arXiv:2611.04515v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: A/B testing underpins product decisions by providing trustworthy, reproducible quantification of proposed changes' effects. Growing large language model (LLM) capabilities have motivated efforts to automate experimentation workflows. Yet LLMs are nondeterministic and prone to hallucination, properties that conflict with the trust experimentation systems must provide. Experiments are also operationally messy: diagnosing anomalies, debugging configurations, and conducting bespoke follow-up analyses require flexible reasoning and manual effort. These tasks let agents accelerate experimentation without replacing its deterministic statistical foundations.
We report lessons from building and operating such an agent. Our central finding is that this tension is resolved not by making the model deterministic, but by bounding where its nondeterminism can reach; the model selects and sequences procedures, while deterministic code computes every quantity it reports. Three consequences surprised us: withholding information from the model improved its answers, demand concentrated on mundane retrieval rather than the autonomous decisions we anticipated, and the agent's eagerness to help threatened statistical validity.
arxiv
Lessons from Building an LLM Agent for Automated Experimentation
The paper reports practical lessons from building and operating an LLM-based agent for automating experimentation workflows. The central finding is that nondeterminism should be bounded by having the model select and sequence procedures while deterministic code computes all reported quantities. Surprising outcomes include improved answers when information is withheld, high demand for mundane retrieval tasks, and risks to statistical validity from the agent's eagerness to help.
Provides concrete, recent insights on LLM agent design for scientific experimentation, useful for practitioners building reliable AI workflows.
Comments & Questions (0)
No comments yet
Be the first to comment!