Industrial Prognostics and Health Management (PHM) provides a representative case study for a broader challenge in applied machine learning: translating published papers into executable, benchmark-ready implementations. Reproducing under-specified methods in PHM is particularly difficult due to restricted access to industrial datasets, incomplete reporting of preprocessing and evaluation protocols, and implicit design choices (e.g., windowing, target construction, data splits) that critically affect performance. Existing paper-to-code systems generate implementations for individual papers, but these artifacts are often not directly comparable due to inconsistencies in assumptions and evaluation settings. We introduce \emph{agentic, framework-based PHM paper reproduction}, where an agent translates a paper into a shared PHM benchmark framework via a \emph{slot-binding interface}. This interface maps equations and protocol descriptions into structured components (task definitions, dataset adapters, windowing, targets, models, and evaluators), while explicitly recording unresolved assumptions. The resulting implementations are validated against standardized task contracts and evaluation hooks, enabling consistent and comparable benchmarking. We evaluate this approach on 16 PHM papers, comparing framework-enhanced, skill-based and prompt-based agentic reproduction against a recent framework-free paper-reproduction agent. We assess reproduction success, model-based code evaluation, framework binding of paper assumptions, and cross-paper benchmark comparability under standardized protocols. Our results show that coupling agentic generation with a shared framework transforms paper reproduction from isolated code synthesis into executable, assumption-aware, and systematically comparable benchmark implementations.
Scientific machine learning papers typically make computational claims, e.g., that the relative mean square error is less than 5% or that the 95% predictive credible interval covers the test data. A coding agent can be prompted to replicate those claims from paper materials alone, but the prompt does not by itself reliably preserve progress or check whether generated evidence supports the paper's claims. We introduce Paper-replication, a workflow that makes each selected paper claim a target with recorded evidence, and implement it as a coding-agent skill. The workflow makes the agent record those targets, reconstruct the paper's method, run computational experiments, link generated outputs to provenance and comparisons with the paper's claims, record where matched evidence appears in the replication report, and pass validation checks before completion. We evaluate Paper-replication on twelve independent runs across four scientific machine learning papers. All twelve workspaces pass the completion gate, and all 158 recorded targets are matched with report coverage. Even in this completed workspace state, repeated runs differ in how papers are divided into targets, in numerical fidelity to the source papers, in elapsed replication time, in the number of intermediate executions replaced before final evidence is accepted, and in the rules used to accept evidence. Paper-replication makes completion depend on workspace evidence and validation checks rather than on the agent's final message.
Recent advances in large language models have highlighted their potential to automate computational research, particularly reproducing experimental results. However, existing approaches still use fixed sequential agent pipelines with weak global coordination, which limits their robustness and overall performance. In this work, we propose Hierarchical Research Agent System (HiRAS), a hierarchical multi-agent framework for end-to-end experiment reproduction that employs supervisory manager agents to coordinate specialised agents across fine-grained stages. We also identify limitations in the reference-free evaluation of the Paper2Code benchmark and introduce Paper2Code-Extra (P2C-Ex), a refined protocol that incorporates repository-level information and better aligns with the original reference-based metric. We conduct extensive evaluation, validating the effectiveness and robustness of our proposed methods, and observing improvements, including >10% relative performance gain beyond the previous state-of-the-art using open-source backbone models and significantly reduced hallucination in evaluation. Our work is available on GitHub: https://github.com/KOU-199024/HiRAS.
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