Jingjie Ning
Publications
One Run Is Not an Idea: The Implementation Lottery in Automated Research
Automated research systems use experimental scores both to deliver artifacts and to decide which ideas to retain, transfer, and pursue. Yet one run scores one implementation of an idea. Crediting that realization-level score as evidence about the parent mechanism creates the \emph{implementation lottery}, in which an idea-level conclusion depends on which plausible implementation was sampled. The mismatch is structural whenever one run updates beliefs about a mechanism. We estimate its magnitude. The \emph{Idea Reliability Audit} measures \emph{idea reliability} by validating and freezing candidate cards, sampling fresh-session implementations, using outcome-blind fidelity labels, and rerunning saved artifacts. It reports idea ICC and leave-one-implementation-out (LOO) winner reversal. Prior work generally repeats the task; we repeat the idea. Across 312 assignments on 13 tabular tasks and two coding-agent setups, implementation variance was more than five and ten times same-artifact rerun variance, respectively, and the winner from one implementation draw differed from the winner under the other-two mean in 25.6\% and 43.6\% of decisions. Reversal survives card-level filtering under two outcome-blind review rules. An exploratory diagnostic on three materials-regression workflows with a deterministic evaluator also finds implementation variation dominating the decomposition. These findings distinguish idea reliability from best-of-$N$ artifact utility. Before a score guides idea-level branching, transfer, or research memory, evidence should cover multiple implementations.
Closed-loop Auto Research for Molecular Property Prediction: Discovering and Certifying Generalizable Improvements
Closed-loop Auto Research extends automated machine learning from fixed-dataset fitting to changing the research workflow, with language-model agents editing representations and model code and acquiring external evidence. Molecular property prediction spans many small endpoints. We ask whether this action space yields improvements generalizing beyond the validation signal selecting them. We isolate three Auto Research axes, features, models, and external evidence, under a file-level ablation lock attributing each gain to one axis over a strong baseline. Across 36 endpoints in three benchmark suites we score each selected configuration once on a held-out test whose labels the search never read. A routed pipeline taking each endpoint's best validation axis reaches positive held-out gains of 0.013, 0.011, and 0.042, the transferable axis differing by suite, data on TDC, model on Polaris, feature and model on MoleculeNet. The largest model-search gain falls from 0.041 on validation to 0.003 on test, while curated data reaches 0.022 but negative 0.019 on test, two non-transfer signatures. Curated external data raises held-out CYP2C9-substrate performance by 0.17 and half-life by 0.08, admitted through a contamination filter rejecting same-source files overlapping 64 to 89 percent of test structures, necessary but not sufficient for transfer. A matched-trial automated machine learning control did not reproduce the agent's code-level model intervention, reaching 0.006 against 0.042, and the pipeline stays competitive with an 84M-parameter pretrained 3D model on the shared training split. The experiments stay within molecular property prediction, but separating discovery from held-out certification is a domain-agnostic lesson for any closed-loop system optimising a proxy for a held-out quantity.
Auto Research with Specialist Agents Develops Effective and Non-Trivial Training Recipes
We study auto research as a closed empirical loop driven by external measurement. Each submitted trial carries a hypothesis, an executable code edit, an evaluator-owned outcome, and feedback that shapes the next proposal. The output is not a generated paper or a single model checkpoint, but an auditable trajectory of proposals, code diffs, experiments, scores, and failure labels. We instantiate this loop with specialist agents that partition recipe surfaces and share measured lineage across trials. The central empirical finding is that lineage feedback lets agents turn evaluator outcomes, including crashes, budget overruns, size failures, and accuracy-gate misses, into later program-level recipe edits rather than one-shot suggestions. Across 1,197 headline-run trials plus 600 Parameter Golf control trials after one-time setup and launch, humans did not choose proposals, edit recipes, override scores, or repair failed trials during the search. In the three headline runs, the same submitted-trial loop reduces Parameter Golf validation bpb by $0.81\%$, raises NanoChat-D12 CORE by $38.7\%$, and reduces CIFAR-10 Airbench96 wallclock by $4.59\%$, with each task measured by its own external evaluator and legality checks. The trace includes a strict architecture-domain audit of 157 headline-run submissions and program rewrites such as a NanoChat attention-kernel path change. Within this scope the loop autonomously writes code, submits experiments, absorbs feedback, applies and combines known techniques inside each environment, and improves public starting recipes.
Revision or Re-Solving? Decomposing Second-Pass Gains in Multi-LLM Pipelines
Multi-LLM revision pipelines, in which a second model reviews and improves a draft produced by a first, are widely assumed to derive their gains from genuine error correction. We question this assumption with a controlled decomposition experiment that uses four matched conditions to separate second-pass gains into three additive components: re-solving, scaffold, and content. We evaluate this design across two model pairs on three benchmarks spanning knowledge-intensive MCQ and competitive programming. Our results show that the gains of multi-LLM revision are not monolithic, but depend on task structure, draft quality, and the type of draft information. On MCQ tasks, where the answer space is constrained and drafts provide little structural guidance, most gains are consistent with stronger-model re-solving, and directly routing queries to the stronger model can be more effective than revising a weak draft. On code generation tasks, however, two-stage prompting remains useful because even semantically null drafts can provide substantial structural scaffolding, while weak draft content can be harmful. Finally, role-reversed experiments show that strong drafts clearly benefit weak reviewers. Ultimately, our findings demonstrate that the utility of multi-LLM revision is dynamically bottlenecked by task structure and draft quality, necessitating more targeted pipeline designs rather than blanket revision strategies.