Towards Execution-Grounded Automated AI Research

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.

CooperBench: Why Coding Agents Cannot be Your Teammates Yet

Resolving team conflicts requires not only task-specific competence, but also social intelligence to find common ground and build consensus. As AI agents increasingly collaborate on complex work, they must develop coordination capabilities to function as effective teammates. Yet we hypothesize that current agents lack these capabilities. To test this, we introduce CooperBench, a benchmark of over 600 collaborative coding tasks across 12 libraries in 4 programming languages. Each task assigns two agents different features that can be implemented independently but may conflict without proper coordination. Tasks are grounded in real open-source repositories with expert-written tests. Evaluating state-of-the-art coding agents, we observe the curse of coordination: agents achieve on average 30% lower success rates when working together compared to performing both tasks individually. This contrasts sharply with human teams, where adding teammates typically improves productivity. Our analysis reveals three key issues: (1) communication channels become jammed with vague, ill-timed, and inaccurate messages; (2) even with effective communication, agents deviate from their commitments; and (3) agents often hold incorrect expectations about others' plans and communication. Through large-scale simulation, we also observe rare but interesting emergent coordination behavior including role division, resource division, and negotiation. Our research presents a novel benchmark for collaborative coding and calls for a shift from pursuing individual agent capability to developing social intelligence.

DECEPTICON: How Dark Patterns Manipulate Web Agents

Deceptive UI designs, widely instantiated across the web and commonly known as dark patterns, manipulate users into performing actions misaligned with their goals. In this paper, we show that dark patterns are highly effective in steering agent trajectories, posing a significant risk to agent robustness. To quantify this risk, we introduce DECEPTICON, an environment for testing individual dark patterns in isolation. DECEPTICON includes 700 web navigation tasks with dark patterns -- 600 generated tasks and 100 real-world tasks, designed to measure instruction-following success and dark pattern effectiveness. Across state-of-the-art agents, we find dark patterns successfully steer agent trajectories towards malicious outcomes in over 70% of tested generated and real-world tasks -- compared to a human average of 31%. Moreover, we find that dark pattern effectiveness correlates positively with model size and test-time reasoning, making larger, more capable models more susceptible. Leading countermeasures against adversarial attacks, including in-context prompting and guardrail models, fail to consistently reduce the success rate of dark pattern interventions. Our findings reveal dark patterns as a latent and unmitigated risk to web agents, highlighting the urgent need for robust defenses against manipulative designs.

AutoMetrics: Approximate Human Judgements with Automatically Generated Evaluators

Evaluating user-facing AI applications remains a central challenge, especially in open-ended domains such as travel planning, clinical note generation, or dialogue. The gold standard is user feedback (e.g., thumbs up/down) or behavioral signals (e.g., retention), but these are often scarce in prototypes and research projects, or too-slow to use for system optimization. We present AutoMetrics, a framework for synthesizing evaluation metrics under low-data constraints. AutoMetrics combines retrieval from MetricBank, a collection of 48 metrics we curate, with automatically generated LLM-as-a-Judge criteria informed by lightweight human feedback. These metrics are composed via regression to maximize correlation with human signal. AutoMetrics takes you from expensive measures to interpretable automatic metrics. Across 5 diverse tasks, AutoMetrics improves Kendall correlation with human ratings by up to 33.4% over LLM-as-a-Judge while requiring fewer than 100 feedback points. We show that AutoMetrics can be used as a proxy reward to equal effect as a verifiable reward. We release the full AutoMetrics toolkit and MetricBank to accelerate adaptive evaluation of LLM applications.

Real-Time Reasoning Agents in Evolving Environments

Agents in the real world must make not only logical but also timely judgments. This requires continuous awareness of the dynamic environment: hazards emerge, opportunities arise, and other agents act, while the agent's reasoning is still unfolding. Despite advances in language model reasoning, existing approaches fail to account for this dynamic nature. We introduce real-time reasoning as a new problem formulation for agents in evolving environments and build Real-Time Reasoning Gym to demonstrate it. We study two paradigms for deploying language models in agents: (1) reactive agents, which employ language models with bounded reasoning computation for rapid responses, and (2) planning agents, which allow extended reasoning computation for complex problems. Our experiments show that even state-of-the-art models struggle with making logical and timely judgments in either paradigm. To address this limitation, we propose AgileThinker, which simultaneously engages both reasoning paradigms. AgileThinker consistently outperforms agents engaging only one reasoning paradigm as the task difficulty and time pressure rise, effectively balancing reasoning depth and response latency. Our work establishes real-time reasoning as a critical testbed for developing practical agents and provides a foundation for research in temporally constrained AI systems, highlighting a path toward real-time capable agents.

Culture Cartography: Mapping the Landscape of Cultural Knowledge

To serve global users safely and productively, LLMs need culture-specific knowledge that might not be learned during pre-training. How do we find such knowledge that is (1) salient to in-group users, but (2) unknown to LLMs? The most common solutions are single-initiative: either researchers define challenging questions that users passively answer (traditional annotation), or users actively produce data that researchers structure as benchmarks (knowledge extraction). The process would benefit from mixed-initiative collaboration, where users guide the process to meaningfully reflect their cultures, and LLMs steer the process towards more challenging questions that meet the researcher's goals. We propose a mixed-initiative methodology called CultureCartography. Here, an LLM initializes annotation with questions for which it has low-confidence answers, making explicit both its prior knowledge and the gaps therein. This allows a human respondent to fill these gaps and steer the model towards salient topics through direct edits. We implement this methodology as a tool called CultureExplorer. Compared to a baseline where humans answer LLM-proposed questions, we find that CultureExplorer more effectively produces knowledge that leading models like DeepSeek R1 and GPT-4o are missing, even with web search. Fine-tuning on this data boosts the accuracy of Llama-3.1-8B by up to 19.2% on related culture benchmarks.

How Do AI Agents Do Human Work? Comparing AI and Human Workflows Across Diverse Occupations

AI agents are continually optimized for tasks related to human work, such as software engineering and professional writing, signaling a pressing trend with significant impacts on the human workforce. However, these agent developments have often not been grounded in a clear understanding of how humans execute work, to reveal what expertise agents possess and the roles they can play in diverse workflows. In this work, we study how agents do human work by presenting the first direct comparison of human and agent workers across multiple essential work-related skills: data analysis, engineering, computation, writing, and design. To better understand and compare heterogeneous computer-use activities of workers, we introduce a scalable toolkit to induce interpretable, structured workflows from either human or agent computer-use activities. Using such induced workflows, we compare how humans and agents perform the same tasks and find that: (1) While agents exhibit promise in their alignment to human workflows, they take an overwhelmingly programmatic approach across all work domains, even for open-ended, visually dependent tasks like design, creating a contrast with the UI-centric methods typically used by humans. (2) Agents produce work of inferior quality, yet often mask their deficiencies via data fabrication and misuse of advanced tools. (3) Nonetheless, agents deliver results 88.3% faster and cost 90.4-96.2% less than humans, highlighting the potential for enabling efficient collaboration by delegating easily programmable tasks to agents.

Generative Interfaces for Language Models

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly seen as assistants, copilots, and consultants, capable of supporting a wide range of tasks through natural conversation. However, most systems remain constrained by a linear request-response format that often makes interactions inefficient in multi-turn, information-dense, and exploratory tasks. To address these limitations, we propose Generative Interfaces for Language Models, a paradigm in which LLMs respond to user queries by proactively generating user interfaces (UIs) that enable more adaptive and interactive engagement. Our framework leverages structured interface-specific representations and iterative refinements to translate user queries into task-specific UIs. For systematic evaluation, we introduce a multidimensional assessment framework that compares generative interfaces with traditional chat-based ones across diverse tasks, interaction patterns, and query types, capturing functional, interactive, and emotional aspects of user experience. Results show that generative interfaces consistently outperform conversational ones, with humans preferring them in over 70% of cases. These findings clarify when and why users favor generative interfaces, paving the way for future advancements in human-AI interaction.

OpenCUA: Open Foundations for Computer-Use Agents

Vision-language models have demonstrated impressive capabilities as computer-use agents (CUAs) capable of automating diverse computer tasks. As their commercial potential grows, critical details of the most capable CUA systems remain closed. As these agents will increasingly mediate digital interactions and execute consequential decisions on our behalf, the research community needs access to open CUA frameworks to study their capabilities, limitations, and risks. To bridge this gap, we propose OpenCUA, a comprehensive open-source framework for scaling CUA data and foundation models. Our framework consists of: (1) an annotation infrastructure that seamlessly captures human computer-use demonstrations; (2) AgentNet, the first large-scale computer-use task dataset spanning 3 operating systems and 200+ applications and websites; (3) a scalable pipeline that transforms demonstrations into state-action pairs with reflective long Chain-of-Thought reasoning that sustain robust performance gains as data scales. Our end-to-end agent models demonstrate strong performance across CUA benchmarks. In particular, OpenCUA-32B achieves an average success rate of 34.8% on OSWorld-Verified, establishing a new state-of-the-art (SOTA) among open-source models and surpassing OpenAI CUA (GPT-4o). Further analysis confirms that our approach generalizes well across domains and benefits significantly from increased test-time computation. We release our annotation tool, datasets, code, and models to build open foundations for further CUA research.

The Ideation-Execution Gap: Execution Outcomes of LLM-Generated versus Human Research Ideas

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in accelerating the scientific research pipeline. A key capability for this process is the ability to generate novel research ideas, and prior studies have found settings in which LLM-generated research ideas were judged as more novel than human-expert ideas. However, a good idea should not simply appear to be novel, it should also result in better research after being executed. To test whether AI-generated ideas lead to better research outcomes, we conduct an execution study by recruiting 43 expert researchers to execute randomly-assigned ideas, either written by experts or generated by an LLM. Each expert spent over 100 hours implementing the idea and wrote a 4-page short paper to document the experiments. All the executed projects are then reviewed blindly by expert NLP researchers. Comparing the review scores of the same ideas before and after execution, the scores of the LLM-generated ideas decrease significantly more than expert-written ideas on all evaluation metrics (novelty, excitement, effectiveness, and overall; p < 0.05), closing the gap between LLM and human ideas observed at the ideation stage. When comparing the aggregated review scores from the execution study, we even observe that for many metrics there is a flip in rankings where human ideas score higher than LLM ideas. This ideation-execution gap highlights the limitations of current LLMs in generating truly effective research ideas and the challenge of evaluating research ideas in the absence of execution outcomes.