Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

TimeSeriesGym: A Scalable Benchmark for (Time Series) Machine Learning Engineering Agents

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read TimeSeriesGym gives AI agents a realistic test: on 34 time-series ML engineering challenges, even frontier models manage reasonable submissions only 12.5%–38.9% of the time.

desk verdict A useful open-source benchmark for time-series ML agents; the 'reasonable submission' label needs validation before its headline rates should be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.13291 v1 pith:76PVNWT6 submitted 2025-05-19 cs.LG cs.AI

Yifu Cai , Xinyu Li , Mononito Goswami , Micha{l} Wiliński , Gus Welter , Artur Dubrawski This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords AIagentsbenchmarkingtimeseriesmachinelearningengineeringLLM-as-a-judgemultimodalevaluationscalablebenchmarkagenticscaffolds
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

TimeSeriesGym is an open, agent-agnostic benchmark for evaluating AI agents on time-series machine learning engineering tasks. It aims to fix what the authors see as the narrowness of existing benchmarks, which focus on model building in well-defined settings and score only prediction files. The framework contains 34 challenges across 8 time-series problem types and more than 15 domains, drawing on Kaggle-style competitions, original tasks from research repositories, and derived variants that isolate specific skills such as data handling, hyperparameter tuning, code migration, and working with research code. The paper also introduces a two-faceted grading system that scores submission files, code, and models with both precise numeric metrics and LLM-as-a-judge assessment. Using this framework, the authors show that current state-of-the-art agents (AIDE and OpenHands scaffolding with GPT-4.1, o3, and Claude 3.7) produce valid outputs for most challenges but reasonable ones for only a minority, and that giving agents more time does not reliably improve performance.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the TimeSeriesGym challenge structure itself: each challenge bundles resources (datasets, code repositories, papers), a description file with instructions and hints, and a challenge-specific grading function. On top of this, the framework provides tools for generating new challenges at scale (for example, simulating missing data or creating derived variants) and a dual grading approach that combines exact, deterministic checks (regex, AST parsing, test cases) with judge-based evaluation using LLM chain-of-thought scoring following the G-Eval approach. The combination of diverse task sources (Kaggle competitions, research repositories, hand-crafted originals) with multimodal artifact grading and skill-isolating challenge design is what carries the benchmark's claim to be a comprehensive, scalable, and diagnostic testbed rather than another accuracy-only leaderboard.

What would settle it

Take a random sample of TimeSeriesGym-Lite runs, have two human raters independently classify each submission as reasonable or not using the paper's stated criteria, and compare their labels with each other and with the LLM judge's labels; if inter-rater agreement is low (for example, Cohen's kappa below 0.5), the reported 12.5%–38.9% reasonable-submission rates would be too unstable to support the paper's conclusions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that TimeSeriesGym provides a scalable, agent-agnostic benchmarking environment that evaluates multimodal agent outputs (prediction files, code, models) across specific ML-engineering skills, combining quantitative metrics with LLM-based qualitative judgment. Its main empirical finding is that frontier agents still fail at these tasks: with AIDE and GPT-4.1 on the full benchmark, valid submissions were produced for 57.3% of challenges but reasonable submissions for only 12.5% of them. On the cheaper TimeSeriesGym-Lite subset, the reasoning model o3 achieved 94.4% valid submissions, while Claude 3.7 led in reasonable submissions at 38.9%. The paper also observes that doubling or tripling the time and step budget did not consistently improve results, and that removing the step-wise time reminders sometimes increased the rate of reasonable submissions, suggesting agents do not use extra time strategically. These findings are offered as evidence that current agents understand and solve realistic time-series tasks far less well than their raw valid-submission rates suggest.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's headline results depend on treating 'reasonable submission' as a reliably recognizable category: someone (a human reader or an LLM judge) has to read an agent's logs and decide whether the attempt was a genuine solution, and the paper does not report how consistent those judgments are.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • TimeSeriesGym can serve as a reusable testbed for tracking progress in ML engineering agents; its lightweight subset, TimeSeriesGym-Lite, makes rapid and inexpensive evaluation possible at roughly $8 per run.
  • Because the framework supports generating new challenges and skill-specific variations, it can evolve to mitigate pretraining contamination even after the current version becomes public.
  • The multimodal, skill-based evaluation provides actionable feedback beyond a single score, helping practitioners identify specific weaknesses such as poor data handling or inability to use research code.
  • The observed failure modes of AIDE (single-file emphasis, missed README documentation) and OpenHands (greedy, linear file scanning) indicate that better scaffolds—ones that explore alternative solutions and consult documentation—are needed for repository-level ML tasks.
  • Collected agent trajectories can be used as training data for post-training refinement, enabling the benchmark to act as a data flywheel for improving agents.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The headline capability rates rest on the subjective judgment of what counts as a 'reasonable' submission; since the paper does not report inter-rater agreement between human and LLM judges, a reliability audit (double-coding a sample of logs) is a natural next step that could shift those numbers.
  • The skill-isolating design could be extended to produce diagnostic profiles for individual agents—for example, radar charts of which skills each agent lacks—which the authors gesture toward but do not implement.
  • Since the authors state the framework is modality-agnostic in principle, the same challenge-generation and grading tools could be adapted to image, text, or audio ML engineering tasks, though that extension is not demonstrated in this paper.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces TimeSeriesGym, an open-source benchmarking framework for evaluating AI agents on time series machine-learning engineering tasks. The framework combines Kaggle-derived challenges, original challenges built on research repositories, and derived variants, and supports evaluation of multiple artifact types (prediction files, code, trained models) using both quantitative metrics and LLM-based qualitative judgment. The authors report experiments on a six-challenge Lite subset with several scaffolds (AIDE, OpenHands) and models (GPT-4.1, o3, Claude 3.7), observing that AIDE outperforms OpenHands, that o3 yields more valid submissions, that Claude 3.7 produces the most 'reasonable' submissions, and that additional time or step-wise reminders do not consistently improve performance. They also provide a familiarity analysis intended to address contamination concerns and describe tools for generating new challenges at scale.

Significance. If the evaluation methodology is sound, TimeSeriesGym would be a useful community resource: it is open-sourced under a permissive license, ships machine-readable challenge descriptions and grading code, supports multiple agent scaffolds, and explicitly targets multimodal artifacts and holistic evaluation, which several existing ML-agent benchmarks do not. The paper's main quantitative claims, however, rest on a 'reasonable submission' label that is assigned by manual or LLM inspection without reported reliability checks, and the challenge count is inconsistent across the abstract, Table 1, and Table 3. Because the benchmark artifact itself is concrete and reproducible, these issues are fixable, but they currently preclude accepting the headline empirical findings as stated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4 (Metrics) and Table 2] The headline rates (12.5–38.9% reasonable submissions, and the claimed non-effects of time and reminders) all depend on the 'reasonable submission' label, but the label is not validated. For Kaggle challenges the threshold is the original competition's public-leaderboard median; as Section 5 ('Defining and measuring success') concedes, TimeSeriesGym resplits data and reimplements grading, so that median is not necessarily the 50th percentile of the benchmark's own score distribution. For non-Kaggle challenges the label comes from manual or LLM-as-a-judge inspection of logs, with no inter-rater agreement, no LLM-vs-human concordance, and no threshold sensitivity analysis. Since TimeSeriesGym-Lite has only six challenges, one re-labeled challenge changes a reasonable rate by about 17 percentage points, so the reported ordering of models and the null effects of more time are not robustly established. The paper should report inter-annotator agreement, a calibration study of the LLM judge, and a sensitivity analysis showing how the rates in Table 2 move under plausible labeling noise.
  2. [Section 3 and Table 3] The number of challenges is reported inconsistently. The abstract and Section 3 state 34 challenges, but Table 3 lists 12 Kaggle + 14 Originals + 6 Derived = 32 challenges. Table 4 (sources/licenses) omits two of the Originals listed in Table 3 (the two CSDI challenges), and Table 1 reports '23+ 23+' for TimeSeriesGym, which appears to conflate data sources with challenge counts. These discrepancies must be reconciled, and the final counts in the abstract, Section 3, and all tables should agree exactly.
  3. [Section 4.1 (Observations)] The paper states that o3 achieves 'significantly higher valid submission rates (94.4%)' and that Claude 'produces the most reasonable submissions,' but no statistical tests are reported for these comparisons, which are based on only three seeds. Given the small sample and the label-noise issue noted above, phrases such as 'significantly' should be backed by either appropriate tests or explicit acknowledgment that the differences are not statistically tested.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1 (Design Choices)] The claim that the benchmark is 'scalable' is supported only by an anecdote that 'several new challenges' were created in two hours; please quantify this claim (how many challenges, by whom, with what quality) or soften it.
  2. [Section 4 (Familiarity analysis, Fig. 2)] The KS test p-value of 0.363 is reported for the difference between familiarity distributions, but the sample sizes (TimeSeriesGym vs. MLE-bench) and the power of the test are not discussed; a null result with small samples should be interpreted cautiously.
  3. [Appendix E] The judge-based grading approach (G-Eval) is described, but there is no evidence of its agreement with human experts; a short validation study would strengthen the claim that LLM-as-a-judge is a reliable evaluation component.
  4. [Table 9] Several cells contain 'N/A' without explaining whether the agent produced no valid submission or the configuration was not run; please distinguish these cases.
  5. [General] There are minor typographical issues, e.g., 'Averge Cost' in Table 6 and 'Mean Squarred Error' in Table 3, and the caption of Table 5 says 'six diverse time series challenges' while the table lists six, which is consistent; please proofread.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: TimeSeriesGym is an empirical benchmark study; its headline rates are observed outcomes under an external grading protocol, not quantities derived from the benchmark's own definitions.

full rationale

TimeSeriesGym is a benchmark-construction and empirical-evaluation paper rather than a derivation, so there is no fitted parameter subsequently renamed as a prediction and no equation in which an output is defined in terms of itself. The headline rates in Table 2 come from a grading protocol (Section 4, Metrics) based on grader non-null scores and external reasonableness criteria, with the authors explicitly noting that original Kaggle leaderboard medians may be misleading under their re-split and re-implemented grading (Section 5, 'Defining and measuring success'). The unvalidated manual/LLM 'reasonable' label is a measurement-validity concern, not a circularity. The only self-referential elements are minor: several Original challenges are built on the authors' own MOMENT and TimeSeriesExam code (Section 3, Table 3), and Section 5 cites TimeSeriesExam for comparative characterization. These choices affect challenge content, but they do not define agent scores or the scalability and usability claims, which are independently evidenced by the open-source release, the MLE-bench-style scaffold adaptations, and the external familiarity analysis. No load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation, so the paper is best read as a non-circular benchmark contribution with separate reliability questions about its subjective labels.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the representativeness of the selected challenges and the reliability of LLM-based grading. No free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The challenges selected from Kaggle and hand-crafted by the authors are representative of real-world time series ML engineering tasks.
    Section 3 states challenges were selected from Meta Kaggle and expert recommendations; representativeness is assumed for the benchmark's validity.
  • domain assumption LLM-based evaluation (LLM-as-a-judge) produces assessments reliable enough for scoring code and 'reasonable' submissions.
    Section 4 Metrics and Appendix E rely on LLM judges; the paper acknowledges LLMs can be inconsistent, but still uses them in headline results.
  • domain assumption The KS test familiarity comparison with MLE-bench implies similar contamination risk for TimeSeriesGym.
    Section 4.1 Frontier LLM challenges uses this comparison; it assumes MLE-bench's contamination findings transfer.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of TimeSeriesGym: A Scalable Benchmark for (Time Series) Machine Learning Engineering Agents." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/76PVNWT6

@misc{pith2026250513291,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: TimeSeriesGym: A Scalable Benchmark for (Time Series) Machine Learning Engineering Agents},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/76PVNWT6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.13291}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce TimeSeriesGym, a scalable benchmarking framework for evaluating Artificial Intelligence (AI) agents on time series machine learning engineering challenges. Existing benchmarks lack scalability, focus narrowly on model building in well-defined settings, and evaluate only a limited set of research artifacts (e.g., CSV submission files). To make AI agent benchmarking more relevant to the practice of machine learning engineering, our framework scales along two critical dimensions. First, recognizing that effective ML engineering requires a range of diverse skills, TimeSeriesGym incorporates challenges from diverse sources spanning multiple domains and tasks. We design challenges to evaluate both isolated capabilities (including data handling, understanding research repositories, and code translation) and their combinations, and rather than addressing each challenge independently, we develop tools that support designing multiple challenges at scale. Second, we implement evaluation mechanisms for multiple research artifacts, including submission files, code, and models, using both precise numeric measures and more flexible LLM-based evaluation approaches. This dual strategy balances objective assessment with contextual judgment. Although our initial focus is on time series applications, our framework can be readily extended to other data modalities, broadly enhancing the comprehensiveness and practical utility of agentic AI evaluation. We open-source our benchmarking framework to facilitate future research on the ML engineering capabilities of AI agents.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.13291 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. GPT-4.1’s familiarity with TimeSeriesGym challenges, compared to its familiarity with MLE-bench. Agents do not utilize time effectively. We suspected that agents do not improve with more time because they do not use it well. To test this idea, we compared two set￾tings: the default approach of reminding the agent about remaining time (and steps) before each step, versus remov￾ing these reminders completely. Surprisi… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. OpenHands wastes 5 steps on inspecting model file while the correct way to import the model is in README global_scope: dict = {} while True: code = code_inq.get() os.chdir(str(self.working_dir)) with open(self.agent_file_name, "w") as f: f.write(code) event_outq.put(("state:ready",)) try: exec(compile(code, self.agent_file_name, "exec"), global_scope) except BaseException as e: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p0… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. AIDE ’s interpreter does not execute code under main environment D Failure Mode Illustration D.1 Agents Miss Important Information As illustrated in Listing 4, OpenHands spends five consecutive steps scanning to the end of the model file in an attempt to discover the correct import method for MOMENT. This behavior reveals two critical shortcomings. First, the agent follows a greedy, linear scanning strategy with no … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: AIDE’s solution for utilizing Time-Series-Library repository 23 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Predicting Pseudo-nitzschia harmful algal blooms along the Portuguese Coast using satellite-derived predictors

    cs.LG 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.5 of 10

    Ensemble models using only satellite SST, upwelling, chlorophyll-a and PFTs predict Pseudo-nitzschia HAB occurrence at ROC–AUC 0.77±0.06 under year×cluster cross-validation on the Portuguese L1–L2 coast.

  2. A Survey of Reasoning and Agentic Systems in Time Series with Large Language Models

    cs.AI 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The authors organize LLM-based time series reasoning into three exclusive topologies (direct, chain, branch) crossed with four objectives, and use them to label 125 papers, benchmarks, and resources.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    SUPER: Evaluating agents on setting up and executing tasks from research repositories

    Ben Bogin, Kejuan Yang, Shashank Gupta, Kyle Richardson, Erin Bransom, Peter Clark, Ashish Sabharwal, and Tushar Khot. SUPER: Evaluating agents on setting up and executing tasks from research repositories. In Yaser Al-Onaizan, Mohit Bansal, and Yun-Nung Chen, editors, Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, ...

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    TimeSeriesExam: A time series understanding exam

    Yifu Cai, Arjun Choudhry, Mononito Goswami, and Artur Dubrawski. TimeSeriesExam: A time series understanding exam. NeurIPS’24 Time Series in the Age of Large Models Workshop, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    MLE-bench: Evaluating machine learning agents on machine learning engineering

    Jun Shern Chan, Neil Chowdhury, Oliver Jaffe, James Aung, Dane Sherburn, Evan Mays, Giulio Starace, Kevin Liu, Leon Maksin, Tejal Patwardhan, Aleksander Madry, and Lilian Weng. MLE-bench: Evaluating machine learning agents on machine learning engineering. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025

    2025

  4. [4]

    Item response theory for psychologists

    Susan E Embretson and Steven P Reise. Item response theory for psychologists. Psychology Press, 2013

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    Aqua: A benchmarking tool for label quality assessment

    Mononito Goswami, Vedant Sanil, Arjun Choudhry, Arvind Srinivasan, Chalisa Udompanyawit, and Artur Dubrawski. Aqua: A benchmarking tool for label quality assessment. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:79792–79807, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    MOMENT: A family of open time-series foundation models

    Mononito Goswami, Konrad Szafer, Arjun Choudhry, Yifu Cai, Shuo Li, and Artur Dubrawski. MOMENT: A family of open time-series foundation models. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 16115–16152. PMLR, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Automated evaluation of retrieval-augmented language models with task-specific exam generation

    Gauthier Guinet, Behrooz Omidvar-Tehrani, Anoop Deoras, and Laurent Callot. Automated evaluation of retrieval-augmented language models with task-specific exam generation. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024

    2024

  8. [8]

    Map it anywhere: Em- powering bev map prediction using large-scale public datasets

    Cherie Ho, Jiaye Zou, Omar Alama, Sai Mitheran Jagadesh Kumar, Cheng-Yu Chiang, Taneesh Gupta, Chen Wang, Nikhil Keetha, Katia Sycara, and Sebastian Scherer. Map it anywhere: Em- powering bev map prediction using large-scale public datasets. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:64433–64453, 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    MLAgentbench: Evaluating language agents on machine learning experimentation

    Qian Huang, Jian V ora, Percy Liang, and Jure Leskovec. MLAgentbench: Evaluating language agents on machine learning experimentation. InForty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Livecodebench: Holistic and contamination free evaluation of large language models for code

    Naman Jain, King Han, Alex Gu, Wen-Ding Li, Fanjia Yan, Tianjun Zhang, Sida Wang, Ar- mando Solar-Lezama, Koushik Sen, and Ion Stoica. Livecodebench: Holistic and contamination free evaluation of large language models for code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.07974, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Aide: Ai-driven exploration in the space of code

    Zhengyao Jiang, Dominik Schmidt, Dhruv Srikanth, Dixing Xu, Ian Kaplan, Deniss Ja- cenko, and Yuxiang Wu. Aide: Ai-driven exploration in the space of code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.13138, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  4. [12]

    DSBench: How far are data science agents from becoming data science experts? In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025

    Liqiang Jing, Zhehui Huang, Xiaoyang Wang, Wenlin Yao, Wenhao Yu, Kaixin Ma, Hongming Zhang, Xinya Du, and Dong Yu. DSBench: How far are data science agents from becoming data science experts? In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025

    2025

  5. [13]

    Holistic evaluation of language models

    Percy Liang, Rishi Bommasani, Tony Lee, Dimitris Tsipras, Dilara Soylu, Michihiro Yasunaga, Yian Zhang, Deepak Narayanan, Yuhuai Wu, Ananya Kumar, et al. Holistic evaluation of language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.09110, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  6. [14]

    G-eval: Nlg evaluation using gpt-4 with better human alignment

    Yang Liu, Dan Iter, Yichong Xu, Shuohang Wang, Ruochen Xu, and Chenguang Zhu. G-eval: Nlg evaluation using gpt-4 with better human alignment. InProceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2511–2522, 2023. 10

    2023

  7. [15]

    The kolmogorov-smirnov test for goodness of fit

    Frank J Massey Jr. The kolmogorov-smirnov test for goodness of fit. Journal of the American statistical Association, 46(253):68–78, 1951

    1951

  8. [16]

    GAIA: a benchmark for general ai assistants

    Grégoire Mialon, Clémentine Fourrier, Thomas Wolf, Yann LeCun, and Thomas Scialom. GAIA: a benchmark for general ai assistants. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    MLGym: A new framework and benchmark for advancing ai research agents, 2025

    Deepak Nathani, Lovish Madaan, Nicholas Roberts, Nikolay Bashlykov, Ajay Menon, Vin- cent Moens, Amar Budhiraja, Despoina Magka, Vladislav V orotilov, Gaurav Chaurasia, Dieuwke Hupkes, Ricardo Silveira Cabral, Tatiana Shavrina, Jakob Foerster, Yoram Bachrach, William Yang Wang...

    2025

  10. [18]

    ML-Dev-Bench: Comparative analysis of ai agents on ml development workflows

    Harshith Padigela, Chintan Shah, and Dinkar Juyal. ML-Dev-Bench: Comparative analysis of ai agents on ml development workflows. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.00964, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Meta kaggle, 2022

    Megan Risdal and Timo Bozsolik. Meta kaggle, 2022

    2022

  12. [20]

    ML-Bench: Evaluating large language models and agents for machine learning tasks on repository-level code

    Xiangru Tang, Yuliang Liu, Zefan Cai, Yanjun Shao, Junjie Lu, Yichi Zhang, Zexuan Deng, Helan Hu, Kaikai An, Ruijun Huang, et al. ML-Bench: Evaluating large language models and agents for machine learning tasks on repository-level code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.09835, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Openhands: An open platform for ai software developers as generalist agents

    Xingyao Wang, Boxuan Li, Yufan Song, Frank F Xu, Xiangru Tang, Mingchen Zhuge, Jiayi Pan, Yueqi Song, Bowen Li, Jaskirat Singh, et al. Openhands: An open platform for ai software developers as generalist agents. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representa...

    2024

  14. [22]

    Re-bench: Evaluating frontier ai r&d capabilities of language model agents against human experts

    Hjalmar Wijk, Tao Lin, Joel Becker, Sami Jawhar, Neev Parikh, Thomas Broadley, Lawrence Chan, Michael Chen, Josh Clymer, Jai Dhyani, et al. Re-bench: Evaluating frontier ai r&d capabilities of language model agents against human experts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.15114, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Beyond forecasting: Compositional time series reasoning for end-to-end task execution

    Wen Ye, Yizhou Zhang, Wei Yang, Lumingyuan Tang, Defu Cao, Jie Cai, and Yan Liu. Beyond forecasting: Compositional time series reasoning for end-to-end task execution. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.04047, 2024. Reproducibility statement We provide TimeSeriesGym as an open-source p...

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Updated instructions to cover all types of tasks, not just Kaggle challenges

  17. [25]

    Modified the prompt to work with different file types, since our tasks use many input/output formats

  18. [26]

    We reduced the RAM allowance to 10 GiB (from 100 GiB) as we did not observe any memory-related issues during our tests

    Fixed the interpreter handling to prevent timeouts and system hangs B.2 OpenHands We forked the original OpenHands repository from tag v0.34.0 (May 2025). We reduced the RAM allowance to 10 GiB (from 100 GiB) as we did not observe any memory-related issues during our tests. 16...

    2025

  19. [27]

    Before finalizing your submission, validate its format using the validation server,→

  20. [28]

    file=@${SUBMISSION_FILE}

    Use the command: `curl -X POST -F "file=@${SUBMISSION_FILE}" http://localhost:5000/validate`,→

  21. [29]

    Alternatively, use the provided script: `/home/validate_submission.sh`

  22. [30]

    The validator will confirm if your submission format is valid (but won 't provide a score),→

  23. [31]

    w") as f: f.write(code) event_outq.put((

    Make corrections if needed and revalidate until you receive a confirmation ### Final Submission - Once validated, ensure your final submission file remains at `/home/submission/` - Only the last file in this location will be evaluated - Double-check that your model 's predicti...

  24. [32]

    Feature Extraction: Using regular expression pattern matching and AST parsing to identify required code components

  25. [33]

    Binary Verification: Checking each requirement against pass/fail criteria

  26. [34]

    Static Analysis: Using linting tools to check against PEP 8 standards

  27. [35]

    File Structure Validation: Verifying required files and directories. The exact grading for this challenge evaluates four primary categories, each worth 25% of the final score: • TensorBoard Usage: Proper imports, SummaryWriter initialization, metric logging, etc. • Code Qualit...

  28. [36]

    Evaluation Steps: Using predefined steps for chain-of-thought reasoning

  29. [37]

    Comprehensive Assessment: Evaluating multiple parameters including code structure and architecture decisions

  30. [38]

    Score Calculation: Generating normalized scores on a 0.0-1.0 scale

  31. [39]

    Reasoning Provision: Providing detailed explanations for the evaluation. E.3 Comparative Analysis The two approaches serve complementary purposes: Aspect Exact Grading Judge Grading Objectivity High (deterministic) Moderate (LLM-based) Granularity Binary (present/absent) Conti...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.