An Agentic Approach Towards Replication Package Quality Evaluation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.02006v1
• Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2026 10:00:41 GMT
• Title: An Agentic Approach Towards Replication Package Quality Evaluation
• Abstract summary: This paper explores an agentic approach for assessing replication package quality.<n>We consolidate 380 requirements from 34 sources into 51 criteria, of which 31 are operationalized for automated artifact-based evaluation.<n>Preliminary evaluation on five replication packages shows high inter-run consistency of 91.4% and 75.4% correctness.
• Score: 1.6950215926321557
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Reproducibility in empirical software engineering relies on complete, accessible, and reusable research artifacts, yet artifact evaluation remains largely manual and difficult to scale. This emerging results paper explores an agentic approach for assessing replication package quality by translating open-science guidelines into machine-verifiable criteria. We consolidate 380 requirements from 34 sources into 51 reproducibility criteria, of which 31 are operationalized for automated artifact-based evaluation. Based on these criteria, we implement a multi-agent prototype that automatically inspects replication packages and produces evidence-grounded improvement reports. A preliminary evaluation on five replication packages shows high inter-run consistency of 91.4\% and 75.4\% correctness, through micro-averaged agreement with a manual baseline. The agent performs best on structural criteria such as code, environment, and artifact availability, but struggles with qualitative or mixed-method studies. A pilot survey with seven software engineering researchers indicates well perceived usefulness and adoption potential, while revealing cognitive load in the human-in-the-loop planning step. Overall, these emerging results indicate that agentic research artifact evaluation has the potential to support authors and reviewers by automating selected routine checks.

Related papers

• Learning to Evaluate Before Improving: Automatic Rubric Induction for Automatic Research Agents [16.43230671992556]
  AutoSciRub is an evaluation-first framework that induces a task-specific executable before research execution.<n>AutoSciRub decomposes an underspecified instruction into atomic scientific goals, grounds them in relevant literature and task-visible data, and synthesizes specific, actionable, and verifiable criteria.<n>During revision, rubric-guided verification identifies unmet criteria and enables targeted refinement of the research report.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-31T16:48:51Z)
• From Simple QA to Deep Research: A Verifiable Benchmark Constructed through Iterative Task Evolution [14.763650534859176]
  We introduce a verifiable benchmark of 500 deep research tasks spanning 31 topics and 10 major categories.<n>The benchmark is constructed automatically using an iterative Explorer-Formalizer-Challenger pipeline.<n>Our data, implementation, and results are publicly available.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-03T12:43:00Z)
• MLReplicate: Benchmarking Autonomous Research Systems for Machine Learning Reproducibility [2.2969445973129123]
  We introduce MLReplicate, an end-to-end benchmark evaluating autonomous research systems on machine learning.<n>The benchmark was constructed from ICML 2025 papers reformulated into standardized input specifications and evaluated across 6 state-of-the-art research systems.<n>In contrast to automated reviews, human reviewers consistently identified methodological flaws, hallucinated experimental results, and failures across all systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-15T20:35:32Z)
• ARA: Agentic Reproducibility Assessment For Scalable Support Of Scientific Peer-Review [10.258519605411772]
  Agentic Reproducibility Assessment (ARA) formalizes assessment as a structured reasoning task over scientific documents.<n>Given a paper, ARA extracts a directed graph linking sources, methods, experiments, and outputs, then evaluates its reconstructability.<n>ARA achieves 61% accuracy on three benchmarks, and the highest accuracy reported on ReproBench and GoldStandardDB.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-04T14:34:36Z)
• Pitfalls in Evaluating Interpretability Agents [91.49742416116635]
  We build an agentic system in which a research agent iteratively designs experiments and refines hypotheses.<n>Our work demonstrates fundamental challenges in evaluating complex automated interpretability systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-20T16:27:17Z)
• PaperRepro: Automated Computational Reproducibility Assessment for Social Science Papers [33.12402746591649]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-10T09:04:59Z)
• The Story is Not the Science: Execution-Grounded Evaluation of Mechanistic Interpretability Research [56.80927148740585]
  We address the challenges of scalability and rigor by flipping the dynamic and developing AI agents as research evaluators.<n>We use mechanistic interpretability research as a testbed, build standardized research output, and develop MechEvalAgent.<n>Our work demonstrates the potential of AI agents to transform research evaluation and pave the way for rigorous scientific practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-05T19:00:02Z)
• 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)
• An Investigation on How AI-Generated Responses Affect SoftwareEngineering Surveys [3.183470571353323]
  This study explores how large language models (LLMs) are being misused in software engineering surveys.<n>We analyzed data from two survey deployments conducted in 2025 through the Prolific platform.<n>We identify data authenticity as an emerging dimension of validity in software engineering surveys.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-19T11:17:05Z)
• AutoMalDesc: Large-Scale Script Analysis for Cyber Threat Research [81.04845910798387]
  Generating natural language explanations for threat detections remains an open problem in cybersecurity research.<n>We present AutoMalDesc, an automated static analysis summarization framework that operates independently at scale.<n>We publish our complete dataset of more than 100K script samples, including annotated seed (0.9K) datasets, along with our methodology and evaluation framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-17T13:05:25Z)
• Automatic Reviewers Fail to Detect Faulty Reasoning in Research Papers: A New Counterfactual Evaluation Framework [55.078301794183496]
  We focus on a core reviewing skill that underpins high-quality peer review: detecting faulty research logic.<n>This involves evaluating the internal consistency between a paper's results, interpretations, and claims.<n>We present a fully automated counterfactual evaluation framework that isolates and tests this skill under controlled conditions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-29T08:48:00Z)
• Establishing Best Practices for Building Rigorous Agentic Benchmarks [94.69724201080155]
  We show that many agentic benchmarks have issues in task setup or reward design.<n>Such issues can lead to under- or overestimation of agents' performance by up to 100% in relative terms.<n>We introduce the Agentic Benchmark Checklist (ABC), a set of guidelines that we synthesized from our benchmark-building experience.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-03T17:35:31Z)
• 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)

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.