arXiv preprint ·
Iterated creation, grading, and revision of data science projects by language models
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
We evaluate the extent to which agentic AI models can complete an end-to-end data science project, and how this improves with feedback. A 'writer' model with specific tools creates a complete data science project including downloading, cleaning, and analyzing a dataset, and writing a short paper about it. The project is executed and a 'grader' model evaluates it. The writer can then revise its submission, and this repeats for a total of three rounds. We consider seven models from five developers: Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, DeepSeek, and Z.AI. Each model is both a writer and a grader, so there are 49 writer-grader pairs and we run each pair three times. Of the 147 initial submissions, 107 run and render, and the average score increases from 59 per cent to 76 per cent after the final round of feedback. By writer the extent of the increase ranges from 3 percentage points for Anthropic's Opus 5.5 to 46 percentage points for Anthropic's Haiku 4.5, and by grader it ranges from 13 percentage points for Google's Gemini 3.8 Flash to 32 percentage points for Anthropic's Haiku 4.5. When a model grades its own writing the score tends to be about 9 percentage points higher than the average of what the other models give it. About half of the difference that we see from round to round is within the grader's own noise. Feedback generally results in the highest marks, but even just having the chance to revise, or having the additional budget, in terms of time or tool calls, without any feedback, results in considerable increases for some of the models but not for others. We find that how much such a loop helps depends on which model plays which role, but weaker models generally do not improve stronger models.
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 Artificial Intelligence
Swapping the Judge Changes the Ranking: A Preregistered Study of Cross-Provider Replication in LLM-Judged System Comparisons
How Well Can Large Language Models Impersonate Individual Authors? A Comparative Evaluation
Same Rule, Different Verdicts: Rubric Language and Clause Structure in LLM Judges for Korean Support Dialogues
Phonological Knowledge of Chinese Characters in Language Models
When Strong Reasoners Join the Pool: Small Union Premiums and Costly Runaway Generations in LLM Routing
Get the few papers worth your time in Artificial Intelligence 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.