-Bench to study this capability through the fundamental problem of data selection and performance forecasting in machine learning. We ask AI agents to select and rank candidate training subsets that can be used to fine-tune a small LLM model. Agents are allowed to inspect the data, write and execute analysis code, and run model forward passes, but can not train the model or access the actual evaluation tasks. We then fine-tune the base model on each selected subset and evaluate its post-training performance under a standardized protocol. We instantiate the benchmark in terminal problem solving and tool use, selecting trajectories from OpenThoughts-Agent and EnvScaler and evaluating on TBLite and BFCL, respectively. We then evaluate the agents along two complementary dimensions: the post-training performance of the top-ranked subset, reflecting the ability to identify high-value training data, and ranking accuracy, reflecting the ability to predict the relative performance of the selected subsets. In our experiments, selection gains over random selection are limited; agents do not reliably rank their selected groups, and ranking ability does not hold consistently across tasks: Astra identifies the best group in all three tool-use runs but in only one of three terminal runs. Analysis of execution traces on both tasks shows that agents often use similar data signals while interpreting their training value differently.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Machine Learning
Mid-Training Language Models on Raw Video
Inverse Synthesis of Shock Time Series from Shock Response Spectra Using Ensembles of Conditional Variational Autoencoders
A Graph Neural Network for Global Daily Fire Radiative Power Prediction at Medium-Range Lead Times
TreeHCA: Hindsight-Guided Exploration and Credit Assignment for Multi-Turn LLM Agents
NOMOS: Compiling Written Policies into Statically Verified Tool-Call Gates for LLM Agents
Get the few papers worth your time in Machine Learning every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.