PaperRepro: Automated Computational Reproducibility Assessment for Social Science Papers

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.00058v1
• Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2026 09:04:59 GMT
• Title: PaperRepro: Automated Computational Reproducibility Assessment for Social Science Papers
• Abstract summary: PaperRepro is a novel two-stage, multi-agent approach for automated assessment.<n>In the execution stage, agents execute the reproduction package and edit the code to capture reproduced results as explicit artifacts.<n>In the evaluation stage, agents evaluate agents using explicit evidence.
• Score: 33.12402746591649
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Computational reproducibility is essential for the credibility of scientific findings, particularly in the social sciences, where findings often inform real-world decisions. Manual reproducibility assessment is costly and time-consuming, as it is nontrivial to reproduce the reported findings using the authors' released code and data. Recent advances in large models (LMs) have inspired agent-based approaches for automated reproducibility assessment. However, existing approaches often struggle due to limited context capacity, inadequate task-specific tooling, and insufficient result capture. To address these, we propose PaperRepro, a novel two-stage, multi-agent approach that separates execution from evaluation. In the execution stage, agents execute the reproduction package and edit the code to capture reproduced results as explicit artifacts. In the evaluation stage, agents evaluate reproducibility using explicit evidence. PaperRepro assigns distinct responsibilities to agents and equips them with task-specific tools and expert prompts, mitigating context and tooling limitations. It further maximizes the LM's coding capability to enable more complete result capture for evaluation. On REPRO-Bench, a social science reproducibility assessment benchmark, PaperRepro achieves the best overall performance, with a 21.9% relative improvement in score-agreement accuracy over the strongest prior baseline. We further refine the benchmark and introduce REPRO-Bench-S, a benchmark stratified by execution difficulty for more diagnostic evaluation of automated reproducibility assessment systems. Our code and data are publicly available

Related papers

• ReproRepo: Scaling Reproducibility Audits with GitHub Repository Issues [54.98461672730087]
  We introduce ReproRepo, a scalable framework for evaluation that leverages human-raised GitHub issues as naturally occurring supervision on realistic reproduction blockers.<n>We instantiate ReproRepo on 1,149 recent machine learning papers from major conferences and evaluate four frontier model-agent configurations.<n>Our results show that LLM agents, even without executing code, can identify many real-world problems from paper-repository pairs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-16T17:58:05Z)
• AI Coding Agents Can Reproduce Social Science Findings [5.410553210073652]
  Recent evidence suggests that AI coding agents can reproduce published findings when provided with original data and code.<n>We introduce SocSci-Repro-Bench, a benchmark of 221 tasks spanning four disciplines and 13 substantive domains.<n>We find that both can reproduce a large share of social science findings, with Claude Code substantially outperforming Codex.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-09T21:00:05Z)
• Can Coding Agents Reproduce Findings in Computational Materials Science? [49.254975563645786]
  We present AutoMat, a benchmark for evaluating large language models' ability to reproduce scientific claims.<n>By working closely with subject matter experts, we curate a set of claims from real materials science papers to test whether coding agents can recover and execute the end-to-end workflow.<n>Results show that current LLM-based agents obtain low overall success rates on AutoMat, with the best-performing setting achieving a success rate of only 54.1%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-01T17:42:12Z)
• FRESCO: Benchmarking and Optimizing Re-rankers for Evolving Semantic Conflict in Retrieval-Augmented Generation [73.22935457705057]
  We introduce FRESCO, a benchmark for evaluating re-rankers in temporally dynamic contexts.<n>By pairing recency-seeking queries with historical Wikipedia revisions, FRESCO tests whether re-rankers can prioritize factually recent evidence while maintaining semantic relevance.<n>Our evaluation reveals a consistent failure mode across existing re-rankers: a strong bias toward older, semantically rich documents, even when they are factually obsolete.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-14T17:04:25Z)
• Beyond Isolated Tasks: A Framework for Evaluating Coding Agents on Sequential Software Evolution [5.10403054516716]
  Existing datasets evaluate performance on isolated, single pull request (PR) tasks in a stateless manner.<n>We introduce an automated coding task generation framework, which helps generate our dataset SWE-STEPS.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-03T13:44:40Z)
• Automating Computational Reproducibility in Social Science: Comparing Prompt-Based and Agent-Based Approaches [0.3637090866781549]
  Reproducing computational research is often assumed to be as simple as rerunning the original code with provided data.<n>This study investigates whether large language models and AI agents can automate the diagnosis and repair of such failures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-09T11:59:59Z)
• Assessing Reproducibility in Evolutionary Computation: A Case Study using Human- and LLM-based Assessment [2.0365636651755263]
  We study the practices in papers published in the Combinatorial Optimization and Metaheuristics track of the Evolutionary Computation Conference over a ten-year period.<n>We introduce a structured checklist and apply it through a systematic manual assessment of the selected corpus.<n>In addition, we propose RECAP (REproducibility Checklist Automation Pipeline), an automated system that automatically evaluates signals from paper text and associated code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-05T08:32:29Z)
• REPRO-Bench: Can Agentic AI Systems Assess the Reproducibility of Social Science Research? [2.111102681327218]
  Existing benchmarks for reproducing research papers focus solely on reproducing results using provided code and data.<n>We introduce REPRO-Bench, a collection of 112 task instances, each representing a social science paper with a publicly available reproduction report.<n>We evaluate three representative AI agents on REPRO-Bench, with the best-performing agent achieving an accuracy of only 21.4%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-25T02:48:30Z)
• AutoReproduce: Automatic AI Experiment Reproduction with Paper Lineage [62.049868205196425]
  AutoReproduce is a framework capable of automatically reproducing experiments described in research papers in an end-to-end manner.<n>Results show that AutoReproduce achieves an average performance gap of $22.1%$ on $89.74%$ of the executable experiment runs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-27T03:15:21Z)
• On the Role of Feedback in Test-Time Scaling of Agentic AI Workflows [71.92083784393418]
  Agentic AI (systems that autonomously plan and act) are becoming widespread, yet their task success rate on complex tasks remains low.<n>Inference-time alignment relies on three components: sampling, evaluation, and feedback.<n>We introduce Iterative Agent Decoding (IAD), a procedure that repeatedly inserts feedback extracted from different forms of critiques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-02T17:40:47Z)
• RAGEval: Scenario Specific RAG Evaluation Dataset Generation Framework [66.93260816493553]
  This paper introduces RAGEval, a framework designed to assess RAG systems across diverse scenarios.<n>With a focus on factual accuracy, we propose three novel metrics: Completeness, Hallucination, and Irrelevance.<n> Experimental results show that RAGEval outperforms zero-shot and one-shot methods in terms of clarity, safety, conformity, and richness of generated samples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-02T13:35:11Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.