-
PaperBench: Evaluating AI's Ability to Replicate AI Research
Authors:
Giulio Starace,
Oliver Jaffe,
Dane Sherburn,
James Aung,
Jun Shern Chan,
Leon Maksin,
Rachel Dias,
Evan Mays,
Benjamin Kinsella,
Wyatt Thompson,
Johannes Heidecke,
Amelia Glaese,
Tejal Patwardhan
Abstract:
We introduce PaperBench, a benchmark evaluating the ability of AI agents to replicate state-of-the-art AI research. Agents must replicate 20 ICML 2024 Spotlight and Oral papers from scratch, including understanding paper contributions, developing a codebase, and successfully executing experiments. For objective evaluation, we develop rubrics that hierarchically decompose each replication task into…
▽ More
We introduce PaperBench, a benchmark evaluating the ability of AI agents to replicate state-of-the-art AI research. Agents must replicate 20 ICML 2024 Spotlight and Oral papers from scratch, including understanding paper contributions, developing a codebase, and successfully executing experiments. For objective evaluation, we develop rubrics that hierarchically decompose each replication task into smaller sub-tasks with clear grading criteria. In total, PaperBench contains 8,316 individually gradable tasks. Rubrics are co-developed with the author(s) of each ICML paper for accuracy and realism. To enable scalable evaluation, we also develop an LLM-based judge to automatically grade replication attempts against rubrics, and assess our judge's performance by creating a separate benchmark for judges. We evaluate several frontier models on PaperBench, finding that the best-performing tested agent, Claude 3.5 Sonnet (New) with open-source scaffolding, achieves an average replication score of 21.0%. Finally, we recruit top ML PhDs to attempt a subset of PaperBench, finding that models do not yet outperform the human baseline. We open-source our code (https://github.com/openai/preparedness) to facilitate future research in understanding the AI engineering capabilities of AI agents.
△ Less
Submitted 7 April, 2025; v1 submitted 2 April, 2025;
originally announced April 2025.
-
GPT-4o System Card
Authors:
OpenAI,
:,
Aaron Hurst,
Adam Lerer,
Adam P. Goucher,
Adam Perelman,
Aditya Ramesh,
Aidan Clark,
AJ Ostrow,
Akila Welihinda,
Alan Hayes,
Alec Radford,
Aleksander Mądry,
Alex Baker-Whitcomb,
Alex Beutel,
Alex Borzunov,
Alex Carney,
Alex Chow,
Alex Kirillov,
Alex Nichol,
Alex Paino,
Alex Renzin,
Alex Tachard Passos,
Alexander Kirillov,
Alexi Christakis
, et al. (395 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
GPT-4o is an autoregressive omni model that accepts as input any combination of text, audio, image, and video, and generates any combination of text, audio, and image outputs. It's trained end-to-end across text, vision, and audio, meaning all inputs and outputs are processed by the same neural network. GPT-4o can respond to audio inputs in as little as 232 milliseconds, with an average of 320 mil…
▽ More
GPT-4o is an autoregressive omni model that accepts as input any combination of text, audio, image, and video, and generates any combination of text, audio, and image outputs. It's trained end-to-end across text, vision, and audio, meaning all inputs and outputs are processed by the same neural network. GPT-4o can respond to audio inputs in as little as 232 milliseconds, with an average of 320 milliseconds, which is similar to human response time in conversation. It matches GPT-4 Turbo performance on text in English and code, with significant improvement on text in non-English languages, while also being much faster and 50\% cheaper in the API. GPT-4o is especially better at vision and audio understanding compared to existing models. In line with our commitment to building AI safely and consistent with our voluntary commitments to the White House, we are sharing the GPT-4o System Card, which includes our Preparedness Framework evaluations. In this System Card, we provide a detailed look at GPT-4o's capabilities, limitations, and safety evaluations across multiple categories, focusing on speech-to-speech while also evaluating text and image capabilities, and measures we've implemented to ensure the model is safe and aligned. We also include third-party assessments on dangerous capabilities, as well as discussion of potential societal impacts of GPT-4o's text and vision capabilities.
△ Less
Submitted 25 October, 2024;
originally announced October 2024.
-
MLE-bench: Evaluating Machine Learning Agents on Machine Learning Engineering
Authors:
Jun Shern Chan,
Neil Chowdhury,
Oliver Jaffe,
James Aung,
Dane Sherburn,
Evan Mays,
Giulio Starace,
Kevin Liu,
Leon Maksin,
Tejal Patwardhan,
Lilian Weng,
Aleksander Mądry
Abstract:
We introduce MLE-bench, a benchmark for measuring how well AI agents perform at machine learning engineering. To this end, we curate 75 ML engineering-related competitions from Kaggle, creating a diverse set of challenging tasks that test real-world ML engineering skills such as training models, preparing datasets, and running experiments. We establish human baselines for each competition using Ka…
▽ More
We introduce MLE-bench, a benchmark for measuring how well AI agents perform at machine learning engineering. To this end, we curate 75 ML engineering-related competitions from Kaggle, creating a diverse set of challenging tasks that test real-world ML engineering skills such as training models, preparing datasets, and running experiments. We establish human baselines for each competition using Kaggle's publicly available leaderboards. We use open-source agent scaffolds to evaluate several frontier language models on our benchmark, finding that the best-performing setup--OpenAI's o1-preview with AIDE scaffolding--achieves at least the level of a Kaggle bronze medal in 16.9% of competitions. In addition to our main results, we investigate various forms of resource scaling for AI agents and the impact of contamination from pre-training. We open-source our benchmark code (github.com/openai/mle-bench/) to facilitate future research in understanding the ML engineering capabilities of AI agents.
△ Less
Submitted 26 February, 2025; v1 submitted 9 October, 2024;
originally announced October 2024.
-
Large Language Models as Misleading Assistants in Conversation
Authors:
Betty Li Hou,
Kejian Shi,
Jason Phang,
James Aung,
Steven Adler,
Rosie Campbell
Abstract:
Large Language Models (LLMs) are able to provide assistance on a wide range of information-seeking tasks. However, model outputs may be misleading, whether unintentionally or in cases of intentional deception. We investigate the ability of LLMs to be deceptive in the context of providing assistance on a reading comprehension task, using LLMs as proxies for human users. We compare outcomes of (1) w…
▽ More
Large Language Models (LLMs) are able to provide assistance on a wide range of information-seeking tasks. However, model outputs may be misleading, whether unintentionally or in cases of intentional deception. We investigate the ability of LLMs to be deceptive in the context of providing assistance on a reading comprehension task, using LLMs as proxies for human users. We compare outcomes of (1) when the model is prompted to provide truthful assistance, (2) when it is prompted to be subtly misleading, and (3) when it is prompted to argue for an incorrect answer. Our experiments show that GPT-4 can effectively mislead both GPT-3.5-Turbo and GPT-4, with deceptive assistants resulting in up to a 23% drop in accuracy on the task compared to when a truthful assistant is used. We also find that providing the user model with additional context from the passage partially mitigates the influence of the deceptive model. This work highlights the ability of LLMs to produce misleading information and the effects this may have in real-world situations.
△ Less
Submitted 16 July, 2024;
originally announced July 2024.
