Do Papers Tell the Whole Story? A Benchmark and Framework for Uncovering Hidden Implementation Gaps in Bioinformatics

Motivation: The rapid growth of biological data has intensified the need for transparent, reproducible, and well-documented computational workflows. The ability to clearly connect the steps of a workflow in the code with their description in a paper would improve workflow comprehension, support reproducibility, and facilitate reuse. This task requires the linking of bioinformatics tools in workflow code with their mentions in a published workflow description. Results: We present CoPaLink, an automated approach that integrates three components: named entity recognition (NER) for identifying tool mentions in scientific text, NER for tool mentions in workflow code, and entity resolution based on word embedding similarity. We propose approaches for all three steps, achieving a high individual F1-measure (77 - 90) and a joint accuracy of 66 when evaluated on Nextflow workflows using Sentence-BERT. CoPaLink leverages corpora of scientific articles and workflow executable code with curated tool annotations to bridge the gap between narrative descriptions and workflow implementations. Availability: The code is available at https://gitlab.liris.cnrs.fr/sharefair/copalink-experiments and https://gitlab.liris.cnrs.fr/sharefair/copalink. The corpora are also available: CPL-Article (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20746904), CPL-Code (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20746970) and CPL-Gold-Entity-Resolution (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20746994).

While recent advances in large language models have enabled end-to-end automated manuscript generation, existing systems suffer from three critical deficiencies: (i) generated claims are not deterministically grounded in verifiable literature, (ii) experimental results are frequently fabricated rather than executed, and (iii) there exists no standardized, multi-dimensional framework to assess whether AI-generated manuscripts meet the quality and rigor required for real-world publication. We present Prompt-to-Paper, a multi-agent framework that directly addresses this evaluation gap through three integrated innovations. First, a deterministic retrieval-augmented generation pipeline with section-aware relevance scoring and snowball citation expansion grounds every claim in a verifiable corpus of 60--100 papers. Second, an autonomous coding agent executes real computational biology experiments replacing synthetic outputs with genuine numerical results. Third, an eight-dimensional automated quality scorer, benchmarked with approximate reference statistics from published papers and augmented with explicit hallucination penalties, provides standardized, reproducible quality assessments. The quality-driven improvement loop uses a context-rich reviser that routes each iteration to one of three researcher actions and fires a deep research cycle every ten iterations to re-run experiments and re-manuscript from stronger outputs. We validate the system on five bioinformatics case studies; all five cases compiled submission-formatted PDFs with zero out-of-range citations. The improvement loop raises manuscript quality by an average of +17.96 points on a 0--100 scale (maximum +26.04. As partial external checks, a human reviewer scored the five manuscripts at an average of 7.0 out of 10. Complete manuscripts are produced at approximately 0.31 USD per paper.

Large language models (LLMs) and AI-enabled software increasingly participate in systematic-review decisions, yet the information needed to audit these workflows is reported inconsistently. We analyze SciLitBench, a corpus of 888 review-automation papers with 14,726 annotations, to characterize changes in methods, review-stage use, evaluation and reported limitations. Automation has shifted toward LLM- and software-facing workflows, including stages that can alter the evidence base. Since 2023, 38.0% of software/product papers reported no evaluation, compared with 9.3% of LLM papers. Reporting coverage increased with LLM workflow complexity, yet 52% of positive-only LLM evaluations still reported an unmet reliability or performance requirement. From these patterns, we introduce PRISMA-LLM, an empirically grounded framework separating implementation disclosure from consequence-sensitive evaluation and limitation reporting.