Neuroscience data are highly fragmented across labs, formats, and experimental paradigms, and reuse often requires substantial manual effort. A persistent roadblock to data reuse and integration is the need to decipher bespoke and diverse data formatting choices. Common data formats have been proposed in response, but the field continues to struggle with a fundamental tension: formats flexible enough to accommodate diverse experiments are rarely descriptive enough to be self-explanatory, and sufficiently descriptive formats demand detailed documentation and curation effort that few labs can sustain. Agentic AI is a natural candidate to solve this problem: LLMs read code and text faster and with sustained attention to the low-level details humans tend to skim over. To measure how well agentic AI performs on this task, we selected eight recent papers studying large-scale mouse neural population recordings that shared both data and code, spanning diverse recording modalities, behavioral paradigms, and dataset formats (e.g., NWB, specialized APIs, and general-purpose Python or MATLAB files). We provided agents with the data, code, and paper, and prompted them to load, understand, and reformat the data for a common downstream task: training a decoder from neural activity to task or behavioral variables. General-purpose coding agents commonly used by scientists performed well on each sub-task, but rarely strung together a fully error-free end-to-end solution. We characterize the types of mistakes agents made and the dataset properties that elicited them, and propose data-sharing best practices for the agentic-AI era. We further find that agents-as-judges are unreliable at catching errors, especially without ground-truth references, so interactive, human-in-the-loop coding remains necessary.
Agentic AI tools offer a promising path to automating software development bottlenecks in scientific research pipelines, particularly for stages that take domain experts days to months to build, where scientists care about correctness and robustness, not implementation details. We present an empirical study of general-purpose coding agents on a fly optogenetics data-to-discovery pipeline. We assess agents on tasks substantially larger than existing benchmarks, datasets orders of magnitude bigger, and evaluation criteria grounded in domain expert standards. We show that agents can solve several individual pipeline stages, suggesting stage-level automation is tractable. By analyzing agents' code iterations, we show that they struggle most when there is not a pre-defined criterion to iterate on, and they must instead use their scientific judgment to assess their current solution, a key open challenge. Mirroring scientific practice, they sometimes attempt visual inspection of intermediate outputs for self-evaluation, but largely fail to interpret what they see or act on it appropriately. Solving the end-to-end pipeline correctly requires stringing together successes across all pipeline stages, and this is beyond agents' current abilities. We identify challenges largely absent from existing benchmarks, including computational resource management and generalization to large held-out data collections. Finally, we distill principles for constructing scientific tasks and rigorous evaluation criteria for open-ended problems.
Recent work has used LLM agents to reproduce empirical social science results with access to both the data and code. We broaden this scope by asking: Can they reproduce results given only a paper's methods description and original data? We develop an agentic reproduction system that extracts structured methods descriptions from papers, runs reimplementations under strict information isolation -- agents never see the original code, results, or paper -- and enables deterministic, cell-level comparison of reproduced outputs to the original results. An error attribution step traces discrepancies through the system chain to identify root causes. Evaluating four agent scaffolds and four LLMs on 48 papers with human-verified reproducibility, we find that agents can largely recover published results, but performance varies substantially between models, scaffolds, and papers. Root cause analysis reveals that failures stem both from agent errors and from underspecification in the papers themselves.
Benjamin Kohler, David Zollikofer, Johanna Einsiedler +2
The literature has witnessed an emerging interest in AI agents for automated assessment of scientific papers. Existing benchmarks focus primarily on the computational aspect of this task, testing agents' ability to reproduce or replicate research outcomes when having access to the code and data. This setting, while foundational, (1) fails to capture the inconsistent availability of new data for replication as opposed to reproduction, and (2) lacks ground-truth diversity by focusing only on reproducible papers, thereby failing to evaluate an agent's ability to identify non-replicable research. Furthermore, most benchmarks only evaluate outcomes rather than the replication process. In response, we introduce ReplicatorBench, an end-to-end benchmark, including human-verified replicable and non-replicable research claims in social and behavioral sciences for evaluating AI agents in research replication across three stages: (1) extraction and retrieval of replication data; (2) design and execution of computational experiments; and (3) interpretation of results, allowing a test of AI agents' capability to mimic the activities of human replicators in real world. To set a baseline of AI agents' capability, we develop ReplicatorAgent, an agentic framework equipped with necessary tools, like web search and iterative interaction with sandboxed environments, to accomplish tasks in ReplicatorBench. We evaluate ReplicatorAgent across four underlying large language models (LLMs), as well as different design choices of programming language and levels of code access. Our findings reveal that while current LLM agents are capable of effectively designing and executing computational experiments, they struggle with retrieving resources, such as new data, necessary to replicate a claim. All code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/CenterForOpenScience/llm-benchmarking.