# ArchitectureIQ: On the Measure of Training Intuition

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.39714 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.39714/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 25 of its 34 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 30 Sep 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 25 of 25)

- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.11171/) (2022)
- [Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.11366/) (2023)
- [Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17651/) (2023)
- [SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06770/) (2023)
- [Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.10601/) (2023)
- [Voyager: An Open-Ended Embodied Agent with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.16291/) (2023)
- [Datasheets for Datasets](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1803.09010/) (2018)
- [WILDS: A Benchmark of in-the-Wild Distribution Shifts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2012.07421/) (2020)
- [AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.03688/) (2023)
- [The AI Scientist: Towards Fully Automated Open-Ended Scientific Discovery](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.06292/) (2024)
- [STaR: Bootstrapping Reasoning With Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.14465/) (2022)
- [ExpeL: LLM Agents Are Experiential Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.10144/) (2023)
- [Hyperband: A Novel Bandit-Based Approach to Hyperparameter Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1603.06560/) (2016)
- [BOHB: Robust and Efficient Hyperparameter Optimization at Scale](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1807.01774/) (2018)
- [MLE-bench: Evaluating Machine Learning Agents on Machine Learning Engineering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.07095/) (2024)
- [NAS-Bench-201: Extending the Scope of Reproducible Neural Architecture Search](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2001.00326/) (2020)
- [MLAgentBench: Evaluating Language Agents on Machine Learning Experimentation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.03302/) (2023)
- [NAS-Bench-101: Towards Reproducible Neural Architecture Search](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1902.09635/) (2019)
- [PaperBench: Evaluating AI's Ability to Replicate AI Research](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.01848/) (2025)
- [Data and its (dis)contents: A survey of dataset development and use in machine learning research](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2012.05345/) (2020)
- [Data Collection and Quality Challenges in Deep Learning: A Data-Centric AI Perspective](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.06409/) (2021)
- [How Powerful are Performance Predictors in Neural Architecture Search?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.01177/) (2021)
- [Surrogate NAS Benchmarks: Going Beyond the Limited Search Spaces of Tabular NAS Benchmarks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2008.09777/) (2020)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Top researchers have good intuition, but do language models have as good intuition about model training as top AI researchers? To measure model intuition of LLMs and humans, we introduce the ArchitectureIQ benchmark. Each question presents a synthetic dataset and several training recipes, and the test-taker is asked to predict the recipe yielding the best test metric. Overall, we find that LLMs' model intuition is good but has four limitations: (1) The intuition is imperfect, or even sub-human in some cases. Frontier models achieve around 76% accuracy (random choice 33%) vs best human researcher (66.0%), yet remain far from perfect. For architecture-only questions, best human achieves 65% while GPT-6 Astra only has 38%. (2) The intuition is empirical, not structured, supported by the fact that more CoT compute does not lead to substantial improvement. Unlike math, we still lack a "Science of AI" language that enables structured reasoning on AI. (3) The intuition is not maximally condensed, and can be further compressed into a knoledge base. Our constructed knowledge base with only 20 items yields large gains for weak models: GPT-4o equipped with the accumulated knowledge almost matches the performance of Claude Opus 5. (4) The intuition is insensitive to dataset properties, but the best model should in general depend on data properties. This suggests that data is the real "dark matter" in AI -- LLMs (so do human researchers) understand too little about data, even less than model architectures.