AgentDS Technical Report: Benchmarking the Future of Human-AI Collaboration in Domain-Specific Data Science

Data science plays a critical role in transforming complex data into actionable insights across numerous domains. Recent developments in large language models (LLMs) and artificial intelligence (AI) agents have significantly automated data science workflow. However, it remains unclear to what extent AI agents can match the performance of human experts on domain-specific data science tasks, and in which aspects human expertise continues to provide advantages. We introduce AgentDS, a benchmark and competition designed to evaluate both AI agents and human-AI collaboration performance in domain-specific data science. AgentDS consists of 17 challenges across six industries: commerce, food production, healthcare, insurance, manufacturing, and retail banking. We conducted an open competition involving 29 teams and 80 participants, enabling systematic comparison between human-AI collaborative approaches and AI-only baselines. Our results show that current AI agents struggle with domain-specific reasoning. AI-only baselines perform near or below the median of competition participants, while the strongest solutions arise from human-AI collaboration. These findings challenge the narrative of complete automation by AI and underscore the enduring importance of human expertise in data science, while illuminating directions for the next generation of AI. Visit the AgentDS website here: https://agentds.org/ and open source datasets here: https://huggingface.co/datasets/lainmn/AgentDS .

Can Agentic AI Match the Performance of Human Data Scientists?

Data science plays a critical role in transforming complex data into actionable insights across numerous domains. Recent developments in large language models (LLMs) have significantly automated data science workflows, but a fundamental question persists: Can these agentic AI systems truly match the performance of human data scientists who routinely leverage domain-specific knowledge? We explore this question by designing a prediction task where a crucial latent variable is hidden in relevant image data instead of tabular features. As a result, agentic AI that generates generic codes for modeling tabular data cannot perform well, while human experts could identify the important hidden variable using domain knowledge. We demonstrate this idea with a synthetic dataset for property insurance. Our experiments show that agentic AI that relies on generic analytics workflow falls short of methods that use domain-specific insights. This highlights a key limitation of the current agentic AI for data science and underscores the need for future research to develop agentic AI systems that can better recognize and incorporate domain knowledge.

An Outlook on the Opportunities and Challenges of Multi-Agent AI Systems

Multi-agent AI systems (MAS) offer a promising framework for distributed intelligence, enabling collaborative reasoning, planning, and decision-making across autonomous agents. This paper provides a systematic outlook on the current opportunities and challenges of MAS, drawing insights from recent advances in large language models (LLMs), federated optimization, and human-AI interaction. We formalize key concepts including agent topology, coordination protocols, and shared objectives, and identify major risks such as dependency, misalignment, and vulnerabilities arising from training data overlap. Through a biologically inspired simulation and comprehensive theoretical framing, we highlight critical pathways for developing robust, scalable, and secure MAS in real-world settings.

Ice Cream Doesn't Cause Drowning: Benchmarking LLMs Against Statistical Pitfalls in Causal Inference

Reliable causal inference is essential for making decisions in high-stakes areas like medicine, economics, and public policy. However, it remains unclear whether large language models (LLMs) can handle rigorous and trustworthy statistical causal inference. Current benchmarks usually involve simplified tasks. For example, these tasks might only ask LLMs to identify semantic causal relationships or draw conclusions directly from raw data. As a result, models may overlook important statistical pitfalls, such as Simpson's paradox or selection bias. This oversight limits the applicability of LLMs in the real world. To address these limitations, we propose CausalPitfalls, a comprehensive benchmark designed to rigorously evaluate the capability of LLMs in overcoming common causal inference pitfalls. Our benchmark features structured challenges across multiple difficulty levels, each paired with grading rubrics. This approach allows us to quantitatively measure both causal reasoning capabilities and the reliability of LLMs' responses. We evaluate models using two protocols: (1) direct prompting, which assesses intrinsic causal reasoning, and (2) code-assisted prompting, where models generate executable code for explicit statistical analysis. Additionally, we validate the effectiveness of this judge by comparing its scoring with assessments from human experts. Our results reveal significant limitations in current LLMs when performing statistical causal inference. The CausalPitfalls benchmark provides essential guidance and quantitative metrics to advance the development of trustworthy causal reasoning systems.