Towards Execution-Grounded Automated AI Research
Chenglei Si, Zitong Yang, Yejin Choi, Emmanuel J Candes, Diyi Yang, Tatsunori Hashimoto
Abstract
Automated AI research holds great potential to accelerate scientific discovery. However, current LLMs often generate plausible-looking but ineffective ideas. Execution grounding may help, but it is unclear whether automated execution is feasible and whether LLMs can learn from the execution feedback. To investigate these, we first build an automated executor to implement ideas and launch large-scale parallel GPU experiments to verify their effectiveness. We then convert two realistic research problems -LLM pre-training and post-training -into execution environments and demonstrate that our automated executor can implement a large fraction of the ideas sampled from frontier LLMs. We analyze two methods to learn from the execution feedback: evolutionary search and reinforcement learning. Execution-guided evolutionary search is sample-efficient: it finds a method that significantly outperforms the GRPO baseline (69.4% vs 48.0%) on post-training, and finds a pre-training recipe that outperforms the nanoGPT baseline (19.7 minutes vs 35.9 minutes) on pre-training, all within just ten search epochs. Frontier LLMs often generate meaningful algorithmic ideas during search, but they tend to saturate early and only occasionally exhibit scaling trends. Reinforcement learning from execution reward, on the other hand, suffers from mode collapse. It successfully improves the average reward of the ideator model but not the upper-bound, due to models converging on simple ideas. We thoroughly analyze the executed ideas and training dynamics to facilitate future efforts towards execution-grounded automated AI research.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 270a9072-b8f3-4b83-afb1-65b9e5b3d173Cited by top-tier papers2
- Procedural Generation Of Algorithm Discovery Tasks in Machine LearningAlexander D. Goldie, Zilin Wang, Adrian Hayler, Deepak Nathani et al.ICML 2026 · 2 citations
- Grounding LLMs in Scientific Discovery via Embodied ActionsBo Zhang, Jinfeng Zhou, Yuxuan Chen, Jianing Yin et al.ICML 2026
Builds on17
- Does Reinforcement Learning Really Incentivize Reasoning Capacity in LLMs Beyond the Base Model?Zhiqi Chen, Rui Lu, Andrew Zhao, Zhaokai Wang et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 1,109 citations
- Symbolic Discovery of Optimization AlgorithmsXiangning Chen, Chen Liang, Da Huang, Esteban Real et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 734 citations
- Reinforcement Learning for Reasoning in Large Language Models with One Training ExampleYiping Wang, Qing Yang, Zhiyuan Zeng, Liliang Ren et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 314 citations
- DeepReview: Improving LLM-based Paper Review with Human-like Deep Thinking ProcessMinjun Zhu, Yixuan Weng, Linyi Yang, Yue ZhangACL 2025 · 70 citations
- The Ideation-Execution Gap: Execution Outcomes of LLM-Generated versus Human Research IdeasChenglei Si, Tatsunori Hashimoto, Diyi YangICLR 2026 · 60 citations
Related papers
- PostTrainBench: Can LLM Agents Automate LLM Post-Training?Ben Rank, Hardik Bhatnagar, Ameya Pandurang Prabhu, Shira Eisenberg et al.ICML 2026 · 28 citations
- MoRI: Learning Motivation-Grounded Reasoning for Scientific Ideation in Large Language ModelsChenyang Gu, Jiahao Cheng, Meicong Zhang, Pujun Zheng et al.ACL 2026
- A Goal Without a Plan Is Just a Wish: Efficient and Effective Global Planner Training for Long-Horizon Agent TaskShuzheng Si, Haozhe Zhao, Kangyang Luo, Gang Chen et al.ACL 2026 · 14 citations
- RLEF: Grounding Code LLMs in Execution Feedback with Reinforcement LearningJonas Gehring, Kunhao Zheng, Jade Copet, Vegard Mella et al.ICML 2025
- InnovatorBench: Evaluating Agents' Ability to Conduct Innovative AI ResearchYunze Wu, Dayuan Fu, Weiye Si, Zhen Huang et al.ICLR 2026 · 9 citations
