# AblationBench: Evaluating Automated Planning of Ablations in Empirical AI Research

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.08038 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.08038/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Web, search, and research agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 47 of its 80 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 9 Jul 2025.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Web, search, and research agents](https://mlsanity.com/agents/web-search-and-research-agents/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 47)

- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.10601/) (2023)
- [G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.16634/) (2023)
- [SWE-agent: Agent-Computer Interfaces Enable Automated Software Engineering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.15793/) (2024)
- [Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.17926/) (2023)
- [ChatEval: Towards Better LLM-based Evaluators through Multi-Agent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.07201/) (2023)
- [Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.01937/) (2023)
- [Plan-and-Solve Prompting: Improving Zero-Shot Chain-of-Thought Reasoning by Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.04091/) (2023)
- [MLE-bench: Evaluating Machine Learning Agents on Machine Learning Engineering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.07095/) (2024)
- [Understanding the planning of LLM agents: A survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.02716/) (2024)
- [Accelerating scientific discovery with Co-Scientist](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.18864/) (2025)
- [MLAgentBench: Evaluating Language Agents on Machine Learning Experimentation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.03302/) (2023)
- [Can LLMs Generate Novel Research Ideas? A Large-Scale Human Study with 100+ NLP Researchers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.04109/) (2024)
- [GPTScore: Evaluate as You Desire](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.04166/) (2023)
- [Replacing Judges with Juries: Evaluating LLM Generations with a Panel of Diverse Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.18796/) (2024)
- [PaperBench: Evaluating AI's Ability to Replicate AI Research](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.01848/) (2025)
- [GPT-GNN: Generative Pre-Training of Graph Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.15437/) (2020)
- [RE-Bench: Evaluating frontier AI R&D capabilities of language model agents against human experts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.15114/) (2024)
- [Real-Time High-Resolution Background Matting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2012.07810/) (2020)
- [Delving into Deep Imbalanced Regression](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.09554/) (2021)
- [Assisting in Writing Wikipedia-like Articles From Scratch with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.14207/) (2024)
- [Neural-Pull: Learning Signed Distance Functions from Point Clouds by Learning to Pull Space onto Surfaces](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2011.13495/) (2020)
- [Language agents achieve superhuman synthesis of scientific knowledge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.13740/) (2024)
- [MLGym: A New Framework and Benchmark for Advancing AI Research Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.14499/) (2025)
- [CORE-Bench: Fostering the Credibility of Published Research Through a Computational Reproducibility Agent Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.11363/) (2024)
- [Differentiable Prompt Makes Pre-trained Language Models Better Few-shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.13161/) (2021)
- [Pride and Prejudice: LLM Amplifies Self-Bias in Self-Refinement](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.11436/) (2024)
- [Troubling Trends in Machine Learning Scholarship](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1807.03341/) (2018)

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [AblateCell: A Reproduce-then-Ablate Agent for Virtual Cell Repositories](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.19606/) (2026)
- [WhatWorkedBench: Benchmarking Experimental Understanding in AI Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.27490/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Language model agents are increasingly used to automate scientific research, yet evaluating their scientific contributions remains a challenge. A key mechanism to obtain such insights is through ablation experiments. To this end, we introduce AblationBench, a benchmark suite for evaluating agents on ablation planning tasks in empirical AI research. It includes two tasks: AuthorAblation, which helps authors propose ablation experiments based on a method section and contains 83 instances, and ReviewerAblation, which helps reviewers find missing ablations in a full paper and contains 350 instances. For both tasks, we develop LM-based judges that serve as an automatic evaluation framework. Our experiments with frontier LMs show that these tasks remain challenging, with the best-performing LM system identifying only 45% of the original ablations on average, below human-level performance. We observe an inverse performance trend between the author and reviewer tasks, which we attribute to differences in model grounding. Lastly, we analyze the limitations of current LMs on these tasks, and find that chain-of-thought prompting outperforms an agent-based approach. Our data is available on https://huggingface.co/collections/ai-coscientist/ablationbench, and our code is available on https://github.com/ai-scientist-bench/ablation-bench .