REVIEW 6 cited by
LMR-BENCH: Evaluating LLM Agent's Ability on Reproducing Language Modeling 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
LMR-BENCH: Evaluating LLM Agent's Ability on Reproducing Language Modeling Research
read the original abstract
Large language model (LLM) agents have demonstrated remarkable potential in advancing scientific discovery. However, their capability in the fundamental yet crucial task of reproducing code from research papers, especially in the NLP domain, remains underexplored. This task includes unique complex reasoning challenges in the intellectual synthesis of abstract concepts and the comprehension of code repositories with interdependent files. Motivated by this gap, we present LMR-BENCH, a benchmark designed to systematically evaluate the capability of LLM agents on code reproduction from Language Modeling Research. It consists of 28 code reproduction tasks derived from 23 research papers published in top-tier NLP venues over the past five years, spanning nine fundamental categories. Models are provided with a research paper, a code repository containing one or more masked functions, and instructions for implementing these functions. We conduct extensive experiments in standard prompting and LLM agent settings with state-of-the-art LLMs, evaluating the accuracy of unit tests and performing LLM-based evaluation of code correctness. Experimental results reveal that even the most advanced models still exhibit persistent limitations in scientific reasoning and code synthesis, highlighting critical gaps in LLM agents' ability to autonomously reproduce scientific research
Forward citations
Cited by 6 Pith papers
-
ReplicatorBench: Benchmarking LLM Agents for Replicability in Social and Behavioral Sciences
ReplicatorBench evaluates LLM agents on replicating social and behavioral science claims across retrieval, computation, and interpretation stages, finding strength in experiment execution but weakness in resource retrieval.
-
NatureBench: Can Coding Agents Match the Published SOTA of Nature-Family Papers?
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 ...
-
NatureBench: Can Coding Agents Match the Published SOTA of Nature-Family Papers?
Frontier coding agents surpass published Nature-family SOTA on only 17.8% of 90 sealed scientific tasks, mostly by recasting problems as supervised ML rather than inventing methods.
-
SciPredict: Can LLMs Predict the Outcomes of Scientific Experiments in Natural Sciences?
LLMs predict outcomes of real scientific experiments at 14-26% accuracy, comparable to human experts, but lack calibration on prediction reliability while humans demonstrate strong calibration.
-
AutoScientists: Self-Organizing Agent Teams for Long-Running Scientific Experimentation
Decentralized AI agent teams self-organize around hypotheses, critique proposals, and share knowledge to outperform single-agent baselines on biomedical ML, language-model optimization, and protein fitness tasks.
-
ASPI: Seeking Ambiguity Clarification Amplifies Prompt Injection Vulnerability in LLM Agents
Clarification-seeking in LLM agents amplifies prompt injection attack success from ~2% to over 30% across ten frontier models in a new 728-scenario benchmark.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.