LLM agents used for scientific experimentation must do more than generate executable code: they must implement the reference method faithfully, design experiments that test the paper's claims, and provide evidence supporting those claims. We show that agents often produce methodological hallucinations: silently reducing datasets or training budgets, replacing failed learning or generative components with lookup or oracle functions, or drawing conclusions from resource-limited settings where a method's claimed advantage disappears. To detect these failures, we introduce ABE-Ralph, a reference-anchored auditing framework that represents claims, protocols, required components, baselines, and metrics as structured experimental constraints, guides implementation through an 8-step workflow, and performs quantitative, qualitative, and code-level verification. Across 30 long-horizon reproduction runs covering 12 machine learning domains, ABE-Ralph achieves a 93% robust execution rate and identifies five scientific failure modes. In 23 NatureBench discovery tasks, ABE-Ralph matches or exceeds state-of-the-art performance on 5 tasks. These results show that reliable evaluation of AI scientists must assess whether the experimental design faithfully tests the intended claim and whether the resulting evidence supports it, rather than treating code execution or plausible metrics as evidence of scientific success.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison between standard execution-driven agents and our proposed ABE-Ralph auditing framework. While traditional agents often bypass computational limits using undetected shortcuts (Methodological Hallucinations), ABE-Ralph locks development constraints via YAML contracts and audits code pipelines through a Triple-Verification system.
Dimension
AI Scientist / AutoResearchClaw
SWE-agent / OpenHands
Human Repro. Challenge
ABE-Ralph (Ours)
Primary Goal
Novelty-driven discovery
Task repair and debugging
Manual study replication
Automated protocol audit
Success Check
Paper readability & metrics
Unit test pass status (Exit 0)
Human qualitative review
Multimodal alignment checks
Constraint System
None (flexible design)
Test-driven assertions
Manual checklist
Structured YAML constraints
Shortcut Handling
Bypassed if metrics improve
Undetected out of test scope
Checked by human expert
Blocked at verification step
Failure Diagnosis
Opaque execution status
Stack trace output
Text report
5-class taxonomy filter
Execution Scale
Low throughput (papers/day)
Large scale (100+ repositories)
High latency (months/paper)
High throughput batch runs
Table 1: Positioning of ABE-Ralph relative to existing agentic systems across six dimensions.
Step
Name
Description
1
Intent Discovery
Parse the YAML contract parameters and extract research goals, constraints, and metrics.
1.5
Dataset Verification
Direct search for authentic datasets matching specifications; blocks synthetic data creation.
2
Repo Search & Selection
Locate, verify, and copy repository templates from official sources or verified implementations.
3
Architecture Blueprint
Generate blueprint.md defining the model structure and setup interfaces in main.py .
4a
Pipeline Integration
Execute sanity runs on 5–10 samples to check data paths, memory limits, and CUDA setups.
4b
Main Execution
Run the experimental pipeline, write output variables to metrics.json , and handle CUDA OOM limits.
Table 2: The 8-step staged workflow of ABE-Ralph. Each step has a configurable timeout derived from the YAML contract’s compute budget.
Category
Definition
Key Empirical Observation
M1: Method Integrity Collapse
Omitting core methods and substituting trivial functions to pass metric checks.
RAG: Generator failed to compile; agent substituted exact-match string lookups, matching metrics without training.
M2: Silent Protocol Degradation
Unauthorized alteration of experimental setups to bypass technical hurdles.
PEGASUS: Pretrained checkpoint loading was skipped due to download errors, training from scratch and invalidating comparisons.
M3: Scale-Driven Conclusion Inversion
Code executes correctly, but scale restrictions invert the claimed methodological advantage.
U-Net & SimCLR: Under small-scale runs, simple encoders outperformed U-Net, inverting the central paper hypothesis.
M4: Quantitative Key Mismatch
Producing correct numerical values under non-standard JSON key names.
DPR: Outputted correct recall scores but used non-standard keys in metrics.json , triggering false schema errors.
M5: Incomplete Execution
Halting the experimental pipeline prematurely while claiming full validation.
DDIM: Evaluated only 1 of 3 required configurations and skipped target baseline comparisons.
Table 3: The 5-category taxonomy of LLM methodological hallucinations with empirically observed case studies.
Figure 2: Overall framework ranking based on the Weighted Composite Score. N values denote the aggregate number of completed experimental runs evaluated per system configuration.
Figure 3: Framework Comparison across A-F Dimension Average Scores (0–100 scale). Dimensions encompass A: Design, B: Reliability, C: Rigor, D: Completeness, E: Alignment, and F: LLM Review.
Figure 4: Distribution of Methodological Hallucination types across N=30 benchmark runs. A run is categorized as “Clean” only if it completely passes all three verification layers without any shortcut adaptations.
Figure 5: Ablation Study on the Triple-Verification Pipeline. Removing Level 2 ( Vqual ) causes the most significant performance degradation and variance explosion, highlighting the necessity of semantic auditing.
Task Domain
# Tasks
ABE-Ralph SOTA
Best Result
Graph Optimization
8
2
2 / 8
Time-Series Forecasting
6
1
1 / 6
Combinatorial Search
5
1
1 / 5
Scientific Simulation
4
1
1 / 4
Total
23
5
5 / 23
Table 4: Discovery mode performance on NatureBench tasks. Bold indicates tasks where ABE-Ralph matches or exceeds the SOTA baseline.
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Step
Reproduction Mode
Discovery Mode
1. Intent
Analyze YAML
Read problem/README.md
1.5. Dataset
Search HF/Kaggle/OpenML
Analyze local files and evaluator.py
2. Research
Search reference code repos
Search domain literature
3. Blueprint
Build main.py from reference
Design solution from scratch
4b. Execute
Train & output metrics.json
Train & execute evaluator.py
5. Synthesis
Check YAML criteria
Summarize evaluator score
Appendix
Table 5: Comparison of Reproduction and Discovery Modes.
Config
Removed Prompt Directives
Auditing Concept
w/o L3
Skip repo search; remove code-guidance
Structural Code Alignment
w/o L1
Omit YAML metric success criteria comparison
Rigid Quantitative Alignment
w/o L2
Disable deep audit & root-cause prompt blocks
Qualitative Peer Review
Appendix
Table 6: Prompt-Level Ablation Mapping.
Field
Consumers
Purpose
datasets
Agent, Verifier (L1)
Expected dataset specifications
baselines
Agent, Verifier (L1)
Required baseline comparative targets
target_method
Agent, Verifier (L1, L3)
Target algorithm description
critical_modules
Verifier (L3)
Mandatory AST components in main.py
key_claims
Verifier (L2)
Claims to evaluate qualitatively
success_conditions
Agent, Verifier (L1)
Metric margins and directionality
Appendix
Table 7: YAML Contract Schema and Field Consumers.
File Name
Lines
Primary Operational Role
ralph_github.py
∼ 1246
Workflow agent, iteration, ablation loop
verify_reproduction.py
∼ 519
Triple-verification engine, decision engine
alignment_verifier.py
∼ 266
Level 3 structural code fidelity auditor
experiment_taxonomy.py
∼ 220
Failure taxonomy classifier (M1–M5)
ablation_scoring.py
∼ 280
Multi-dimensional scoring module
experiment_integrator.py
∼ 390
Execution history, metric tracking
Appendix
Table 8: Complete System File Inventory.
Method
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
Failure / Detailed Issue
DPR
–
–
–
–
–
All quantitative and qualitative checks passed. Evaluation metrics for NaturalQuestions and TriviaQA are fully present.
RAG
✓
–
–
–
✓
M1: Generator falls back to parametric memory when retrieval fails. M5: Missing metrics for NaturalQuestions/WebQuestions.
ColBERT
–
✓
–
–
✓
M2: Hard negative mining omitted from training. M5: Missing TREC Deep Learning dataset metrics.
BERT
✓
–
–
–
✓
M1: Fine-tuned on non-target tasks instead of specified GLUE benchmarks. M5: Full GLUE dataset metrics missing.
RoBERTa
–
–
–
✓
✓
M4: Key mismatch in metrics.json parser pipeline. M5: Missing full GLUE benchmark suite metrics.
LoRA
–
–
–
–
–
Clean run. All required metrics for GLUE and instruction-tuning subsets are present.
Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly capable of supporting scientific workflows, but their capabilities across diverse research activities remain difficult to assess systematically. Existing benchmarks often focus on selected scientific capabilities or task types, limiting a comprehensive characterization of scientific agents' strengths and weaknesses in realistic research workflows. We introduce SCI-AGENT-EXAM, a workflow-oriented benchmark comprising 120 expert-curated tasks across 11 scientific fields and 7 research task types defined by the Scientific Workflow Task Taxonomy (SWTT). Each task requires both executable artifacts (e.g., code and scripts) and textual artifacts (e.g., reports and explanations). To evaluate the heterogeneous task outputs, we develop a hybrid evaluation protocol combining deterministic programmatic verification for executable artifacts with a calibrated, expert-validated LLM-based judge for textual artifacts. Beyond outcome assessment, we analyze progress and solution stability along execution trajectories to characterize how agents reach their final results. Experiments with 10 frontier LLM agents reveal substantial performance gaps: GPT-6 Astra achieves the highest overall score of 80.9, yet only 26.0% of its runs exceed the 0.95 success threshold. Further analyses uncover distinct capability profiles across scientific task types and substantial variation in execution efficiency and stability. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/SKYLENAGE-AI/Sci-Agent-Exam.
Tianyun Zhong, Wei Wang, Jialin Li +17
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences · Institute of Software, Chinese Academy of Sciences · AI Data, Alibaba Group +4
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.
Hanhua Hong, Yizhi Li, Luu Gia Huy +3
The University of Manchester · IQuest Research · Vietnam National University +2
AI for Research (AI4Research) leverages AI to automate and improve scientific workflows. While experimental design is a critical stage of the research process, prior work has focused primarily on code implementation and execution, overlooking the importance of this stage, and no benchmark exists to evaluate AI's ability to conduct systematic experiment design. To bridge this gap, we propose SCOPE, a Scientific COmprehensive Planning Evaluation Benchmark constructed from 300 high-quality latest papers across 19 research domains from top-tier venues (e.g., ICML, NeurIPS, and ICLR),evaluating LLMs on two dimensions: High-Level planning completeness (main, ablation, and analysis experiments) and Low-Level configuration accuracy and rationality (datasets, baselines, and metrics). Benchmarking reveals three findings: (1) most LLMs cannot directly design high-quality experiments; (2) all LLMs exhibit a performance bottleneck in low-level configuration; and (3) search mode does not improve design quality. Furthermore, to address these challenges, we propose OptED, a novel agentic workflow to optimize LLM-based experimental design, that enhances LLM-based experimental planning through stage isolation, tool augmentation, and rule-based constraints, effectively alleviating the configuration bottleneck.
Zejun Liu, Jian Wu, Ru Peng +4
Westlake University · Zhejiang University · Nanjing University of Science and Technology +1