Agent Laboratory: Using LLM Agents as Research Assistants

Historically, scientific discovery has been a lengthy and costly process, demanding substantial time and resources from initial conception to final results. To accelerate scientific discovery, reduce research costs, and improve research quality, we introduce Agent Laboratory, an autonomous LLM-based framework capable of completing the entire research process. This framework accepts a human-provided research idea and progresses through three stages--literature review, experimentation, and report writing to produce comprehensive research outputs, including a code repository and a research report, while enabling users to provide feedback and guidance at each stage. We deploy Agent Laboratory with various state-of-the-art LLMs and invite multiple researchers to assess its quality by participating in a survey, providing human feedback to guide the research process, and then evaluate the final paper. We found that: (1) Agent Laboratory driven by o1-preview generates the best research outcomes; (2) The generated machine learning code is able to achieve state-of-the-art performance compared to existing methods; (3) Human involvement, providing feedback at each stage, significantly improves the overall quality of research; (4) Agent Laboratory significantly reduces research expenses, achieving an 84% decrease compared to previous autonomous research methods. We hope Agent Laboratory enables researchers to allocate more effort toward creative ideation rather than low-level coding and writing, ultimately accelerating scientific discovery.

Host: Hey everyone, and welcome back to the podcast! I'm your host, Leo, and I'm super excited about today's topic. It's something that's a bit behind the scenes in the world of research but absolutely vital to how knowledge gets shared, and honestly, it’s something we all probably take for granted.

Guest: Yeah, Leo, I’m really looking forward to digging into this too. It’s funny how much we rely on these systems without really thinking about the nuts and bolts of how they work. I think it's going to be interesting for a lot of our listeners, especially if they're in or around academia or research themselves. But even if not, the principles here are actually pretty universal about the dissemination of information.

Host: Exactly! So, we're going to be talking about arXiv today – that's a-r-X-i-v – and for those unfamiliar, it's this incredible online repository where researchers share their pre-prints, basically their research papers before they're formally published in journals. I mean, it’s kind of like a sneak peek into ongoing research, and it's completely changed the speed at which scientific ideas are disseminated. I remember when I was first getting into research, finding articles was such a time-consuming process, and then arXiv kind of just blew that all up.

Guest: Absolutely, it's a game-changer. The traditional publishing route, with all the peer review and journal wait times, can be incredibly slow. Sometimes it feels like an eternity. arXiv allows researchers to share their work almost immediately, and that speed is just so critical for progress in many fields. It also opens up the opportunity for feedback, even at an early stage. And, the fact that it's open access is huge too, really democratizing research in many ways. It isn't locked behind expensive paywalls.

Host: The open access part is massive, you're right. It’s a complete flip from those expensive journal subscriptions we used to have to rely on. Think of the implications, not just for researchers at well-funded institutions, but for anyone with an interest in a given topic anywhere in the world. Suddenly access to the cutting edge of science wasn't just for the elite anymore. We're talking about research being available in countries that perhaps would never have had that level of access previously.

Guest: And that accessibility point also drives a more collaborative environment, I think. When research is easily accessible, it's easier for different groups of people to build on each other's work, or provide constructive criticism, and that really speeds up the entire process of scientific advancement. It also fosters a culture of open sharing and transparency. There’s a much quicker feedback loop. Rather than submitting and waiting many months for journal feedback you’ve got input in a matter of days, sometimes even hours.

Host: Yeah, the quick feedback loop is definitely a huge benefit. Instead of a somewhat closed process that could take months or even years to see the light of day, arXiv allows for a much more open and iterative process. Authors can refine their work based on the feedback they receive which is great for quality. This might be a bit of a geeky detail, but I also find the 'pre-print' nature of things so interesting. It really highlights that research is often an evolving process, not just a finished product. It reminds everyone that research papers are a snapshot in time, not necessarily the be-all and end-all of research on a particular subject.

Guest: Absolutely, that 'snapshot in time' aspect is key, and you can see different versions of papers, which show the research evolving. With traditional publications, you often just see the final published version, without seeing how the work developed. On arXiv you can sometimes track the different iterations. It reveals the kind of thinking process involved in doing this sort of work, the dead ends, the modifications, the refinements. I think that provides a great lesson in what the process of actual research is like.

Host: And that process can be really messy and non-linear! Sometimes that is hard to see in a polished, peer-reviewed paper. I also think arXiv has shaped a different type of research culture. It’s led to a faster pace of innovation. I mean, ideas are shared more quickly, researchers can build on each other's work at a quicker rate and that can accelerate discoveries. It’s kind of changed the landscape of academic publishing. I know that there’s still a very important role for peer review, but arXiv has shown us that there’s more than one way to disseminate knowledge effectively. And it's a way that feels much more democratic than traditional publication models.

Guest: Exactly. Peer review is still critical for vetting research rigor, but it doesn't have to be the gatekeeper for all knowledge dissemination. arXiv demonstrates a model that prioritizes fast and open information exchange, which is beneficial to the research community as a whole. It’s funny that it started as a pretty informal thing initially, when it launched. It's not like it was some huge project that got backing from a massive organization, it was almost a side project by some scientists, and now look at it. It’s become such a powerful and vital component of the research world.

Host: It's truly incredible to think about that, how something so fundamental to current research practice grew from such humble beginnings. And you know what's also interesting? Because arXiv isn’t a peer-reviewed journal, there are certain considerations that come into play with how one uses it. You can't just treat everything you read there as gospel truth. You need to be a little more critical. And I think that encourages a more active form of engagement with the research itself, which is another thing I find really compelling about the system. You have to read it closely and assess the merit.

Guest: That’s a super valid point, Leo. Since it's pre-publication, not all research on arXiv is guaranteed to be flawless. It's not subjected to the same kind of rigorous review as it would in a peer-reviewed journal. Therefore, you need to engage with the material critically, assess the methodologies, and be aware of potential limitations. It encourages an attitude of thoughtful consumption and not just blind acceptance of information which is actually a really helpful skillset for anyone to develop. It’s like it is training you to be a critical consumer of information. And you can't just cite anything willy-nilly from arXiv as if it's been officially published, because you have to acknowledge that it’s pre-print material.

Host: Absolutely. You have to have that mindset of critical analysis, which I think is a really valuable skill for both academics and regular people. And it's interesting how arXiv has influenced other open access models. It kind of showed that there's an appetite for rapid dissemination of information. I think the success of arXiv has inspired other platforms and ways of sharing research data and scholarship. You can see these principles now being applied across other fields and disciplines. Even beyond the sciences, in some corners of the humanities, you see similar initiatives.

Guest: I agree, it's definitely been an inspiration for other initiatives. And it's not just about the research itself, but also about the metadata and information that surrounds the papers. arXiv makes it easy to search for papers, authors, subjects, and so on, and that also plays a massive role in making research more accessible and discoverable. The search functionality is actually pretty advanced, and it allows for targeted searches, using boolean operators, date ranges, and things like that. It’s not just the full texts but also the accompanying metadata that makes it such a powerful research tool.

Host: That’s a great point, the metadata and searchability aspects of it are so crucial. Because having access to a large database of research isn’t useful if you can’t easily find the stuff that’s relevant to your needs. It’s almost like a library of scholarly work, but it’s all digital and readily searchable. And it's continually growing, constantly updated with new research from a really wide range of fields, that covers a broad spectrum of disciplines. I'm always so impressed at just how much stuff there is on there. It’s basically an enormous record of the scientific thinking of our time. And because it's constantly evolving, it's not static or frozen in time.

Guest: Precisely, the fact that it is continuously updated and evolving really helps, and I think it captures the dynamic and iterative nature of research. It's also worth mentioning that, because of its role as a pre-print server, arXiv has become very important for spotting trends and emerging areas of research. You can see the ideas being circulated and refined, the themes that are gaining traction. It's like a finger on the pulse of the research world. That ability to see what's catching the attention of researchers is so important, especially for funding bodies and people looking for research priorities. You can see where the intellectual action is happening in real-time.

Host: That's a really good point about spotting trends. You could almost use it like an early warning system for emerging areas in the various disciplines. And let’s not forget the role of the community, it’s self-policing to an extent. If someone puts up something that's clearly problematic, the community is often quite quick to call that out, even before it's formally reviewed, which really showcases how arXiv operates as a communal repository for the sharing of knowledge. It really makes use of the collective expertise of the scientific community.

Guest: You’re right, there is that aspect of self-regulation and community feedback that is really powerful. There are also flags if a paper has been retracted for some reason, which is an important feature to have. And because it's open access, it allows a much broader spectrum of people to participate in the scientific conversation, not just people at established institutions. It opens up avenues for independent researchers and citizen scientists to engage with research too. It lowers the barriers to participation, and that has a positive impact on the diversity of voices in the scientific conversation.

Host: That's such a key point. It is democratizing in the sense that it doesn’t just allow access to research but it also provides the possibility for a larger set of people to be part of the actual research conversation, which is amazing. I mean, it's not perfect, and there are certainly things that can be improved. There are ongoing debates about what constitutes good enough, and it's not without its challenges. But I think, overall, it's a powerful example of how technology can be used to make knowledge more accessible and to speed up the process of scientific advancement.

Guest: Exactly, it's not without its flaws and there are always discussions about quality control and how to best manage such a large repository of information. But it has truly reshaped the way scientific research is disseminated and it continues to evolve. You know, another point to consider is the long-term preservation of these pre-prints. It is important that these resources remain accessible for future generations, and arXiv does a great job of working towards that. It's important for us as a society to preserve our scientific knowledge.

Host: That’s a very important aspect, thinking about the future accessibility of this massive store of knowledge. It's also kind of inspiring to think about all the potential research that will be born from the shoulders of this existing body of work. This constant growth, coupled with the collaborative aspect of arXiv, really highlights how knowledge itself is a kind of collective enterprise. It’s not isolated and individual, but part of a larger shared human effort. And, of course, it’s constantly updating, and evolving. I’d love to dive into the different subject categories that they have on there. They cover a massive spectrum of topics. It’s not just physics and mathematics, which is what most people associate with arXiv, but also computer science, quantitative biology, finance and statistics, it goes on.

Guest: Yes, the breadth of subjects covered on arXiv is really astounding, and it shows how much the system has grown and expanded over the years. It has become a hub for knowledge across such a wide variety of fields. That interdisciplinary nature is interesting. You know, people working in different disciplines are often drawing from research in other fields and you can see that happening very clearly when you browse arXiv. The cross-pollination of ideas is definitely being facilitated by its large scope, and that is a good thing. I've even seen some overlap between theoretical linguistics and machine learning on there, and it’s cool how ideas get shared across disciplines, often in ways that are hard to predict. It helps researchers see novel connections and applications for their own work.

Host: That’s a fantastic point about the interdisciplinary nature of things. It's not siloed off by field but is really a large collection of connected research streams. And you can see the evolution of research, how ideas get refined, how theories are built upon. It’s also an invaluable resource for students, especially graduate students, because it gives them access to a massive library of scientific and technical knowledge. The ability to freely access that much information is something that students in prior generations would only have dreamed of. It's almost like a university library but freely available, instantly. And you can filter for the relevant materials, so it’s easy to find what you are looking for. It’s become an indispensable tool for research at the graduate level.