From paper to benchmark: agentic, framework-based reproduction of under-specified methods in machine health intelligence

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.28371v1
• Date: Wed, 27 May 2026 12:11:05 GMT
• Title: From paper to benchmark: agentic, framework-based reproduction of under-specified methods in machine health intelligence
• Abstract summary: Industrial Prognostics and Health Management provides a representative case study for translating published papers into executable, benchmark-ready implementations.<n>We introduce emphagentic, framework-based PHM paper reproduction, where an agent translates a paper into a shared PHM benchmark framework via a emphslot-binding interface.<n>We evaluate this approach on 16 PHM papers, comparing framework-enhanced, skill-based and prompt-based agentic reproduction against a recent framework-free paper-reproduction agent.
• Score: 12.026104106923556
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Industrial Prognostics and Health Management (PHM) provides a representative case study for a broader challenge in applied machine learning: translating published papers into executable, benchmark-ready implementations. Reproducing under-specified methods in PHM is particularly difficult due to restricted access to industrial datasets, incomplete reporting of preprocessing and evaluation protocols, and implicit design choices (e.g., windowing, target construction, data splits) that critically affect performance. Existing paper-to-code systems generate implementations for individual papers, but these artifacts are often not directly comparable due to inconsistencies in assumptions and evaluation settings. We introduce \emph{agentic, framework-based PHM paper reproduction}, where an agent translates a paper into a shared PHM benchmark framework via a \emph{slot-binding interface}. This interface maps equations and protocol descriptions into structured components (task definitions, dataset adapters, windowing, targets, models, and evaluators), while explicitly recording unresolved assumptions. The resulting implementations are validated against standardized task contracts and evaluation hooks, enabling consistent and comparable benchmarking. We evaluate this approach on 16 PHM papers, comparing framework-enhanced, skill-based and prompt-based agentic reproduction against a recent framework-free paper-reproduction agent. We assess reproduction success, model-based code evaluation, framework binding of paper assumptions, and cross-paper benchmark comparability under standardized protocols. Our results show that coupling agentic generation with a shared framework transforms paper reproduction from isolated code synthesis into executable, assumption-aware, and systematically comparable benchmark implementations.

Related papers

• Structuring Semantic Embeddings for Principle Evaluation: A Prototype-Guided Contrastive Learning Approach [58.15427952222424]
  General-purpose text embeddings are widely deployed for such tasks, but broad semantic similarity can place semantically similar yet task-distinct examples.<n>We introduce Prototype-Guided Contrastive Learning (PGCL), a prototype-guided geometric regularization module built on top of frozen text embeddings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-15T13:19:25Z)
• A Unified Framework for the Evaluation of LLM Agentic Capabilities [36.43241368835721]
  We present a unified framework for the fair evaluation of LLM agentic capabilities.<n> Driven by a unified configuration system, the framework integrates diverse benchmarks into a standardized instruction--tool--environment format.<n>We conduct a large-scale empirical analysis over 400K rollouts and 5B tokens on 15 models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-27T03:20:45Z)
• An Agentic Evaluation Framework for AI-Generated Scientific Code in PETSc [7.236134946837382]
  petscagent-bench is an agentic framework built on an agents-evaluating-agents paradigm.<n>It orchestrates a 14-evaluator pipeline across five scoring categories: correctness, performance, code quality, algorithmic appropriateness, and library-specific conventions.<n>We demonstrate the framework on a benchmark suite of realistic problems using the PETSc library for HPC.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-16T22:46:10Z)
• DEP: A Decentralized Large Language Model Evaluation Protocol [51.3646001384887]
  Decentralized Evaluation Protocol (DEP) is a decentralized yet unified and standardized evaluation framework.<n>By decoupling users, LLMs, and benchmarks, DEP enables modular, plug-and-play evaluation.<n>We develop DEP Toolkit, a protocol-compatible toolkit that supports features such as breakpoint resume, concurrent requests, and congestion control.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-01T16:10:16Z)
• Auto-BenchmarkCard: Automated Synthesis of Benchmark Documentation [4.044540605397838]
  Auto-BenchmarkCard is a workflow for generating validated descriptions of AI benchmarks.<n> Benchmark documentation is often incomplete or inconsistent, making it difficult to interpret and compare benchmarks across tasks or domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-10T12:09:44Z)
• Automatic Building Code Review: A Case Study [6.530899637501737]
  Building officials face labor-intensive, error-prone, and costly manual reviews of design documents as projects increase in size and complexity.<n>This study introduces a novel agent-driven framework that integrates BIM-based data extraction with automated verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-03T00:30:14Z)
• ABCD-LINK: Annotation Bootstrapping for Cross-Document Fine-Grained Links [57.514511353084565]
  We introduce a new domain-agnostic framework for selecting a best-performing approach and annotating cross-document links.<n>We apply our framework in two distinct domains -- peer review and news.<n>The resulting novel datasets lay foundation for numerous cross-document tasks like media framing and peer review.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-01T11:32:24Z)
• Reflective Paper-to-Code Reproduction Enabled by Fine-Grained Verification [46.845133190560375]
  Motivated by how humans use systematic checklists to efficiently debug complex code, we propose textbfRePro, a textbfReflective Paper-to-Code textbfReproduction framework.<n>It automatically extracts a paper's fingerprint, referring to a comprehensive set of accurate and atomic criteria serving as high-quality supervisory signals.<n>It achieves 13.0% performance gap over baselines, and it correctly revises complex logical and mathematical criteria in reflecting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-21T06:57:44Z)
• DOCE: Finding the Sweet Spot for Execution-Based Code Generation [69.5305729627198]
  We propose a comprehensive framework that includes candidate generation, $n$-best reranking, minimum Bayes risk (MBR) decoding, and self-ging as the core components. Our findings highlight the importance of execution-based methods and the difference gap between execution-based and execution-free methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-25T07:10:36Z)
• 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.