# Can LLM Agents Discover? Evaluating Creativity on ML Engineering Tasks

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.30047 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.30047/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 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 31 of its 43 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 30 Aug 2026.

## 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 31)

- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Qwen3 Embedding: Advancing Text Embedding and Reranking Through Foundation Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.05176/) (2025)
- [The AI Scientist: Towards Fully Automated Open-Ended Scientific Discovery](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.06292/) (2024)
- [OpenAI GPT-5 System Card](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.03267/) (2025)
- [DeepSeek-V3.2: Pushing the Frontier of Open Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.02556/) (2025)
- [GLM-5: from Vibe Coding to Agentic Engineering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.15763/) (2026)
- [MLE-bench: Evaluating Machine Learning Agents on Machine Learning Engineering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.07095/) (2024)
- [The AI Scientist-v2: Workshop-Level Automated Scientific Discovery via Agentic Tree Search](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.08066/) (2025)
- [Accelerating scientific discovery with Co-Scientist](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.18864/) (2025)
- [LLMs instead of Human Judges? A Large Scale Empirical Study across 20 NLP Evaluation Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.18403/) (2024)
- [Agent-as-a-Judge: Evaluate Agents with Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.10934/) (2024)
- [AIDE: AI-Driven Exploration in the Space of Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.13138/) (2025)
- [RE-Bench: Evaluating frontier AI R&D capabilities of language model agents against human experts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.15114/) (2024)
- [AI Research Agents for Machine Learning: Search, Exploration, and Generalization in MLE-bench](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.02554/) (2025)
- [NoveltyBench: Evaluating Language Models for Humanlike Diversity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.05228/) (2025)
- [MLR-Bench: Evaluating AI Agents on Open-Ended Machine Learning Research](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.19955/) (2025)
- [DeepScientist: Advancing Frontier-Pushing Scientific Findings Progressively](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.26603/) (2025)
- [The Ideation-Execution Gap: Execution Outcomes of LLM-Generated versus Human Research Ideas](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.20803/) (2025)
- [EvoScientist: Towards Multi-Agent Evolving AI Scientists for End-to-End Scientific Discovery](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.08127/) (2026)
- [Benchmarking Language Model Creativity: A Case Study on Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.09007/) (2024)
- [MacGyver: Are Large Language Models Creative Problem Solvers?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.09682/) (2023)
- [Divergent Creativity in Humans and Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.13012/) (2024)
- [MLRC-Bench: Can Language Agents Solve Machine Learning Research Challenges?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.09702/) (2025)
- [CreativEval: Evaluating Creativity of LLM-Based Hardware Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.08806/) (2024)
- [InnovatorBench: Evaluating Agents' Ability to Conduct Innovative LLM Research](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.27598/) (2025)
- [Rethinking Creativity Evaluation: A Critical Analysis of Existing Creativity Evaluations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.05470/) (2025)
- [CreativeBench: Benchmarking and Enhancing Machine Creativity via Self-Evolving Challenges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.11863/) (2026)
- [What Does It Take to Be a Good AI Research Agent? Studying the Role of Ideation Diversity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.15593/) (2025)
- [Learning to Ideate for Machine Learning Engineering Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.17596/) (2026)
- [InnoGym: Benchmarking the Innovation Potential of AI Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.01822/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Scores Alone Do Not Prove Discovery: The Discovery Certification Protocol for Auditing AI Research Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.09219/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Recent AI systems promise autonomous scientific discovery, claiming to discover algorithms and produce research papers, yet understanding whether they exhibit creativity, the capacity to produce solutions that are both novel and useful, remains an open question. We present a framework for evaluating multi-turn LLM research agents' creativity using ML engineering tasks as a testbed, through three dimensions: P-Creativity (psychological novelty: novel relative to the agent's own prior solutions within a run), H-Creativity (historical novelty: novel relative to the corpus of human solutions), and Usefulness (task performance). Evaluating two agent frameworks, AIDE and AIRA-Dojo, on 10 Kaggle-style machine learning tasks from MLE-Bench, we develop an LLM-as-a-Judge pipeline and verify its strong correlation with human creativity judgments, providing a reliable automated metric for P-Creativity evaluation at scale. Applying this pipeline to agent trajectories, we find: (1) all agents exhibit declining P-Creativity as they transition from exploration to exploitation; (2) LLMs exhibit greater H-Creativity than medal-winning humans, yet achieve lower performance. Our findings reveal that current agents can explore novel regions of the solution space but lack the capacity to convert this novelty into improved task performance.