AI agents have the potential to aid users on a variety of consequential tasks, including conducting scientific research. To spur the development of useful agents, we need benchmarks that are challenging, but more crucially, directly correspond to real-world tasks of interest. This paper introduces such a benchmark, designed to measure the accuracy of AI agents in tackling a crucial yet surprisingly challenging aspect of scientific research: computational reproducibility. This task, fundamental to the scientific process, involves reproducing the results of a study using the provided code and data. We introduce CORE-Bench (Computational Reproducibility Agent Benchmark), a benchmark consisting of 270 tasks based on 90 scientific papers across three disciplines (computer science, social science, and medicine). Tasks in CORE-Bench consist of three difficulty levels and include both language-only and vision-language tasks. We provide an evaluation system to measure the accuracy of agents in a fast and parallelizable way, saving days of evaluation time for each run compared to a sequential implementation. We evaluated two baseline agents: the general-purpose AutoGPT and a task-specific agent called CORE-Agent. We tested both variants using two underlying language models: GPT-4o and GPT-4o-mini. The best agent achieved an accuracy of 21% on the hardest task, showing the vast scope for improvement in automating routine scientific tasks. Having agents that can reproduce existing work is a necessary step towards building agents that can conduct novel research and could verify and improve the performance of other research agents. We hope that CORE-Bench can improve the state of reproducibility and spur the development of future research agents.
When a benchmark's accuracy saturates, it is often retired and replaced with a more challenging version. We show that this approach privileges accuracy and misses the opportunity to study six other key dimensions of agent performance: construct validity issues such as shortcuts, out-of-distribution generalizability, efficiency, reliability, the relative importance of the model versus the scaffold, and uplift from human-agent collaboration. We use CORE-Bench Hard, a benchmark for computational reproducibility of scientific code, as a case study to demonstrate that measuring agents along these dimensions yields meaningful insights into agent performance even after accuracy saturates. First, we surface threats to construct validity in CORE-Bench Hard that are difficult to anticipate with less capable agents. We introduce an improved benchmark, CORE-Bench v1.1, and an out-of-distribution task suite, CORE-Bench OOD. Second, we find that despite accuracy saturation, CORE-Bench v1.1 remains useful for measuring efficiency, reliability, model performance, and scaffold performance. Finally, we conduct a small-scale randomized experiment to measure uplift from human-agent collaboration on real-world computational reproducibility tasks. We find a statistically significant speedup by about a factor of two -- likely underestimated due to one-fifth of human-only reproductions reaching the time limit before completing -- and describe various other findings. Together, our contributions present a more rigorous alternative to the dominant accuracy-centric evaluation paradigm.
Reproducibility is essential to scientific progress, yet the growing volume and complexity of scientific publications make exhaustive manual verification increasingly impractical. Although recent advances in large language model (LLM) agents enable automated experiment reproduction, existing evaluations largely focus on final repositories and are typically limited to machine learning (ML). We introduce AgentActionBench, a process-oriented benchmark for evaluating agent-based experiment reproduction across ML and AI4Science domains. Our framework uses an MCP-based Action Recorder to capture agents' behaviour throughout the reproduction process and evaluates the resulting traces with paper-specific rubrics. AgentActionBench contains 150 papers, including 120 ML papers and 30 AI4Science papers. A human-annotated subset covering 10% of the benchmark provides validation data, while model-assisted augmentation expands the full benchmark to more than 10,000 rubric items. Experimental results show that current systems remain limited, with execution as the primary bottleneck. Meanwhile, the strong Pearson and Spearman correlations between model-generated and human-annotated rubrics validate the reliability of our scalable rubric-generation approach.
Recent anecdotal evidence suggests that AI coding agents can reproduce published findings when provided with original data and code; yet systematic evaluation across social sciences remains limited. Existing evaluation benchmarks are insufficient, either small or conflate agent performance with problems in the reproduction materials themselves, such as code that fails to execute correctly. Here we introduce SocSci-Repro-Bench, a benchmark of 221 tasks spanning four disciplines and 13 substantive domains, constructed from studies whose results are either fully reproducible with available materials or demonstrably non-reproducible due to missing data, allowing us to isolate agents' reproduction capacity. Evaluating two frontier coding agents, Claude Code and Codex, we find that both can reproduce a large share of social science findings, with Claude Code substantially outperforming Codex. These reproduction rates considerably exceed those previously reported for general-purpose LLM-based agents on comparable reproducibility benchmarks. Both agents also perform strongly on a reasoning task requiring identification of underlying research questions, and additional analyses suggest that results are not primarily driven by memorization. Providing the original paper PDF alongside replication materials modestly improves performance but introduces bias on tasks where reproduction is impossible. We also show that agents can be nudged toward confirmatory specification search through subtle prompt framing. Together, these findings suggest that at least some frontier coding agents can serve as reliable executors of computational workflows while underscoring the need for careful benchmarking and prompt design as AI systems assume larger roles in scientific production.