Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 cited by

SciReplicate-Bench: Benchmarking LLMs in Agent-driven Algorithmic Reproduction from Research Papers

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 2504.00255 v2 pith:KNP5IE72 submitted 2025-03-31 cs.CL cs.AIcs.MAcs.SE

classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.MAcs.SE
keywords algorithmcodescireplicate-benchaccuracybenchmarkgithubllmsreasoning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

This study evaluates large language models (LLMs) in generating code from algorithm descriptions in recent NLP papers. The task requires two key competencies: (1) algorithm comprehension: synthesizing information from papers and academic literature to understand implementation logic, and (2) coding expertise: identifying dependencies and correctly implementing necessary APIs. To facilitate rigorous evaluation, we introduce SciReplicate-Bench, a benchmark of 100 tasks from 36 NLP papers published in 2024, featuring detailed annotations and comprehensive test cases. Building on SciReplicate-Bench, we propose Sci-Reproducer, a dual-agent framework consisting of a Paper Agent that interprets algorithmic concepts from literature and a Code Agent that retrieves dependencies from repositories and implements solutions. To assess algorithm understanding, we introduce reasoning graph accuracy, which quantifies similarity between generated and reference reasoning graphs derived from code comments and structure. For evaluating implementation quality, we employ execution accuracy, CodeBLEU, and repository dependency/API recall metrics. In our experiments, we evaluate various powerful non-reasoning and reasoning LLMs as foundational models. The best-performing LLM using \ModelName~achieves only 39% execution accuracy, highlighting the benchmark's difficulty. Our analysis identifies missing or inconsistent algorithm descriptions as key barriers to successful reproduction. We make available our benchmark and code at https://github.com/xyzCS/SciReplicate-Bench and project homepage at https://xyzcs.github.io/scireplicate.github.io/.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

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

  1. Coding-agents can replicate scientific machine learning papers

    cs.AI 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Paper-replication makes coding agents complete SciML paper replications only when every recorded claim has provenance, comparison evidence, and report coverage in a validated workspace.

  2. AutoSOTA: An End-to-End Automated Research System for State-of-the-Art AI Model Discovery

    cs.CL 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    AutoSOTA uses eight specialized agents to replicate and optimize models from recent AI papers, producing 105 new SOTA results in about five hours per paper on average.

  3. MADE: Belief-Driven Dual-Agent Coordination for Autonomous Model Deployment

    cs.SE 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A belief-driven two-agent system automatically serves 84 of 122 open-source model repositories as working APIs, and the authors release a benchmark for model-to-API deployment.

  4. Automated Table Reproduction via Code Generation

    cs.SE 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    An LLM agent that generates executable scripts to reproduce tables from software engineering papers succeeds on 44/60 benchmark tasks and surfaces 20 paper-artifact discrepancies.

  5. AI for Auto-Research: Roadmap & User Guide

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    The paper delivers a stage-by-stage roadmap for AI in research, showing reliable assistance in retrieval and tool tasks but fragility in novelty and judgment, advocating human-governed collaboration.

  6. How Far Are AI Scientists from Changing the World?

    cs.AI 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    This survey proposes a four-level capability framework for AI Scientist systems and, using an AI reviewer, finds that current systems produce papers rated well below normal scientific standards.

Pith tools