PaperRepro: Automated Computational Reproducibility Assessment for Social Science Papers
Open accessAbstract
Computational reproducibility is essential for the credibility of scientific findings, particularly in the social sciences, where findings often inform real-world decisions. Manual reproducibility assessment is costly and time-consuming, as it is nontrivial to reproduce the reported findings using the authors' released code and data. Recent advances in language models (LMs) have inspired agent-based approaches for automated reproducibility assessment. However, existing approaches often struggle due to limited context capacity, inadequate task-specific tooling, and insufficient result capture. To address these, we propose PaperRepro, a novel two-stage, multi-agent approach that separates execution from evaluation. In the execution stage, agents execute the reproduction package and edit the code to capture reproduced results as explicit artifacts. In the evaluation stage, agents evaluate reproducibility using explicit evidence. PaperRepro assigns distinct responsibilities to agents and equips them with task-specific tools and expert prompts, mitigating context and tooling limitations. It further maximizes the LM's coding capability to enable more complete result capture for evaluation. On REPRO-Bench, a social science reproducibility assessment benchmark, PaperRepro achieves the best overall performance, with a 21.9% relative improvement in score-agreement accuracy over the strongest prior baseline. We further refine the benchmark and introduce REPRO-Bench-S, a benchmark strati…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In social science, prior works benchmark reproducibility while granting agents access to the original code.
“In social science, prior works-Hu et al. (2025), Zhang et al. (2026), Shah et al. (2026), and Xu & Yang (2026)-benchmark reproducibility while granting agents access to the original code.”
From Read the Paper, Write the Code: Agentic Reproduction of Social-Science Results (2026) · cites this paper as Zhang et al. (2026)
Cites
ChatDev: Communicative Agents for Software Development
Qian, C., Liu, W., Liu, H., Chen, N., Dang, Y., Li, J., Yang, C., Chen, W., Su, Y., Cong, X., et al. (2024) · Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.810 · Cited by 490 · see citing works
SWE-agent: Agent-Computer Interfaces Enable Automated Software Engineering
Yang, J., Jimenez, C., Wettig, A., Lieret, K., Yao, S., Narasimhan, K., & Press, O. (2024) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37 · doi:10.52202/079017-1601 · Cited by 264 · see citing works
Self-collaboration code generation via ChatGPT
Dong, Y., Jiang, X., Jin, Z., & Li, G. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · doi:10.1145/3672459 · Cited by 256 · see citing works
AutoCodeRover: Autonomous Program Improvement
Zhang, Y., Ruan, H., Fan, Z., & Roychoudhury, A. (2024) · Proceedings of the 33rd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis · doi:10.1145/3650212.3680384 · Cited by 202 · see citing works
AutoCodeRover: Autonomous Program Improvement
Zhang, Y., Ruan, H., Fan, Z., & Roychoudhury, A. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.05427 · Cited by 202 · see citing works
Zhang, K., Li, J., Li, G., Shi, X., & Jin, Z. (2024) · Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.737 · Cited by 138 · see citing works
The entities enabling scientific fraud at scale are large, resilient, and growing rapidly
Richardson, R. A. K., Hong, S. S., Byrne, J. A., Stoeger, T., & Amaral, L. A. N. (2025) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2420092122 · Cited by 129 · see citing works
You Name It, I Run It: An LLM Agent to Execute Tests of Arbitrary Projects
Bouzenia, I., & Pradel, M. (2025) · Proceedings of the ACM on Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/3728922 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Read the Paper, Write the Code: Agentic Reproduction of Social-Science Results
Kohler, B., Zollikofer, D., Einsiedler, J., Hoyle, A., & Ash, E. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.21965 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Zhang, L., Xia, T., Piao, J., & Cui, L.
- Affiliations
- Shandong University (CN)
- Tsinghua University (CN)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 32nd ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining V.2
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2026-08-08
- Pages
- 12880-12891
- OpenAlex
- W7197040248
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Funders
- Zhongguancun Academy (C20250201)
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (U23B2030)
- Research Fund of Vanke School of Public Health in Tsinghua University (276-203-016)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Scientific Computing and Data Management
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
- Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Computational and Text Analysis Methods
- Keywords
- computational reproducibility, social science research, multi-agent systems, large language models, program execution
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review