Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

IDA-Bench: Evaluating LLMs on Interactive Guided Data Analysis

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper introduces IDA-Bench, which converts 25 real Kaggle notebooks into multi-round guided data-analysis conversations, and reports that top agents succeed on fewer than half of the tasks because they cannot balance following…

desk verdict A useful, open, reproducible benchmark for multi-round data-analysis agents, but the headline <50% capability claim is partly confounded by the LLM-simulated user and needs robustness work before it should be cited as a definitive result. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.18223 v2 pith:FECJ2OC7 submitted 2025-05-23 cs.CL cs.AI

Hanyu Li , Haoyu Liu , Tingyu Zhu , Tianyu Guo , Zeyu Zheng , Xiaotie Deng , Michael I. Jordan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords LLMagentsinteractivedataanalysismulti-roundbenchmarkinstructionfollowingsimulateduserKagglenotebooksreasoningversusinstruction-followingpass^kevaluation
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

Real data analysis is interactive: an expert's next step depends on what they just learned, and many decisions are subjective calls about cleaning and features. IDA-Bench turns 25 complex Kaggle notebooks into multi-round conversations in which an LLM-simulated user issues sequential instructions drawn from the notebook's implicit decisions, and a task is passed only if the agent's numeric submission matches or beats the score of the original human notebook. The headline finding is that no evaluated agent reaches half: Gemini-2.5-Pro and Claude-3.7-thinking achieve 40%, OpenAI o4-mini 40%, DeepSeek-V3 24%, DeepSeek-R1 12%, and OpenAI o3 4%. The authors' conclusion is that current agents cannot balance following evolving user guidance against their own reasoning, a limitation that single-turn benchmarks do not expose.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the interaction loop among three components: a simulated user (Claude-3.5-Sonnet) that holds 'reference insights' distilled from the original notebook and releases them one round at a time in its own words; a gatekeeper LLM that inspects each user message against the full reference instructions and rewrites any contradictory or off-track request before it reaches the agent; and a sandboxed Python executor through which the agent manipulates the data and finally writes submission.csv. Tasks are mined by an automated pipeline that crawls recent Kaggle notebooks, filters and scores them for complexity, prunes each notebook to its essential analysis, executes the pruned code to obtain the human baseline score, and narrates the code into the reference insights. Success is defined as the agent's evaluated submission matching or beating that human baseline under the task's own metric (accuracy, RMSE, log loss, and similar).

What would settle it

Run the same six agents on the same 25 tasks with a human analyst delivering the reference insights directly, and compare baseline-achieved rates; if top agents then exceed 50% of tasks, or if the instruction-following-versus-reasoning ordering flips, the reported gap is an artifact of the user simulation rather than an agent property. A partial version of this check already exists in the paper: with the precise 'shard user', DeepSeek-V3's baseline-achieved rate rises from 24% to 40%.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that measuring agents on realistic multi-round interaction, rather than one-shot queries, exposes a capability gap hidden by existing benchmarks: the ability to balance instruction-following with reasoning. On IDA-Bench's 25 tasks, where the simulated user's sequential requests encode the domain knowledge and subjective decisions of a human analyst and success is defined as matching or exceeding the human baseline extracted from the original notebook, the best agents achieve baseline on only 40% of tasks, while OpenAI o3 achieves 4%. The paper further observes that the instruction-specialised DeepSeek-V3 beats its reasoning counterpart DeepSeek-R1 (24% vs 12%), and its case studies attribute failures to over-confident agents that dismiss user guidance, over-cautious agents that exhaust the interaction-round limit, and agents that claim operations they never performed.

Load-bearing premise

The headline gap is attributed to the agents, but it could partly belong to the simulation: the result assumes that the Claude-3.5-Sonnet user, filtered by the gatekeeper, conveys each reference insight to the agent about as clearly as a real human analyst would.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Single-turn data-analysis benchmarks overstate agent readiness: an agent can handle a one-shot query yet fail when the user's guidance evolves across rounds.
  • Instruction-following and reasoning are in tension in current models: DeepSeek-V3, an instruction model, beats its thinking counterpart DeepSeek-R1 (24% vs 12% baseline achieved), so more reasoning is not automatically better for interactive analysis.
  • Individual successes are unstable: DeepSeek-V3's pass^k rate drops from 25% at k=1 to 5% at k=3, implying that a single successful run may partly reflect chance.
  • The automated pipeline builds new tasks from recently uploaded notebooks, which the paper proposes as its defense against data contamination and a path to continuous benchmark growth.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because DeepSeek-V3's score jumps from 24% to 40% when the user switches to precise, step-by-step 'shard' instructions, a large share of the measured failure is user-fidelity-dependent; running Claude-3.7, Gemini-2.5-Pro, and o3 under the shard protocol would bound how much of the headline gap is agent skill versus simulation fuzziness.
  • The gatekeeper likely makes the simulated user better than a real one: it silently rewrites contradictory instructions before the agent sees them, so the benchmark may understate how poorly agents would follow an unmediated human expert.
  • A testable extension the paper does not run: count explicit instruction violations per trajectory (dismissed user-specified methods, fabricated executed steps) and correlate that count with baseline-achieved rate across all 25 tasks; the case studies predict a strong negative correlation.
  • With only 25 tasks the per-agent rates are rough estimates; the automated pipeline is the paper's proposed remedy, and a natural next step is comparing agents under both user protocols on a larger task set to confirm the balance-problem conclusion.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. IDA-Bench is a 25-task benchmark for LLM agents in multi-round, interactive data analysis. Tasks are built from recent Kaggle notebooks by pruning, reconstructing, and narrating each notebook with an external LLM; a Claude-3.5-Sonnet simulated user issues step-wise instructions to the agent, a gatekeeper filters contradictory user messages, and success is defined by whether the agent's final submission reaches or exceeds a baseline score extracted from the notebook. The paper reports that state-of-the-art agents such as Claude-3.7-thinking, Gemini-2.5-Pro, and o4-mini achieve baseline-achieved rates around 40%, while DeepSeek-R1 and o3 are much lower, and interprets the failures as an imbalance between instruction following and reasoning.

Significance. The benchmark addresses a real gap: existing data science benchmarks are mostly single-turn or lack subjective user feedback. The open-source release, automated construction pipeline, gatekeeper mechanism, and the shard-user comparison are useful methodological contributions, and the paper includes case studies and a pass^k analysis that give qualitative insight into failure modes. If the user-simulation and baseline-quality concerns below are resolved, IDA-Bench would be a valuable addition to the interactive-agent evaluation literature. Its current quantitative claims, however, go beyond what the evidence supports.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.2, Tables 1–2; §6, C.5.1] The headline claim that agents succeed on fewer than 50% of tasks is not robust to the user-simulation protocol. In the paper's own comparison, DeepSeek-V3 with the main simulated user achieves 24% baseline-achieved (Table 1), while the same agent with the shard user, whose instructions are precise and sufficient to reach the baseline method, achieves 40% (Table 2, C.5.1). That is a 67% relative improvement produced by changing only the user channel. The conclusion that failures are attributable to an agent-side imbalance between instruction-following and reasoning therefore requires either evidence that the simulated user's vagueness matches the target real-user distribution, or a reporting convention that separates agent capability from user-channel sensitivity, such as reporting all agents under both user implementations. As written, the '<50%' result may partly measure the vagueness of the simulated user rather than the capability of the agents.
  2. [§3.2, F.3.1–F.3.3, §2.2] The human baseline is not directly the original notebook's output. The notebook is pruned and reconstructed by an external LLM (F.3.2), executed to produce baseline_submission.csv, and evaluated with an LLM-extracted evaluation function (F.3.1). Success is defined as matching or exceeding this reconstructed baseline. If pruning or reconstruction changes data-processing steps, such as the rewritten train/test file loading in F.3.2, the baseline can be systematically different from what the human author achieved. Please report, for each of the 25 tasks, the original notebook's metric value on the same organized split where feasible, and reconcile any differences with the stated baseline. Without this, the interpretation of 'baseline achieved' as matching the human is not supported.
  3. [§3.1, §4.2, Table 1; D.1] The quantitative claim is based on 25 tasks and a single trial per agent. For example, OpenAI o3 has a 12% valid-submission rate, i.e., 3 valid submissions, and a 4% baseline-achieved rate, i.e., 1 success; Claude-3.7's 40% corresponds to 10 successes. With n=25, the 95% Wilson interval for a 40% rate is roughly [21%, 61%], so the statement that even the best agents succeed on fewer than 50% of tasks is not statistically supported for Claude-3.7, Gemini-2.5-Pro, or o4-mini, all of which are at 40%. Report confidence intervals, exact per-task success counts, and ideally multiple trials or pass^k results for all agents; the pass^k analysis in D.1 is currently restricted to two models.
  4. [§4.3, G.2, C.3] The qualitative contrast between 'over-confident' and 'over-conservative' agents is partly an artifact of the benchmark's own agent prompt. The agent system prompt in C.3 instructs the agent to 'obtain explicit user confirmation (yes) to proceed' before consequential actions and to ask the user for background at the beginning; the repeated confirmation requests in Appendix G.2 follow directly from that instruction. Consequently, labeling Gemini-2.5-Pro as inherently 'cautious' and attributing its failures to model personality is not well supported, because the same prompt may elicit this behavior. The paper should either vary the agent prompt to show that the distinction persists, or reframe the observation as behavior under the IDA-Bench protocol.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§4.1] The sentence 'where we set the temperature to 14' for Claude 3.7 appears to be a typo; footnote 4 says temperatures less than 1 are not allowed for thinking mode, so please clarify whether the intended value is 1 or another number.
  2. [Figure 6, Table 5] The heatmap in Figure 6 labels axes only as 'benchmark 1' through 'benchmark 25'; please provide a mapping to the notebook IDs and names in Table 5 so that readers can connect per-task scores to the underlying tasks.
  3. [§3.1, F.2] The selection section reports that 1,288 candidate notebooks were scored and the top 100 manually reviewed, but it does not report how many notebooks were rejected for each manual-review criterion; providing these counts would support the representativeness and reproducibility of the final 25-task set.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: IDA-Bench's success metric is anchored to external ground truth and executed human baselines, not to its own prompts.

full rationale

IDA-Bench is an evaluation benchmark rather than a derivation: the headline result is an empirical measurement of agent submissions against ground-truth labels and against a baseline value produced by executing the original Kaggle notebook, so success is not defined by the benchmark's own instructions. The reference-insight extraction, simulated user, and gatekeeper are generation and control components that feed the interaction, but they do not produce the scores; agent outputs are compared to external evaluation functions and to a human baseline generated before the interaction. The construction pipeline is also checked by executing the reconstructed notebook, so the baseline is not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. There are no load-bearing self-citations: the hallucination and multi-turn-failure results cited by the paper are from external sources, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. The shard-user comparison is an additional control for the user channel; while it raises a potential validity confound about user vagueness, that is a measurement-interpretation concern, not a circularity of the kind where an output is equivalent to an input by construction. The gatekeeper's internal alignment check is likewise not used to define the benchmark's success metric. Therefore the derivation chain is self-contained and the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The benchmark introduces no new scientific entities. Its central claim depends on several human-chosen parameters (temperature, turn limits, scoring weights) and on the fidelity of the LLM user simulation and gatekeeper. These are the assumptions a reader must accept before treating the under-50% success rate as an agent-capability result.

free parameters (6)
  • Simulated user temperature = 0.4
    Controls how much the user's phrasing varies across runs; affects instruction clarity and measured agent success (Section 4.1).
  • Claude-3.7 agent temperature = 14 (as printed; likely a typo for 1.4 or 1)
    Unusual setting stated in Section 4.1 with footnote that temperatures below 1 are not allowed for thinking mode; unclear value hurts comparability and reproducibility.
  • Max user-agent interaction turns = 30
    Caps conversations; Gemini-2.5-Pro fails some tasks by exhausting this limit (Section 4.3).
  • Max sandbox interactions per request = 5
    Limits how many code executions the agent may attempt per user request (Section 4.1).
  • Notebook selection scoring weights = popularity*2.0 + complexity*5.0 + dataset*2.5 + resource*1.0 - plot_penalty*20
    Hand-tuned weights determine which 25 notebooks enter the benchmark, shaping task difficulty (Appendix F.2).
  • Baseline success threshold = match or exceed the notebook-derived baseline
    Binary success criterion; the paper's D.2 normalized score shows many agents are close to baseline even when failing this threshold.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The LLM-simulated user behaves like a real data analyst with subjective, evolving guidance.
    Invoked in Sections 2.1 and Appendix B; the entire multi-round evaluation depends on this proxy being faithful.
  • domain assumption The gatekeeper LLM corrects user deviations without leaking reference instructions.
    Appendix C.4 describes the gatekeeper; if it leaks or over-corrects, agent success is inflated.
  • domain assumption Executing the LLM-pruned and reconstructed notebook yields a valid human baseline.
    Section 3.2 and Appendix F.3.3; baseline values are used as the success threshold, and errors here directly change pass/fail labels.
  • domain assumption Kaggle notebooks uploaded in the 90-day window are unseen by the evaluated models.
    Section 3.1 relies on this to mitigate data contamination; if training data included these notebooks, the measured success rates would understate agent generalization.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of IDA-Bench: Evaluating LLMs on Interactive Guided Data Analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FECJ2OC7

@misc{pith2026250518223,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: IDA-Bench: Evaluating LLMs on Interactive Guided Data Analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FECJ2OC7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.18223}
}
read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) show promise as data analysis agents, but existing benchmarks overlook the iterative nature of the field, where experts' decisions evolve with deeper insights of the dataset. To address this, we introduce IDA-Bench, a novel benchmark evaluating LLM agents in multi-round interactive scenarios. Derived from complex Kaggle notebooks, tasks are presented as sequential natural language instructions by an LLM-simulated user. Agent performance is judged by comparing its final numerical output to the human-derived baseline. Initial results show that even state-of-the-art coding agents (like Claude-3.7-thinking) succeed on < 50% of the tasks, highlighting limitations not evident in single-turn tests. This work underscores the need to improve LLMs' multi-round capabilities for building more reliable data analysis agents, highlighting the necessity of achieving a balance between instruction following and reasoning.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.18223 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Each task in IDA-Bench has four main components: instruction materials, a simulated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The full details of the construction process are described in Appendix F. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Reasons of invalid submissions. The result shows that Gemini-2.5-Pro, OpenAI o4-mini and Claude-3.7 are the best performing models, in terms of the percentage of baseline achieved. Notably, OpenAI o3 struggles in making valid submissions and creates very limited amount of code snippets, which will be further analyzed in Section 4.3. Gemini-2.5-Pro achieves the highest baseline achievement rate among valid submission… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Breakdown of user messages across the conversation in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Percentage of tasks in which the agent achieves the baseline in all the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Score of each model on each task. 29 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. CITBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Interactive Tabular Data Processing with LLMs

    cs.DB 2026-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    CITBench is a new benchmark for LLM table processing with 1,296 tasks, showing that model accuracy falls sharply under multi-turn interaction noise and complex dependencies.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

142 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    https://openai.com/chatgpt/overview/

    ChatGPT | OpenAI. https://openai.com/chatgpt/overview/. (accessed 2025-05-09)

    2025

  2. [2]

    https://kdigo.org/guidelines/ ckd-evaluation-and-management/

    CKD Evaluation and Management – KDIGO. https://kdigo.org/guidelines/ ckd-evaluation-and-management/ . (accessed 2025-05-12)

    2025

  3. [3]

    https://claude.ai/login?returnTo=%2F%3F

    Claude. https://claude.ai/login?returnTo=%2F%3F. (accessed 2025-05-09)

    2025

  4. [4]

    https://www.deepseek.com/

    DeepSeek. https://www.deepseek.com/. (accessed 2025-05-09)

    2025

  5. [5]

    https:// playwright.dev/python/

    Fast and reliable end-to-end testing for modern web apps | Playwright Python. https:// playwright.dev/python/. (accessed 2025-05-11)

    2025

  6. [6]

    https://gemini.google.com/app

    Gemini. https://gemini.google.com/app. (accessed 2025-05-09)

    2025

  7. [7]

    https://grok.com/?ref=findaitools

    Grok. https://grok.com/?ref=findaitools. (accessed 2025-05-09)

    2025

  8. [8]

    https://openai.com/index/ improvements-to-data-analysis-in-chatgpt/

    Improvements to data analysis in ChatGPT | OpenAI. https://openai.com/index/ improvements-to-data-analysis-in-chatgpt/ . (accessed 2025-05-09)

    2025

Show all 142 references
  1. [9]

    https://www.anthropic.com/news/ analysis-tool

    Introducing the analysis tool in Claude.ai \ Anthropic. https://www.anthropic.com/news/ analysis-tool. (accessed 2025-05-09)

    2025

  2. [10]

    https://github.com/ jupyterlab/jupyter-ai

    Jupyterlab/jupyter-ai: A generative AI extension for JupyterLab. https://github.com/ jupyterlab/jupyter-ai. (accessed 2025-05-05)

    2025

  3. [11]

    https://www.kaggle.com/

    Kaggle. https://www.kaggle.com/. (accessed 2025-05-09)

    2025

  4. [12]

    https://docs.litellm.ai/docs/

    LiteLLM - Getting Started | liteLLM. https://docs.litellm.ai/docs/. (accessed 2025- 05-12)

    2025

  5. [13]

    https://www.llama.com/

    Llama. https://www.llama.com/. (accessed 2025-05-09)

    2025

  6. [14]

    https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/ resources/financial-modeling/modeloff-guide/

    Modeloff - Guide to Competing. https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/ resources/financial-modeling/modeloff-guide/ . (accessed 2025-05-09)

    2025

  7. [15]

    https://openai.com/index/ o3-o4-mini-system-card/

    OpenAI o3 and o4-mini System Card. https://openai.com/index/ o3-o4-mini-system-card/ . (accessed 2025-05-16)

    2025

  8. [16]

    https://kaggle.com/code/alexisbcook/titanic-tutorial

    Titanic Tutorial. https://kaggle.com/code/alexisbcook/titanic-tutorial. (ac- cessed 2025-05-12)

    2025

  9. [17]

    https://www.vectara.com/blog/ deepseek-r1-hallucinates-more-than-deepseek-v3 , January 2025

    DeepSeek-R1 hallucinates more than DeepSeek-V3. https://www.vectara.com/blog/ deepseek-r1-hallucinates-more-than-deepseek-v3 , January 2025. (accessed 2025- 05-16)

    2025

  10. [18]

    Open Interpreter, May 2025

    OpenInterpreter/open-interpreter. Open Interpreter, May 2025

    2025

  11. [19]

    Wang, Ruoxi Sun, Pengcheng Yin, Caiming Xiong, Ansong Ni, Qian Liu, et al

    Ruisheng Cao, Fangyu Lei, Haoyuan Wu, Jixuan Chen, Yeqiao Fu, Hongcheng Gao, Xinzhuang Xiong, Hanchong Zhang, Wenjing Hu, Yuchen Mao, Tianbao Xie, Hongshen Xu, Danyang Zhang, Sida I. Wang, Ruoxi Sun, Pengcheng Yin, Caiming Xiong, Ansong Ni, Qian Liu, et al. Spider2-V: How Far ...

    2024

  12. [20]

    Beyond Prompts: Dynamic Conversational Benchmarking of Large Language Models

    David Castillo-Bolado, Joseph Davidson, Finlay Gray, and Marek Rosa. Beyond Prompts: Dynamic Conversational Benchmarking of Large Language Models. In The Thirty-eight Con- ference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track, November 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    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 Int...

    2024

  14. [22]

    Early Childhood Behavioral Inhibition and Social and School Adjustment in Chinese Children: A 5-Year Longitudinal Study

    Xinyin Chen, Huichang Chen, Dan Li, and Li Wang. Early Childhood Behavioral Inhibition and Social and School Adjustment in Chinese Children: A 5-Year Longitudinal Study. Child Development, 80(6):1692–1704, 2009

    2009

  15. [23]

    Behavioral Inhibition in Early Childhood and Adjustment in Late Adolescence in China.Child Development, 92(3):994–1010, 2021

    Xinyin Chen, Rui Fu, Dan Li, Huichang Chen, Zhengyan Wang, and Li Wang. Behavioral Inhibition in Early Childhood and Adjustment in Late Adolescence in China.Child Development, 92(3):994–1010, 2021

    2021

  16. [24]

    Baker, Benjamin Burns, Daniel Adu-Ampratwum, Xuhui Huang, Xia Ning, Song Gao, Yu Su, and Huan Sun

    Ziru Chen, Shijie Chen, Yuting Ning, Qianheng Zhang, Boshi Wang, Botao Yu, Yifei Li, Zeyi Liao, Chen Wei, Zitong Lu, Vishal Dey, Mingyi Xue, Frazier N. Baker, Benjamin Burns, Daniel Adu-Ampratwum, Xuhui Huang, Xia Ning, Song Gao, Yu Su, and Huan Sun. ScienceAgent- Bench: Towar...

    2024

  17. [25]

    Liying Cheng, Xingxuan Li, and Lidong Bing. Is GPT-4 a Good Data Analyst? In Houda Bouamor, Juan Pino, and Kalika Bali, editors, Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023 , pages 9496–9514, Singapore, December 2023. Association for Computational Linguistics

    2023

  18. [26]

    P. J. DeMott, A. J. Prenni, X. Liu, S. M. Kreidenweis, M. D. Petters, C. H. Twohy, M. S. Richardson, T. Eidhammer, and D. C. Rogers. Predicting global atmospheric ice nuclei dis- tributions and their impacts on climate. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 107(25)...

    2010

  19. [27]

    MIND2WEB: Towards a generalist agent for the web

    Xiang Deng, Yu Gu, Boyuan Zheng, Shijie Chen, Samuel Stevens, Boshi Wang, Huan Sun, and Yu Su. MIND2WEB: Towards a generalist agent for the web. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , NIPS ’23, pages 28091–28114, Red Hook...

    2023

  20. [28]

    Zhang, Lanyi Zhu, Mike A Merrill, Jeffrey Heer, and Tim Althoff

    Ken Gu, Ruoxi Shang, Ruien Jiang, Keying Kuang, Richard-John Lin, Donghe Lyu, Yue Mao, Youran Pan, Teng Wu, Jiaqian Yu, Yikun Zhang, Tianmai M. Zhang, Lanyi Zhu, Mike A Merrill, Jeffrey Heer, and Tim Althoff. BLADE: Benchmarking Language Model Agents for Data-Driven Science. I...

    2024

  21. [29]

    ConvCodeWorld: Bench- marking Conversational Code Generation in Reproducible Feedback Environments

    Hojae Han, Seung-Won Hwang, Rajhans Samdani, and Yuxiong He. ConvCodeWorld: Bench- marking Conversational Code Generation in Reproducible Feedback Environments. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, October 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    InfiAgent-DABench: Evaluating Agents on Data Analysis Tasks

    Xueyu Hu, Ziyu Zhao, Shuang Wei, Ziwei Chai, Qianli Ma, Guoyin Wang, Xuwu Wang, Jing Su, Jingjing Xu, Ming Zhu, Yao Cheng, Jianbo Yuan, Jiwei Li, Kun Kuang, Yang Yang, Hongxia Yang, and Fei Wu. InfiAgent-DABench: Evaluating Agents on Data Analysis Tasks. In Forty-First Interna...

    2024

  23. [31]

    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. In Proceedings of the 41st International Confer- ence on Machine Learning, volume 235 of ICML’24, pages 20271–20309, Vienna, Austria, July

  24. [32]

    SimulBench: Evaluating Language Models with Creative Simulation Tasks

    Qi Jia, Xiang Yue, Tuney Zheng, Jie Huang, and Bill Yuchen Lin. SimulBench: Evaluating Language Models with Creative Simulation Tasks. In Luis Chiruzzo, Alan Ritter, and Lu Wang, editors, Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2025, pages 8118– 8131, ...

    2025

  25. [33]

    Taylor, and Dan Roth

    Bowen Jiang, Zhuoqun Hao, Young-Min Cho, Bryan Li, Yuan Yuan, Sihao Chen, Lyle Ungar, Camillo J. Taylor, and Dan Roth. Know Me, Respond to Me: Benchmarking LLMs for Dynamic User Profiling and Personalized Responses at Scale, April 2025

    2025

  26. [34]

    AIDE: AI-Driven Exploration in the Space of Code, February 2025

    Zhengyao Jiang, Dominik Schmidt, Dhruv Srikanth, Dixing Xu, Ian Kaplan, Deniss Jacenko, and Yuxiang Wu. AIDE: AI-Driven Exploration in the Space of Code, February 2025

    2025

  27. [35]

    Jimenez, John Yang, Alexander Wettig, Shunyu Yao, Kexin Pei, Ofir Press, and Karthik R

    Carlos E. Jimenez, John Yang, Alexander Wettig, Shunyu Yao, Kexin Pei, Ofir Press, and Karthik R. Narasimhan. SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-world Github Issues? In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2024, Vienna, Austria, May 7...

    2024

  28. [36]

    DSBench: How Far Are Data Science Agents from Becoming Data Science Experts? In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, October 2024

    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, October 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    LLMs Get Lost In Multi-Turn Conversation, May 2025

    Philippe Laban, Hiroaki Hayashi, Yingbo Zhou, and Jennifer Neville. LLMs Get Lost In Multi-Turn Conversation, May 2025

    2025

  30. [38]

    DS-1000: A natural and reliable benchmark for data science code generation

    Yuhang Lai, Chengxi Li, Yiming Wang, Tianyi Zhang, Ruiqi Zhong, Luke Zettlemoyer, Wen-tau Yih, Daniel Fried, Sida Wang, and Tao Yu. DS-1000: A natural and reliable benchmark for data science code generation. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learni...

    2023

  31. [39]

    Leonard, Nathan Kuppermann, Cody Olsen, Lynn Babcock-Cimpello, Kathleen Brown, Prashant Mahajan, Kathleen M

    Julie C. Leonard, Nathan Kuppermann, Cody Olsen, Lynn Babcock-Cimpello, Kathleen Brown, Prashant Mahajan, Kathleen M. Adelgais, Jennifer Anders, Dominic Borgialli, Aaron Donoghue, John D. Hoyle, Emily Kim, Jeffrey R. Leonard, Kathleen A. Lillis, Lise E. Nigrovic, Eliza- beth C...

    2011

  32. [40]

    Tapilot-Crossing: Benchmarking and Evolving LLMs Towards Interactive Data Analysis Agents, March 2024

    Jinyang Li, Nan Huo, Yan Gao, Jiayi Shi, Yingxiu Zhao, Ge Qu, Yurong Wu, Chenhao Ma, Jian-Guang Lou, and Reynold Cheng. Tapilot-Crossing: Benchmarking and Evolving LLMs Towards Interactive Data Analysis Agents, March 2024

    2024

  33. [41]

    ToolSandbox: A Stateful, Conversational, Interactive Evaluation Benchmark for LLM Tool Use Capabilities

    Jiarui Lu, Thomas Holleis, Yizhe Zhang, Bernhard Aumayer, Feng Nan, Haoping Bai, Shuang Ma, Shen Ma, Mengyu Li, Guoli Yin, Zirui Wang, and Ruoming Pang. ToolSandbox: A Stateful, Conversational, Interactive Evaluation Benchmark for LLM Tool Use Capabilities. In Luis Chiruzzo, A...

    2025

  34. [42]

    Nigrovic, Alexander J

    Lise E. Nigrovic, Alexander J. Rogers, Kathleen M. Adelgais, Cody S. Olsen, Jeffrey R. Leonard, David M. Jaffe, Julie C. Leonard, and for the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) Cervical Spine Study Group. Utility of Plain Radiographs in Detecting Trauma...

    2012

  35. [43]

    Missing Women and the Price of Tea in China: The Effect of Sex-Specific Earnings on Sex Imbalance

    Nancy Qian. Missing Women and the Price of Tea in China: The Effect of Sex-Specific Earnings on Sex Imbalance. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 123(3):1251–1285, 2008

    2008

  36. [44]

    Bishop, Wei Li, Folawiyo Campbell-Ajala, Daniel Kenji Toyama, Robert James Berry, Divya Tyamagundlu, Timothy P

    Christopher Rawles, Sarah Clinckemaillie, Yifan Chang, Jonathan Waltz, Gabrielle Lau, Mary- beth Fair, Alice Li, William E. Bishop, Wei Li, Folawiyo Campbell-Ajala, Daniel Kenji Toyama, Robert James Berry, Divya Tyamagundlu, Timothy P. Lillicrap, and Oriana Riva. Android- Worl...

    2024

  37. [45]

    AutoGPT, May 2025

    Significant Gravitas. AutoGPT, May 2025

    2025

  38. [46]

    Increasing Trans- parency Through a Multiverse Analysis

    Sara Steegen, Francis Tuerlinckx, Andrew Gelman, and Wolf Vanpaemel. Increasing Trans- parency Through a Multiverse Analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(5):702–712, September 2016

    2016

  39. [47]

    Sullivan, Wanze Xie, Stefania Conte, John E

    Eileen F. Sullivan, Wanze Xie, Stefania Conte, John E. Richards, Talat Shama, Rashidul Haque, William A. Petri, and Charles A. Nelson. Neural correlates of inhibitory control and associations with cognitive outcomes in Bangladeshi children exposed to early adversities. Develop...

    2022

  40. [48]

    A macroscope in the redwoods

    Gilman Tolle, Joseph Polastre, Robert Szewczyk, David Culler, Neil Turner, Kevin Tu, Stephen Burgess, Todd Dawson, Phil Buonadonna, David Gay, and Wei Hong. A macroscope in the redwoods. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems, S...

    2005

  41. [49]

    Meeseeks: An Iterative Benchmark Evaluating LLMs Multi-Turn Instruction- Following Ability, April 2025

    Jiaming Wang. Meeseeks: An Iterative Benchmark Evaluating LLMs Multi-Turn Instruction- Following Ability, April 2025. 12

    2025

  42. [50]

    CodeFlowBench: A Multi-turn, Iterative Benchmark for Complex Code Generation, April 2025

    Sizhe Wang, Zhengren Wang, Dongsheng Ma, Yongan Yu, Rui Ling, Zhiyu Li, Feiyu Xiong, and Wentao Zhang. CodeFlowBench: A Multi-turn, Iterative Benchmark for Complex Code Generation, April 2025

    2025

  43. [51]

    White, Doug Burger, and Chi Wang

    Qingyun Wu, Gagan Bansal, Jieyu Zhang, Yiran Wu, Beibin Li, Erkang Zhu, Li Jiang, Xiaoyun Zhang, Shaokun Zhang, Jiale Liu, Ahmed Hassan Awadallah, Ryen W. White, Doug Burger, and Chi Wang. AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversation, October 2023

    2023

  44. [52]

    OSWorld: Benchmarking Multimodal Agents for Open-Ended Tasks in Real Computer Environments

    Tianbao Xie, Danyang Zhang, Jixuan Chen, Xiaochuan Li, Siheng Zhao, Ruisheng Cao, Toh Jing Hua, Zhoujun Cheng, Dongchan Shin, Fangyu Lei, Yitao Liu, Yiheng Xu, Shuyan Zhou, Silvio Savarese, Caiming Xiong, Victor Zhong, and Tao Yu. OSWorld: Benchmarking Multimodal Agents for Op...

    2024

  45. [53]

    InterCode: Standardizing and benchmarking interactive coding with execution feedback

    John Yang, Akshara Prabhakar, Karthik Narasimhan, and Shunyu Yao. InterCode: Standardizing and benchmarking interactive coding with execution feedback. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS ’23, pages 23826– 23854, R...

    2023

  46. [54]

    Narasimhan

    Shunyu Yao, Noah Shinn, Pedram Razavi, and Karthik R. Narasimhan. {$\tau$}-bench: A Benchmark for \underline{T}ool-\underline{A}gent-\underline{U}ser Interaction in Real- World Domains. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations , October 2024

    2024

  47. [55]

    Bin Yu and Rebecca L. Barter. Veridical Data Science: The Practice of Responsible Data Analysis and Decision Making. MIT Press, 2024

    2024

  48. [56]

    Multi-SWE-bench: A Multilingual Benchmark for Issue Resolving, April 2025

    Daoguang Zan, Zhirong Huang, Wei Liu, Hanwu Chen, Linhao Zhang, Shulin Xin, Lu Chen, Qi Liu, Xiaojian Zhong, Aoyan Li, Siyao Liu, Yongsheng Xiao, Liangqiang Chen, Yuyu Zhang, Jing Su, Tianyu Liu, Rui Long, Kai Shen, and Liang Xiang. Multi-SWE-bench: A Multilingual Benchmark fo...

    2025

  49. [57]

    Data-Copilot: Bridging Billions of Data and Humans with Autonomous Workflow

    Wenqi Zhang, Yongliang Shen, Weiming Lu, and Yueting Zhuang. Data-Copilot: Bridging Billions of Data and Humans with Autonomous Workflow. In ICLR 2024 Workshop on Large Language Model (LLM) Agents, March 2024

    2024

  50. [58]

    Benchmarking Data Science Agents

    Yuge Zhang, Qiyang Jiang, XingyuHan XingyuHan, Nan Chen, Yuqing Yang, and Kan Ren. Benchmarking Data Science Agents. In Lun-Wei Ku, Andre Martins, and Vivek Srikumar, edi- tors, Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: ...

    2024

  51. [59]

    Decision Company

    Shuyan Zhou, Frank F. Xu, Hao Zhu, Xuhui Zhou, Robert Lo, Abishek Sridhar, Xianyi Cheng, Tianyue Ou, Yonatan Bisk, Daniel Fried, Uri Alon, and Graham Neubig. WebArena: A Realistic Web Environment for Building Autonomous Agents. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learni...

    2024

  52. [60]

    - Before taking consequential actions that update the dataset, list the action details and obtain explicit user confirmation (yes) to proceed

    Interaction Flow: - At the beginning of the conversation, understand the background of the dataset and the data analysis problem by asking the user. - Before taking consequential actions that update the dataset, list the action details and obtain explicit user confirmation (ye...

  53. [61]

    - Output: Use print() exclusively -- no but no other methods (e.g., plt.show(), returns)

    Code Requirements: - Continuity: Each code block must build upon previous executions (assume variables/functions persist unless told otherwise). - Output: Use print() exclusively -- no but no other methods (e.g., plt.show(), returns). - Errors: If a module is missing (e.g., Mo...

  54. [62]

    - Adding analysis beyond the requested task

    Prohibited Actions: - Generating visualizations/plots. - Adding analysis beyond the requested task. - Including non-code text in code blocks (e.g., comments, placeholders)

  55. [63]

    The user has given you full permission to execute any code necessary to complete the task

    General Guidance: - When you execute code, it will be executed on the user's machine. The user has given you full permission to execute any code necessary to complete the task. - When a user refers to a filename, they're likely referring to an existing file in the current dire...

  56. [64]

    guardian

    Summary Output Format: Summarize your work briefly inside <response> and </response> tags. For example: 19 <response> Analyzed dataset 'example.csv': - Performed data cleaning: removed duplicates and handled missing values - Calculated basic statistics: mean, median, standard ...

  57. [65]

    Compare the *user instruction* and the *reference instructions* step-by-step

  58. [66]

    Decide if they are contradictory

  59. [67]

    thought": <the reasoning process of the gatekeeper>

    If contradictory, draft a follow-up instruction that steers the user back toward the reference instructions, matching the user’s tone. **OUTPUT FORMAT -- VISIBLE TO USER** Return *only* the following JSON object (no additional text): {{ "thought": <the reasoning process of the...

  60. [68]

    [Data Exploration] Load both train and test datasets, examining data types, missing values, and statistical distributions across features to understand the dataset structure and quality

  61. [69]

    [Data Preprocessing] Combine train and test datasets with a dataset identifier column to ensure consistent feature transformations, preserving the ability to separate them later

  62. [70]

    [Feature Engineering] Parse the 'Cabin' column to extract the Deck (letter), Number (numeric portion), and Side (P/S indicating port/starboard) as separate features

  63. [71]

    [Feature Engineering] Alternatively, test both the decomposed cabin features and the original cabin encoding to determine which provides better predictive power

  64. [72]

    [Feature Engineering] Extract passenger group information from PassengerId by identifying shared group numbers, and create a 'PassengerGroup' feature

  65. [73]

    [Feature Engineering] Create an 'IsAlone' binary flag to identify passengers traveling without companions, based on the PassengerGroup information

  66. [74]

    (omitted)

    [Feature Engineering] Calculate 'TotalSpend' by summing all spending-related columns (RoomService, FoodCourt, ShoppingMall, Spa, VRDeck). ...(omitted)

  67. [75]

    [Prediction Generation] Generate predictions on the test dataset using the final tuned model

  68. [76]

    [Submission Preparation] Create a submission dataframe with PassengerId and the predicted Transported values, ensuring they are converted to boolean type as required by the competition format

  69. [77]

    System prompt of the shard user

    [Quality Assurance] Verify the submission file format matches competition requirements before final submission. System prompt of the shard user. You are the **Simulated User** in an interactive conversation with an data analysis assistant. Your job is to select shards that gui...

  70. [78]

    You should select shards that are most “basic” and currently **the most relevant**

    **criterion** You can reveal the content of shards to the assistant in your response if it will help the assistant move closer to analyze the data. You should select shards that are most “basic” and currently **the most relevant**

  71. [79]

    **one to three shards at a time** – could choose only one or two shards

  72. [80]

    **output shard ids** Each shard has an id, output them in a list like "[1,2]"

  73. [81]

    **output the full content of the chosen shards** – Paraphrase the **full** content of the shards; do not omit details

  74. [82]

    Consider these alternative directions:

    **Irrelevant or generic questions** – If the assistant’s request is irrelevant or overly generic, briefly guide the direction to **the new chosen shards**. For example, "Consider these alternative directions:" followed by key points. For failed tasks from the assistant: "You s...

  75. [83]

    No questions -- respond in declarative sentences

  76. [84]

    thought":

    Keep it short, casual, and realistic; typos or sloppy punctuation are fine. ## OUTPUT FORMAT -- STRICT Return **exactly one** JSON object, with no markdown or extra text, e.g.: {{ "thought": "...private reasoning (not visible to the agent)...", "user_response": "...paraphrase ...

  77. [85]

    These metrics typically possess a theoretical upper bound (e.g., 1.0 for accuracy)

    Accuracy metrics: Higher values signify better performance. These metrics typically possess a theoretical upper bound (e.g., 1.0 for accuracy)

  78. [86]

    Avg Score

    Error metrics: Lower values signify better performance. These metrics usually have a theoretical lower bound (e.g., 0.0 for mean squared error). We denote the evaluation function’s output on the agent’s submission as Eval(agent) and on the baseline submission as Eval(base). Th...

  79. [87]

    an evaluation function (e.g., Mean Squared Error (MSE))

  80. [88]

    a numeric baseline score achieved by the original notebook

  81. [89]

    the training set, test feature set, and test set ground truth; and

  82. [90]

    An instruction material with subjective insights and relevant domain knowledge for the simulated user. The overall goal was to convert the original, often exploratory, analysis scripts into a set of components that allow for the reproduction of core results and provide a clear...

  83. [91]

    metric_name

    Prompt for identifying numerical objective Given the markdown file with multiple code blocks, please extract numerical result, metric and response variable: 37 - Identify the **most important** quantitative conclusion or final numerical result presented in this file. This typi...

  84. [92]

    yes" -> 1 and

    Prompt for extracting evaluation. # Evaluation-function extraction - Isolate the evaluation function corresponding to {{METRIC_INFO}}. - Wrap the extracted code (including any required imports) between <evaluation> and </evaluation> tags. - Standardise the interface: The funct...

  85. [93]

    Analyze the entire file to determine which code blocks directly contribute to producing the final result by: - Identifying data loading/import steps - Tracking data transformations that modify the dataset (dropping rows/columns, creating new variables, etc.) - Finding the calc...

  86. [94]

    Create a cleaned version of the markdown file that: - Retains all section headers and code blocks necessary to reproduce the final result - Completely removes sections that don't affect the final numerical output (like plotting, data exploration, or checks that don't lead to m...

  87. [95]

    Explain which sections were kept and why they're essential to reproducing the final result

  88. [96]

    Explain which sections were removed and why they're not essential. For example, data loading, cleaning operations that modify the dataset, and final calculations should be kept, while checks that don't lead to modifications, exploratory analysis, and visualization code can be removed

  89. [97]

    <markdown>

    Please provide the markdown formatted between <markdown> and </markdown> tags. Place the entire markdown content between these tags and do NOT use the strings "<markdown>" or "</markdown>" anywhere else in your response

  90. [98]

    !pip install

    Code quality in the markdown: - Remove any unused library imports - Remove all package installation commands (like "!pip install", "!conda install", etc.) 39 - Remove Jupyter notebook magic commands (like "%matplotlib inline", "%%time", etc.) - Ensure all code is clean, proper...

  91. [99]

    - Load the test feature set from the given directory, using <original_name>_test_features

    Train / test files - Load the training data from the given directory, using the file name <original_name>_train. - Load the test feature set from the given directory, using <original_name>_test_features. - Remove any code that performs a train-test split. - All data will be un...

  92. [100]

    - Apply the identical transformations to the test feature set

    Data processing & modelling - Apply all cleaning, preprocessing, and feature-engineering steps only to the training set, then fit the model. - Apply the identical transformations to the test feature set. Note that there will not be missing values in the test feature set, so do...

  93. [101]

    Save predictions - Write the predictions to the data path <path>{{SUBMISSION_PATH}}</path>

  94. [102]

    - Make only the minimal edits needed to satisfy the requirements above

    Output format: - Return the modified script wrapped between <code> and </code> tags. - Make only the minimal edits needed to satisfy the requirements above. Remember: double-check your response before submitting. F.3.3 Execution A crucial step for validating the correctness an...

  95. [103]

    Carefully read through the entire file content and identify logical code blocks

  96. [104]

    Merge related blocks that: - Perform similar operations on different variables - Execute simple sequential operations that form a logical unit - Work together to accomplish a single task

  97. [105]

    # Second Objective: Knowledge Extraction

    For each merged code block: - Generate a concise instruction that explains what the block does and how to reproduce it - Format each instruction between `<instruction>` and `</instruction>` tags - Focus on clarity and actionability - someone should be able to follow your instr...

  98. [106]

    Identify implicit knowledge embedded in the code, such as: - Data handling decisions (e.g., dropping vs. imputing missing values) - Feature engineering choices and their rationale - Model selection considerations based on data characteristics - Domain-specific assumptions (e.g...

  99. [107]

    reference insight

    For each knowledge item: - Generate a concise sentence explaining the insight or decision - Format each knowledge item between `<knowledge>` and `</knowledge>` tags - Focus on the "why" behind code choices rather than repeating what the code does Your analysis should enable re...

  100. [108]

    Identify the maximum date in `train_df`

  101. [109]

    Calculate the split date, which is 90 days before the maximum date. 45

  102. [110]

    Create `X_train_val` by taking all rows from `train_df` where the date is less than the split date

  103. [111]

    Create `X_val` by taking all rows from `train_df` where the date is greater than or equal to the split date

  104. [112]

    Print the date range (min and max date) and shape for `X_train_val`

  105. [113]

    Print the date range (min and max date) and shape for `X_val`

  106. [114]

    Store the target variable `sales` for these two sets into `y_train_val` and `y_val` respectively

  107. [115]

    The `test_df` will be our final test set, let's call it `X_test_final` for clarity (it's already `test_df`)

  108. [116]

    A simple strategy is to fill them with 0

    At this point, we also need to handle any remaining NaN values in our feature sets (`X_train_val`, `X_val`, `X_test_final`) that might have been introduced by lag/rolling features, especially at the beginning of the series. A simple strategy is to fill them with 0

  109. [117]

    This will exclude `id`, `date`, and `sales` (as sales is the target)

    Define a list of feature columns to be used for modeling. This will exclude `id`, `date`, and `sales` (as sales is the target). `store_nbr` and `family` are categorical and will be handled by the model (e.g. LightGBM can handle them directly)

  110. [118]

    Apply NaN filling (with 0) to the feature columns in `X_train_val`, `X_val`, and `X_test_final`

  111. [119]

    Do you confirm to proceed? (yes/no) ### Entry 58, User: Yes, proceed with preparing the validation split using the last 90 days of training data

    Print the sum of NaNs for all columns in `X_train_val`, `X_val`, and `X_test_final` after filling to confirm they are handled. Do you confirm to proceed? (yes/no) ### Entry 58, User: Yes, proceed with preparing the validation split using the last 90 days of training data. Make...

  112. [120]

    Split `train_df` into a new training set (`X_train_val`, `y_train_val`) and a validation set (`X_val`, `y_val`), using the last 90 days for validation

  113. [121]

    Define the feature set ( `X_test_final`) from `test_df`

  114. [122]

    Handle any remaining NaN values in the feature columns of these three sets (`X_train_val`, `X_val`, `X_test_final`) by filling them with 0. Action:

  115. [123]

    Calculate the maximum date in `train_df`

  116. [124]

    Determine the `split_date` (90 days before the maximum date)

  117. [125]

    Create `df_train_subset` from `train_df` for dates `< split_date`

  118. [126]

    Create `df_val_subset` from `train_df` for dates `>= split_date`

  119. [127]

    Print the date ranges (min and max) and shapes for `df_train_subset` and `df_val_subset`

  120. [128]

    Print these feature columns

    Define `feature_columns` as all columns in `train_df` except `id`, `date`, and `sales`. Print these feature columns

  121. [129]

    Create `X_train_val = df_train_subset[feature_columns]`

  122. [130]

    Create `y_train_val = df_train_subset['sales']`

  123. [131]

    Create `X_val = df_val_subset[feature_columns]`

  124. [132]

    Create `y_val = df_val_subset['sales']`

  125. [133]

    Create `X_test_final = test_df[feature_columns]`

  126. [134]

    Fill NaN values in all columns of `X_train_val` with 0

  127. [135]

    Fill NaN values in all columns of `X_val` with 0

  128. [136]

    Fill NaN values in all columns of `X_test_final` with 0. 46

  129. [137]

    Print the total sum of NaNs for `X_train_val`, `X_val`, and `X_test_final` to confirm they are handled

  130. [138]

    jimmyyeung-spaceship-titanic-xgb-top5

    Print the shapes of `X_train_val`, `y_train_val`, `X_val`, `y_val`, and `X_test_final`. Do you confirm to proceed? (yes/no) In this example, the agent repeatedly seeks the user’s approval before proceeding, leading to redundant exchanges that ultimately exceed the allowed numb...

  131. [139]

    After preprocessing, separate the target variable 'Listening_Time_minutes' from the training data

  132. [140]

    Ensure the test data does not contain the target variable

  133. [141]

    Align the features of train and test sets without including the target column

  134. [142]

    patilaakash619-electric-vehicle-population-data-in-the-us

    Train the model on the correct features and predict on the aligned test features. By carefully separating the target variable and verifying the features before fitting the model, the feature names should match, resolving the ValueError. </think> <response> Successfully created...

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.