Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

REPRO-Bench: Can Agentic AI Systems Assess the Reproducibility of Social Science Research?

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2507.18901 v1 pith:MSWBHSTP submitted 2025-07-25 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords repro-benchagentsreproducibilitysciencesocialassessingreal-worldresearch
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Assessing the reproducibility of social science papers is essential for promoting rigor in research processes, but manual assessment is costly. With recent advances in agentic AI systems (i.e., AI agents), we seek to evaluate their capability to automate this process. However, existing benchmarks for reproducing research papers (1) focus solely on reproducing results using provided code and data without assessing their consistency with the paper, (2) oversimplify real-world scenarios, and (3) lack necessary diversity in data formats and programming languages. To address these issues, we introduce REPRO-Bench, a collection of 112 task instances, each representing a social science paper with a publicly available reproduction report. The agents are tasked with assessing the reproducibility of the paper based on the original paper PDF and the corresponding reproduction package. REPRO-Bench features end-to-end evaluation tasks on the reproducibility of social science papers with complexity comparable to real-world assessments. We evaluate three representative AI agents on REPRO-Bench, with the best-performing agent achieving an accuracy of only 21.4%. Building on our empirical analysis, we develop REPRO-Agent, which improves the highest accuracy achieved by existing agents by 71%. We conclude that more advanced AI agents should be developed to automate real-world reproducibility assessment. REPRO-Bench is publicly available at https://github.com/uiuc-kang-lab/REPRO-Bench.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. NatureBench: Can Coding Agents Match the Published SOTA of Nature-Family Papers?

    cs.CL 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    NatureBench evaluates ten frontier AI coding agents on 90 tasks from Nature papers under web-search-disabled conditions and finds the strongest agent surpasses published SOTA on only 17.8% of tasks, succeeding mainly ...

  2. Evaluating LLM Agents on Automated Software Analysis Tasks

    cs.SE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    A purpose-built, staged LLM agent correctly sets up and executes software analysis tools on 33 of 35 benchmark tasks, outperforming general-purpose agent baselines by at least 17 percentage points.

  3. Towards Autonomous and Auditable Medical Imaging Model Development

    cs.CV 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    AMID, a verification-guided multi-agent MLE system for medical imaging, outperforms general MLE agents on 20 ReX-MLE challenges and approaches human challenge solutions on several tasks.

  4. An Agentic Approach Towards Replication Package Quality Evaluation

    cs.SE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    A multi-agent system automates checks on replication package quality using 31 machine-verifiable criteria derived from 34 sources, showing 91.4% inter-run consistency and 75.4% agreement with manual review on five packages.

Pith tools