Investigating Component Contributions in Multi-Agent ML Systems

Autonomous agents for machine learning engineering have advanced rapidly, yet comparing their effectiveness remains difficult. Existing systems combine different techniques---multi-agent decomposition, iterative refinement, memory management, and planning---in varying configurations, making it unclear which components actually drive performance. Complicating evaluation, existing benchmarks rely on historical competitions whose data likely contaminates LLM training corpora and whose static baselines reflect outdated human performance. To address this, we conduct over 4,000 controlled experiments systematically ablating architectural components, alongside K-live, a new benchmark of 25 active competitions that provides a contamination-free, dynamic evaluation environment. Our findings challenge common design assumptions: iterative feedback contributes more than architectural complexity, and multi-agent coordination can hurt as often as it helps. These results provide concrete guidance for practitioners building ML engineering agents.