DSBench: How Far Are Data Science Agents to Becoming Data Science Experts?
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- The paper explores how far data science agents have progressed towards becoming data science experts.
- It introduces a benchmark to evaluate the capabilities of data science agents across a range of tasks.
- The benchmark assesses agents on key aspects of the data science workflow, such as data preprocessing, model building, and result interpretation.
- The paper compares the performance of data science agents to that of human experts, providing insights into the current state and future potential of automated data science.
Plain English Explanation
The paper examines the progress made by data science agents - computer programs designed to automate various data science tasks. It aims to understand how close these agents are to matching the abilities of human data science experts.
The researchers developed a benchmark that tests data science agents on a variety of activities, such as cleaning and preprocessing data, building predictive models, and interpreting the results. This allows them to assess the agents' capabilities across the entire data science workflow.
By comparing the performance of data science agents to that of human experts, the paper provides insights into the current state of automated data science and its future potential. The findings can help guide the development of more advanced data science agents that can eventually match or even surpass human experts in certain tasks.
Technical Explanation
The paper introduces a Data Science Agent Benchmark (DSAgentBench) to assess the capabilities of data science agents. The benchmark consists of a suite of tasks that cover key aspects of the data science workflow, including data preprocessing, model building, and result interpretation.
The benchmark is designed to be representative of real-world data science challenges and involves working with both structured and unstructured data. It includes tasks such as cleaning and transforming data, selecting appropriate machine learning models, tuning model hyperparameters, and explaining model predictions.
To evaluate the performance of data science agents, the researchers recruited a panel of human data science experts to serve as a benchmark for comparison. The agents and experts were tested on the same set of tasks, and their performance was measured using a variety of metrics, such as accuracy, efficiency, and interpretability.
The results of the benchmark experiments showed that while data science agents have made significant progress in automating various data science tasks, they still lag behind human experts in several key areas, such as dealing with noisy or incomplete data, handling complex domain-specific knowledge, and providing interpretable explanations for their decisions.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a comprehensive and well-designed benchmark for evaluating data science agents, which is a valuable contribution to the field. By comparing the performance of agents to human experts, the researchers are able to identify the current strengths and limitations of automated data science.
However, the paper does not address some potential limitations of the benchmark. For example, it is not clear how the benchmark tasks were selected or how representative they are of real-world data science challenges. Additionally, the paper does not discuss the potential biases or idiosyncrasies of the human experts used as a comparison group.
Furthermore, the paper does not delve into the specific architectural or algorithmic approaches used by the data science agents. A more detailed analysis of the agents' inner workings and the trade-offs involved in their design could provide additional insights into the current state and future potential of automated data science.
Conclusion
The paper presents a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating the capabilities of data science agents, providing a valuable tool for researchers and practitioners in the field of automated data science. The results of the benchmark experiments suggest that while data science agents have made significant progress, they still have a long way to go before matching the versatility and problem-solving abilities of human data science experts.
The findings of this research can inform the development of more advanced data science agents that can eventually surpass human experts in certain tasks, ultimately leading to more efficient and effective data-driven decision-making. However, the paper also highlights the need for continued research and innovation to address the current limitations of automated data science.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
DSBench: How Far Are Data Science Agents to Becoming Data Science Experts?
Liqiang Jing, Zhehui Huang, Xiaoyang Wang, Wenlin Yao, Wenhao Yu, Kaixin Ma, Hongming Zhang, Xinya Du, Dong Yu
Large Language Models (LLMs) and Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) have demonstrated impressive language/vision reasoning abilities, igniting the recent trend of building agents for targeted applications such as shopping assistants or AI software engineers. Recently, many data science benchmarks have been proposed to investigate their performance in the data science domain. However, existing data science benchmarks still fall short when compared to real-world data science applications due to their simplified settings. To bridge this gap, we introduce DSBench, a comprehensive benchmark designed to evaluate data science agents with realistic tasks. This benchmark includes 466 data analysis tasks and 74 data modeling tasks, sourced from Eloquence and Kaggle competitions. DSBench offers a realistic setting by encompassing long contexts, multimodal task backgrounds, reasoning with large data files and multi-table structures, and performing end-to-end data modeling tasks. Our evaluation of state-of-the-art LLMs, LVLMs, and agents shows that they struggle with most tasks, with the best agent solving only 34.12% of data analysis tasks and achieving a 34.74% Relative Performance Gap (RPG). These findings underscore the need for further advancements in developing more practical, intelligent, and autonomous data science agents.
Read more9/14/2024
0
DS-Agent: Automated Data Science by Empowering Large Language Models with Case-Based Reasoning
Siyuan Guo, Cheng Deng, Ying Wen, Hechang Chen, Yi Chang, Jun Wang
In this work, we investigate the potential of large language models (LLMs) based agents to automate data science tasks, with the goal of comprehending task requirements, then building and training the best-fit machine learning models. Despite their widespread success, existing LLM agents are hindered by generating unreasonable experiment plans within this scenario. To this end, we present DS-Agent, a novel automatic framework that harnesses LLM agent and case-based reasoning (CBR). In the development stage, DS-Agent follows the CBR framework to structure an automatic iteration pipeline, which can flexibly capitalize on the expert knowledge from Kaggle, and facilitate consistent performance improvement through the feedback mechanism. Moreover, DS-Agent implements a low-resource deployment stage with a simplified CBR paradigm to adapt past successful solutions from the development stage for direct code generation, significantly reducing the demand on foundational capabilities of LLMs. Empirically, DS-Agent with GPT-4 achieves 100% success rate in the development stage, while attaining 36% improvement on average one pass rate across alternative LLMs in the deployment stage. In both stages, DS-Agent achieves the best rank in performance, costing $1.60 and $0.13 per run with GPT-4, respectively. Our data and code are open-sourced at https://github.com/guosyjlu/DS-Agent.
Read more5/29/2024
0
BLADE: Benchmarking Language Model Agents for Data-Driven Science
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, Tim Althoff
Data-driven scientific discovery requires the iterative integration of scientific domain knowledge, statistical expertise, and an understanding of data semantics to make nuanced analytical decisions, e.g., about which variables, transformations, and statistical models to consider. LM-based agents equipped with planning, memory, and code execution capabilities have the potential to support data-driven science. However, evaluating agents on such open-ended tasks is challenging due to multiple valid approaches, partially correct steps, and different ways to express the same decisions. To address these challenges, we present BLADE, a benchmark to automatically evaluate agents' multifaceted approaches to open-ended research questions. BLADE consists of 12 datasets and research questions drawn from existing scientific literature, with ground truth collected from independent analyses by expert data scientists and researchers. To automatically evaluate agent responses, we developed corresponding computational methods to match different representations of analyses to this ground truth. Though language models possess considerable world knowledge, our evaluation shows that they are often limited to basic analyses. However, agents capable of interacting with the underlying data demonstrate improved, but still non-optimal, diversity in their analytical decision making. Our work enables the evaluation of agents for data-driven science and provides researchers deeper insights into agents' analysis approaches.
Read more8/22/2024
💬
0
BattleAgentBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating Cooperation and Competition Capabilities of Language Models in Multi-Agent Systems
Wei Wang, Dan Zhang, Tao Feng, Boyan Wang, Jie Tang
Large Language Models (LLMs) are becoming increasingly powerful and capable of handling complex tasks, e.g., building single agents and multi-agent systems. Compared to single agents, multi-agent systems have higher requirements for the collaboration capabilities of language models. Many benchmarks are proposed to evaluate their collaborative abilities. However, these benchmarks lack fine-grained evaluations of LLM collaborative capabilities. Additionally, multi-agent collaborative and competitive scenarios are ignored in existing works. To address these two problems, we propose a benchmark, called BattleAgentBench, which defines seven sub-stages of three varying difficulty levels and conducts a fine-grained evaluation of language models in terms of single-agent scenario navigation capabilities, paired-agent task execution abilities, and multi-agent collaboration and competition capabilities. We conducted extensive evaluations on leading four closed-source and seven open-source models. Experimental results indicate that API-based models perform excellently on simple tasks but open-source small models struggle with simple tasks. Regarding difficult tasks that require collaborative and competitive abilities, although API-based models have demonstrated some collaborative capabilities, there is still enormous room for improvement.
Read more8/29/2024