Reproducibility

Machine Learning (ML) has transformed many scientific fields, yet key applications still lack standardized benchmarks. Raman spectroscopy, a widely used technique for non-invasive molecular analysis, is one such field where progress is limited by fragmented datasets, inconsistent evaluation, and models that fail to capture the structure of spectral data. We introduce RamanBench, the first large-scale, fully reproducible benchmark for ML on Raman spectroscopy, consisting of streamlined data access, evaluation protocols and code, as well as a live leaderboard. It unifies 74 datasets (including 16 first released with this benchmark) across four domains, comprising 325,668 spectra and spanning classification and regression tasks under diverse experimental conditions. We benchmark 28 models under a standardized protocol, including classical methods (e.g., PLS), Raman-specific (e.g., RamanNet), Tabular Foundation Model (TFM) (e.g., TabPFN), and time-series approaches (e.g., ROCKET). TFM consistently outperform domain-specific and gradient boosting baselines, while time-series models remain competitive. However, no method generalizes across datasets, revealing a fundamental gap. Therefore, we invite the community to contribute new approaches to our living benchmark, with the potential to accelerate advances in critical applications such as medical diagnostics, biological research, and materials science.

Electrocardiogram (ECG) biometrics have emerged as a promising modality for continuous, liveness-aware authentication in wearable systems. However, many prior studies report overly optimistic results due to data leakage (e.g., random splits within the same session). To address this issue, we introduce ECG-biometrics-bench, a modular, reproducible benchmarking framework that standardizes preprocessing, segmentation, and evaluation across seven widely used public ECG datasets spanning clinical, ambulatory, and large-scale cohort settings. The framework supports both closed-set and open-set (i.e., subject-disjoint generalization in this work) evaluation, as well as progressively realistic protocols including cross-session and long-term temporal separation. To facilitate reproducible research in the community, the ECG-biometrics-bench repository will be made publicly accessible on GitHub upon the acceptance of this manuscript. Through a comprehensive multi-dataset analysis, we expose the Random Split Fallacy, demonstrating that intra-session evaluation protocols artificially inflate performance while masking severe degradation caused by temporal drift and unseen identities. Furthermore, by evaluating multiple architectures, including DeepECG, ResNet1D, and CNN-LSTM, we show that these failures are not model-specific but are likely inherent to current supervised feature-learning paradigms. Finally, we demonstrate that performance degradation due to temporal aging can be partially mitigated through a heavy enrollment, lightweight authentication strategy based on dynamic multi-session template fusion. These findings establish a more realistic baseline for ECG biometrics and highlight critical challenges that must be addressed for reliable real-world deployment.

Engagement, which links to attentional, emotional, and cognitive dimensions, plays an important role in learning. In online and video-based learning environments, learners often need to regulate their own interactions with instructional materials. Measuring and reflecting on engagement can therefore support both learners and adaptive learning systems. In this study, we use wearable and camera-based sensing devices to collect physiological and motion signals, including PPG, ECG, EDA, EEG, IMU, heart rate, temperature, and eye-tracking data, to estimate learner engagement. We conducted a user study with 16 participants in a video-based learning scenario, where participants completed learning tasks and provided repeated in-situ self-reports of engagement through brief probes. We develop and evaluate a system for engagement estimation, compare different sensing modalities, and further analyze the feasibility and effectiveness of multimodal modeling for characterizing learner engagement. Across participant-based cross-validation, our model achieves an MAE of 0.81, 83.75% within-1 accuracy, 73.93% binary accuracy, and 68.45% binary Macro-F1, outperforming sensor-free, statistical, deep temporal, foundation-model, and LLM-based baselines. Our results suggest that fine-grained engagement estimation is feasible but inherently noisy, and that practical systems should prioritize lightweight combinations of behavioral and physiological signals over full multimodal instrumentation. We release the EduGage dataset, including synchronized multimodal sensor signals, probe-aligned momentary engagement labels, video metadata, quizzes, and study materials, to support reproducible research on fine-grained sensor-based engagement modeling in self-guided learning.

Large language models are increasingly deployed as autonomous coding agents and have achieved remarkably strong performance on software engineering benchmarks. However, it is unclear whether such success transfers to computational scientific workflows, where tasks require not only strong coding ability, but also the ability to navigate complex, domain-specific procedures and to interpret results in the context of scientific claims. To address this question, we present AutoMat, a benchmark for evaluating LLM-based agents' ability to reproduce claims from computational materials science. AutoMat poses three interrelated challenges: recovering underspecified computational procedures, navigating specialized toolchains, and determining whether the resulting evidence supports a claim. By working closely with subject matter experts, we curate a set of claims from real materials science papers to test whether coding agents can recover and execute the end-to-end workflow needed to support (or undermine) such claims. We then evaluate multiple representative coding agent settings across several foundation models. Our results show that current LLM-based agents obtain low overall success rates on AutoMat, with the best-performing setting achieving a success rate of only 53%. Error analysis further reveals that agents perform worst when workflows must be reconstructed from paper text alone and that they fail primarily due to incomplete procedures, methodological deviations, and execution fragility. Taken together, these findings position AutoMat as both a benchmark for computational scientific reproducibility and a tool for diagnosing the current limitations of agentic systems in AI-for-science settings.

Numerous metascience studies and other initiatives have begun to monitor the prevalence of open science practices when it is more important to understand the 'downstream' effects or impacts of open science. PLOS and DataSeer have developed a new LLM-based indicator to measure an important effect of open science: the reuse of research data. Our results show a data reuse rate of 43%, which is higher than established bibliometric techniques. We show that data reuse can be measured at scale using LLMs and generative artificial intelligence. The positive effects of research data sharing and reuse may currently be underestimated.

Code sandboxes have emerged as a critical infrastructure for advancing the coding capabilities of large language models, providing verifiable feedback for both RL training and evaluation. However, existing systems fail to provide accurate verification and efficiency under high-concurrency workloads. We present ScaleBox, a high-fidelity and scalable system designed to address these limitations in large-scale code training. ScaleBox introduces automated special-judge generation and management, fine-grained parallel execution across test cases with seamless multi-node coordination, and a configuration-driven evaluation suite for reproducible benchmarking. A series of experiments demonstrates that ScaleBox significantly enhances code verification accuracy and efficiency. Our further RLVR experiments show that ScaleBox substantially improves both performance on LiveCodeBench and training stability, significantly outperforming heuristic-matching baselines. By providing a reliable and high-throughput infrastructure, ScaleBox facilitates more effective research and development in large-scale code training.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are now widely used for query reformulation and expansion in Information Retrieval, with many studies reporting substantial effectiveness gains. However, these results are typically obtained under heterogeneous experimental conditions, making it difficult to assess which findings are reproducible and which depend on specific implementation choices. In this work, we present a systematic reproducibility and comparative study of ten representative LLM-based query reformulation methods under a unified and strictly controlled experimental framework. We evaluate methods across two architectural LLM families at two parameter scales, three retrieval paradigms (lexical, learned sparse, and dense), and nine benchmark datasets spanning TREC Deep Learning and BEIR. Our results show that reformulation gains are strongly conditioned on the retrieval paradigm, that improvements observed under lexical retrieval do not consistently transfer to neural retrievers, and that larger LLMs do not uniformly yield better downstream performance. These findings clarify the stability and limits of reported gains in prior work. To enable transparent replication and ongoing comparison, we release all prompts, configurations, evaluation scripts, and run files through QueryGym, an open-source reformulation toolkit with a public leaderboard.\footnote{https://leaderboard.querygym.com}

The Hypencoder, proposed by Killingback et al., is a retrieval framework that replaces the fixed inner-product scoring function used in standard bi-encoders with a query-specific neural network (the $q$-net), whose weights are generated by a hypernetwork from the contextualized query embeddings. This design enables more expressive relevance estimation while preserving independent query and document encoding. In this work, we conduct a reproducibility study of the Hypencoder and extend the original analysis in three directions. Our reproduction confirms that the Hypencoder outperforms a similarly trained bi-encoder baseline on in-domain and out-of-domain benchmarks, and that the proposed efficient search algorithm substantially reduces query latency with minimal performance loss. On hard retrieval tasks, we find partial support: the Hypencoder outperforms the baseline on DL-Hard and FollowIR, but not on TREC TOT, where checkpoint incompatibility and fine-tuning sensitivity complicate full verification. Beyond reproduction, we investigate three extensions: (i)~integrating alternative pre-trained encoders into the Hypencoder framework, where we find that performance gains depend on the encoder and fine-tuning strategy; (ii)~comparing query latency against a Faiss-based bi-encoder pipeline, revealing that standard bi-encoder retrieval remains faster under both exhaustive and efficient search settings; and (iii)~evaluating adversarial robustness, where we find that the $q$-net's non-linear scoring does not provide a consistent robustness disadvantage over inner-product scoring. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/arneeichholtz/Hypencoder-reprod.

Reasoning-based Large Language Models (LLMs) like PO4ISR have set new benchmarks in session-based recommendation. However, the reproducibility of their reasoning capabilities across diverse semantic domains remains unexplored. In this work, we conduct a rigorous reproducibility study of PO4ISR to assess its generalization limits. Our analysis reveals a critical failure mode: standard reasoning prompts suffer from severe contextual drift in long sessions, leading to performance degradation on semantically complex datasets like Games and Bundle. To quantify and resolve this stability gap, we introduce PO4ISR++, a robustness-enhanced implementation that integrates reflexive prompting and consistent rank detection. Unlike the original static prompting strategy, our approach dynamically adapts to cross-domain cues. We benchmark both the original implementation and our robust variant on ML-1M, Games, and Bundle. Our results confirm that while the original model struggles in new domains, our reproducible extension restores performance, yielding a stabilized gain of up to 54% on Games and 96% on Bundle. We release open-source artifacts, including the reproduced baseline and our enhanced framework, to facilitate reliable future research in LLM-based recommendation.

Bug tracking systems play a crucial role in software maintenance, yet developers frequently struggle with low-quality user-submitted reports that omit essential details such as Steps to Reproduce (S2R), Observed Behavior (OB), and Expected Behavior (EB). We propose ImproBR, an LLM-based pipeline that automatically detects and improves bug reports by addressing missing, incomplete, and ambiguous S2R, OB, and EB sections. ImproBR employs a hybrid detector combining fine-tuned DistilBERT, heuristic analysis, and an LLM analyzer, guided by GPT-4o mini with section-specific few-shot prompts and a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) pipeline grounded in Minecraft Wiki domain knowledge. Evaluated on Mojira, ImproBR improved structural completeness from 7.9% to 96.4%, more than doubled the proportion of executable S2R from 28.8% to 67.6%, and raised fully reproducible bug reports from 1 to 13 across 139 challenging real-world reports.

Graph neural networks such as ParticleNet and transformer based networks on point clouds such as ParticleTransformer achieve state-of-the-art performance on jet tagging benchmarks at the Large Hadron Collider, yet the physical reasoning behind their predictions remains opaque. We present different methods, i.e. perturbation-based (GNNExplainer), Shapley-value-based (GNNShap), and gradient-based (GRADCam); adapted to operate on LundNet's Lund-plane graph representation. Leveraging the fact that each node in the Lund plane corresponds to a physically meaningful parton splitting, we construct Monte Carlo truth explanation masks and introduce a physics-informed evaluation framework that goes beyond standard fidelity metrics. We perform the analysis in three transverse-momentum bins ($\mathrm{p_T} \in [500,700]$, $[800,1000]$, and the inclusive region $[500,1000]$ GeV), revealing how explanation quality and focus shift between non-perturbative and perturbative regimes. We further quantify the correlation between explainer-assigned node importance and classical jet substructure observables -- $N$-subjettiness ratios $τ_{21}$ and $τ_{32}$ and the energy correlation functions -- establishing the degree to which the model has learned known QCD features. We find that overall the weight assigned by explainability methods has a correlation with analytic observables, with expected shift across different phase space regimes, indicating that a trained neural network indeed learns some aspects of jet-substructure moments. Our open-source implementation enables reproducible explainability studies for graph-based jet taggers.

Existing REST API testing tools are typically evaluated using code coverage and crash-based fault metrics. However, recent LLM-based approaches increasingly generate tests from NL requirements to validate functional behaviour, making traditional metrics weak proxies for whether generated tests validate intended behaviour. To address this gap, we present RESTestBench, a benchmark comprising three REST services paired with manually verified NL requirements in both precise and vague variants, enabling controlled and reproducible evaluation of requirement-based test generation. RESTestBench further introduces a requirements-based mutation testing metric that measures the fault-detection effectiveness of a generated test case with respect to a specific requirement, extending the property-based approach of Bartocci et al. . Using RESTestBench, we evaluate two approaches across multiple state-of-the-art LLMs: (i) non-refinement-based generation, and (ii) refinement-based generation guided by interaction with the running SUT. In the refinement experiments, RESTestBench assesses how exposure to the actual implementation, valid or mutated, affects test effectiveness. Our results show that test effectiveness drops considerably when the generator interacts with faulty or mutated code, especially for vague requirements, sometimes negating the benefit of refinement and indicating that incorporating actual SUT behaviour is unnecessary when requirement detail is high.

This paper investigates how GPT-based tools can assist in building reusable analytical spreadsheet models. After a screening, we evaluate five GPT extensions and select Excel AI by pulsrai.com for detailed testing. Through structured experiments on simple problem statements, we assess Excel AI's performance against the ERFR criteria (each input in a cell; cell formulas; no hardwired numbers; labels; accurate). Results show that while Excel AI can produce well-structured models, it is inconsistent and often non-reproducible. We identify two central challenges - "the problem of confidence" and "the problem of workflow" - which highlight the need for skilled users to verify and adapt GPT-generated spreadsheets. Though GPTs show promise for generating draft models that may reduce development time or lower skill requirements, current tools remain unreliable for professional use. We conclude with recommendations for future research into prompt engineering, reproducibility, and larger-scale modeling tasks.

Controlling illumination in images is essential for photography and visual content creation. While closed-source models have demonstrated impressive illumination control, open-source alternatives either require heavy control inputs like depth maps or do not release their data and code. We present a fully open-source and reproducible pipeline for learning illumination control in diffusion models. Our approach builds a data engine that transforms well-lit images into supervised training triplets consisting of a poorly-illuminated input image, a natural language lighting instruction, and a well-illuminated output image. We finetune a diffusion model on this data and demonstrate significant improvements over baseline SD 1.5, SDXL, and FLUX.1-dev models in perceptual similarity, structural similarity, and identity preservation. Our work provides a reproducible solution built entirely with open-source tools and publicly available data. We release all our code, data, and model weights publicly.

Agentic artificial intelligence systems promise to accelerate scientific workflows, but neuroimaging poses unique challenges: heterogeneous modalities (sMRI, fMRI, dMRI, EEG), long multi-stage pipelines, and persistent reproducibility risks. To address this gap, we present NeuroClaw, a domain-specialized multi-agent research assistant for executable and reproducible neuroimaging research. NeuroClaw operates directly on raw neuroimaging data across formats and modalities, grounding decisions in dataset semantics and BIDS metadata so users need not prepare curated inputs or bespoke model code. The platform combines harness engineering with end-to-end environment management, including pinned Python environments, Docker support, automated installers for common neuroimaging tools, and GPU configuration. In practice, this layer emphasizes checkpointing, post-execution verification, structured audit traces, and controlled runtime setup, making toolchains more transparent while improving reproducibility and auditability. A three-tier skill/agent hierarchy separates user-facing interaction, high-level orchestration, and low-level tool skills to decompose complex workflows into safe, reusable units. Alongside the NeuroClaw framework, we introduce NeuroBench, a system-level benchmark for executability, artifact validity, and reproducibility readiness. Across multiple multimodal LLMs, NeuroClaw-enabled runs yield consistent and substantial score improvements compared with direct agent invocation. Project homepage: https://cuhk-aim-group.github.io/NeuroClaw/index.html

Target Safety Assessment (TSA) requires systematic integration of genetic, transcriptomic, target homology, pharmacological, and clinical data to evaluate potential safety liabilities of therapeutic targets. This process is labor-intensive and expert-dependent, posing challenges in scalability and reproducibility. We present TSAssistant, a human-in-the-loop multi-agent framework that decomposes TSA report generation into a workflow of specialized subagents: Research Subagents that each ground and cite a single TSA domain, and Synthesis Subagents that integrate findings across domains. Subagents retrieve and synthesize evidence from curated biomedical sources through standardized tool interfaces and produce individually citable, evidence-grounded sections, with behavior shaped by a hierarchical instruction architecture that separates coordination logic from domain expertise and user intent. To complement these soft constraints, programmatic execution hooks and persistent memory stores enforce hard constraints across the workflow, while an interactive refinement loop allows experts to review and revise individual sections with full conversational context preserved across iterations. Rather than a single holistic comparison, we decompose report quality into reproducibility, evidential grounding, task-level accuracy, and controllability under expert oversight, finding high reproducibility and grounding, substantial agreement with the human reference, and net-positive expert-driven refinement.

We report a reproducible error pattern in GPT-5.4 on OWL2DL compliance queries: the model frequently answers unknown'' when the reasoner-entailed answer is no'' under \emph{FunctionalProperty} closure or class \emph{disjointness}. Using 180 reasoner-audited queries from a procedural expansion of the observed pattern plus 18 hand-authored held-out queries in two unrelated domains (insurance and clinical), we compare four interaction modes under matched query budget: single-shot, three rounds of generic ``you-are-wrong'' retry, three rounds of reasoner-verdict repair with an open-world-assumption (OWA) hint, and the same repair without the hint. Direct faithfulness is 43.9,% (Wilson 95,% CI $[36.8,51.2]$); generic retry reaches 81.7,% ($[75.4,86.6]$); the verdict-with-hint variant is \emph{worse} at 67.2,% ($[60.1,73.7]$); the verdict-only variant reaches 97.8,% ($[94.4,99.1]$). All pairwise comparisons remain significant under McNemar's exact test with Bonferroni correction ($α= 0.01$; all $p < 10^{-5}$). The same fingerprint accounts for 4/4 errors on the held-out queries. Our interpretation is bounded: prompt framing can matter more than corrective content, and reasoner-guided wrappers should be ablated explicitly.

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.

Large language model (LLM) agents with tool-calling capabilities are increasingly deployed in production systems, yet a fundamental reliability question remains under-explored: does the same agent behave the same way twice? We present a systematic empirical study of behavioral consistency in multi-step tool-calling agents, measuring whether agents select the same tools, in the same order, with the same arguments, across repeated identical invocations. Unlike prior work on consistency in ReAct-style agents(search-only, free-text actions), we study the richer setting of structured tool-calling interfaces with typed parameters and consequential side effects.

We tested whether auditory-evoked EEG supports subject-independent five-vowel perception decoding when trial identity, model identity, prediction provenance, and participant-level inference are controlled within a single benchmark. We reconstructed Study 2 event tables from OpenNeuro ds006104 version 1.0.1 and analysed the consonant-vowel pair task. One-to-one marker-stimulus pairing yielded 3,840 independent trials; control-condition selection and artifact rejection retained 1,094 epochs from 16 participants and 61 EEG channels. Thirteen unique implementations were evaluated using leave-one-subject-out testing, with participant metrics reconstructed from 36,102 trial predictions across 33 complete prediction replicas. Random Forest was numerically highest at 21.474% balanced accuracy (95% participant-bootstrap interval, 19.526-23.482%; chance, 20%), but neither its participant-level tests nor any implementation survived correction across the 13-model family. Deep-model performance was close to chance, and several architectures showed substantial seed-dependent variation and low trial-label agreement. An exploratory MDM analysis comprising 9,616 genuine refits across training cohorts of 3-15 participants showed no monotonic performance gain. Within this dataset and protocol, evidence for reliable cross-subject five-vowel decoding is limited. The benchmark provides a reproducible chain from source rows to retained epochs, predictions, participant-level metrics, multiplicity-adjusted inference, and bounded diagnostic analyses.

We study replicable algorithms for stochastic multi-armed bandits (MAB) and linear bandits with UCB (Upper Confidence Bound) based exploration. A bandit algorithm is $ρ$-replicable if two executions using shared internal randomness but independent reward realizations produce the same action sequence with probability at least $1-ρ$. Prior approaches to this problem are elimination-based and, in linear bandits with infinitely many actions, rely on discretization, leading to suboptimal dependence on the dimension $d$ and $ρ$. We develop optimistic alternatives for both settings. For stochastic multi-armed bandits, we propose RepUCB, a replicable batched UCB algorithm and show that it attains a regret $O\!\left(\frac{K^2\log^2 T}{ρ^2}\sum_{a:Δ_a>0}\left(Δ_a+\frac{\log(KT\log T)}{Δ_a}\right)\right)$. For stochastic linear bandits, we first introduce RepRidge, a replicable ridge regression estimator that satisfies both a confidence guarantee and a $ρ$-replicability guarantee. Beyond its role in our bandit algorithm, this may also be of independent interest in other statistical estimation settings. We then use RepRidge to design RepLinUCB, a replicable optimistic algorithm for stochastic linear bandits, and show that its regret is bounded by $\widetilde{O}\!\big(\big(d+\frac{d^3}ρ\big)\sqrt{T}\big)$. This improves the best prior regret guarantee by a factor of $O(d/ρ)$, showing that our optimistic algorithm can substantially reduce the price of replicability. This is the first linear-bandit algorithm with an optimal dependence on $ρ$ for large number of arms. Finally, we extend our framework to stochastic generalized linear bandits by developing RepGLM, a replicable penalized GLM estimator, and RepGLMUCB, a replicable optimistic algorithm for this setting.

The rapid growth of scientific software has created practical barriers for bioinformatics research. Although powerful statistical, artificial intelligence (AI)-based methods are now widely available, their effective use is often hindered by fragmented distribution, inconsistent documentation, complex dependencies, and difficult-to-reproduce execution environments. As a result, reusing published tools and workflow adaptation to own date remains technically demanding and time-intensive, even for experienced users. Here, we present PoSyMed, an open and modular platform for the controlled integration, composition, and execution of bioinformatics tools and workflows. PoSyMed combines a backend-centered platform architecture with formal tool descriptions, controlled container-based build and execution processes, persistent workflow state, and a dialogue-based user interface. Large language models (LLM) are integrated not as autonomous decision-makers, but as human-computer interface with bounded semantic assistants that help identify tools, propose workflow steps, and support parameterization within a typed, validated, and human-supervised execution environment. PoSyMed is designed to improve reproducibility, traceability, and transparency in practical biomedical analysis within one platform. We describe the system architecture and evaluate its behavior across representative biological software scenarios with respect to workflow support, interaction design, and platform extensibility. PoSyMed is publicly available at https://apps.cosy.bio/posymed.

Counterfactual explanations (CEs) provide an intuitive way to understand recommender systems by identifying minimal modifications to user-item interactions that alter recommendation outcomes. Existing CE methods for recommender systems, however, have been evaluated under heterogeneous protocols, using different datasets, recommenders, metrics, and even explanation formats, which hampers reproducibility and fair comparison. Our paper systematically reproduces, re-implement, and re-evaluate eleven state-of-the-art CE methods for recommender systems, covering both native explainers (e.g., LIME-RS, SHAP, PRINCE, ACCENT, LXR, GREASE) and specific graph-based explainers originally proposed for GNNs. Here, a unified benchmarking framework is proposed to assess explainers along three dimensions: explanation format (implicit vs. explicit), evaluation level (item-level vs. list-level), and perturbation scope (user interaction vectors vs. user-item interaction graphs). Our evaluation protocol includes effectiveness, sparsity, and computational complexity metrics, and extends existing item-level assessments to top-K list-level explanations. Through extensive experiments on three real-world datasets and six representative recommender models, we analyze how well previously reported strengths of CE methods generalize across diverse setups. We observe that the trade-off between effectiveness and sparsity depends strongly on the specific method and evaluation setting, particularly under the explicit format; in addition, explainer performance remains largely consistent across item level and list level evaluations, and several graph-based explainers exhibit notable scalability limitations on large recommender graphs. Our results refine and challenge earlier conclusions about the robustness and practicality of CE generation methods in recommender systems: https://github.com/L2R-UET/CFExpRec.

Systematic ablations are essential to attribute performance gains in AI Virtual Cells, yet they are rarely performed because biological repositories are under-standardized and tightly coupled to domain-specific data and formats. While recent coding agents can translate ideas into implementations, they typically stop at producing code and lack a verifier that can reproduce strong baselines and rigorously test which components truly matter. We introduce AblateCell, a reproduce-then-ablate agent for virtual cell repositories that closes this verification gap. AblateCell first reproduces reported baselines end-to-end by auto-configuring environments, resolving dependency and data issues, and rerunning official evaluations while emitting verifiable artifacts. It then conducts closed-loop ablation by generating a graph of isolated repository mutations and adaptively selecting experiments under a reward that trades off performance impact and execution cost. Evaluated on three single-cell perturbation prediction repositories (CPA, GEARS, BioLORD), AblateCell achieves 88.9% (+29.9% to human expert) end-to-end workflow success and 93.3% (+53.3% to heuristic) accuracy in recovering ground-truth critical components. These results enable scalable, repository-grounded verification and attribution directly on biological codebases.

Fairness audits of institutional risk models are critical for understanding how deployed machine learning pipelines allocate resources. Drawing on multi-year collaboration with Centennial College, where our prior ethnographic work introduced the ASP-HEI Cycle, we present a replica-based audit of a deployed Early Warning System (EWS), replicating its model using institutional training data and design specifications. We evaluate disparities by gender, age, and residency status across the full pipeline (training data, model predictions, and post-processing) using standard fairness metrics. Our audit reveals systematic misallocation: younger, male, and international students are disproportionately flagged for support, even when many ultimately succeed, while older and female students with comparable dropout risk are under-identified. Post-processing amplifies these disparities by collapsing heterogeneous probabilities into percentile-based risk tiers. This work provides a replicable methodology for auditing institutional ML systems and shows how disparities emerge and compound across stages, highlighting the importance of evaluating construct validity alongside statistical fairness. It contributes one empirical thread to a broader program investigating algorithms, student data, and power in higher education.

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.

Predictions from machine learning algorithms can vary across random seeds, inducing instability in downstream debiased machine learning estimators. We formalize random seed stability via a concentration condition and prove that subbagging guarantees stability for any bounded-outcome regression algorithm. We introduce a new cross-fitting procedure, adaptive cross-bagging, which simultaneously eliminates seed dependence from both nuisance estimation and sample splitting in debiased machine learning. Numerical experiments confirm that the method achieves the targeted level of stability whereas alternatives do not. Our method incurs a small computational penalty relative to standard practice whereas alternative methods incur large penalties.

Determining whether published scientific findings can successfully be replicated is a long-standing challenge in the empirical sciences. Existing approaches for replicability assessment typically rely either on human judgment, i.e., creative assembly of human experts, or on machine learning models trained on paper content metadata. While both approaches have demonstrated value, each also has important limitations. Human forecasts can be influenced by cognitive biases and narrow exposure to the research literature, while automated assessments often struggle to capture contextual cues and subtle signals of credibility. In this paper, we examine a hybrid approach. Specifically, we introduce a hybrid prediction market in which algorithmic agents trade alongside human participants to jointly estimate the likelihood that a published scientific finding will be corroborated via the outcome of a controlled replication study. Agents are trained on outcomes from hundreds of prior replication studies while human participants contribute domain knowledge through real-time trading. We evaluate this hybrid approach through multiple live experiments involving participants from different academic disciplines and compare its performance to artificial-only and human-only baselines. Our results show that, except for a few cases, hybrid markets match or outperform artificial prediction markets, producing more accurate and reliable replication forecasts.

Educational assistants should spend more computation only when the task needs it. This paper rewrites our earlier draft around the system that was actually implemented and archived in the repository: a sample-level 1B to 7B cascade for the shared-8 EduBench benchmark. The final system, Pangu-ACE, uses a 1B tutor-router to produce a draft answer plus routing signals, then either accepts the draft or escalates the sample to a 7B specialist prompt. We also correct a major offline evaluation bug: earlier summaries over-credited some open-form outputs that only satisfied superficial format checks. After CPU-side rescoring from saved prediction JSONL, the full Chinese test archive (7013 samples) shows that cascade_final improves deterministic quality from 0.457 to 0.538 and format validity from 0.707 to 0.866 over the legacy rule_v2 system while accepting 19.7% of requests directly at 1B. Routing is strongly task dependent: IP is accepted by 1B 78.0% of the time, while QG and EC still escalate almost always. The current archived deployment does not yet show latency gains, so the defensible efficiency story is routing selectivity rather than wall-clock speedup. We also package a reproducible artifact-first paper workflow and clarify the remaining external-baseline gap: GPT-5.4 re-judging is implemented locally, but the configured provider endpoint and key are invalid, so final sampled-baseline alignment with GPT-5.4 remains pending infrastructure repair.

Deep Research Agents (DRAs) aim to solve complex, long-horizon research tasks involving planning, retrieval, multimodal understanding, and report generation, yet their evaluation remains challenging due to dynamic web environments and ambiguous task definitions. We propose DR$^{3}$-Eval, a realistic and reproducible benchmark for evaluating deep research agents on multimodal, multi-file report generation. DR$^{3}$-Eval is constructed from authentic user-provided materials and paired with a per-task static research sandbox corpus that simulates open-web complexity while remaining fully verifiable, containing supportive documents, distractors, and noise. Moreover, we introduce a multi-dimensional evaluation framework measuring Information Recall, Factual Accuracy, Citation Coverage, Instruction Following, and Depth Quality, and validate its alignment with human judgments. Experiments with our developed multi-agent system DR$^{3}$-Agent based on multiple state-of-the-art language models demonstrate that DR$^{3}$-Eval is highly challenging and reveals critical failure modes in retrieval robustness and hallucination control. Our code and data are publicly available.

Autonomous LLM agents now produce complete research artifacts in machine-learning sandboxes, but real computational physics is harder: experiments are first-principles calculations against re-runnable physical ground truth, and meaningful new work almost always builds on a key existing paper. We ask whether such an agent can perform grounded scrutiny of published computational physics - reading a paper, reproducing it from scratch, and surfacing methodological concerns from execution. We deploy a single Claude Opus 4.6 configuration at two complementary scopes. At scale, across 111 open-access Quantum ESPRESSO papers, an autonomous agent runs the read-plan-compute-compare loop and, although never asked to critique, raises substantive methodological concerns on ~42% of papers; 85 of 88 of these critiques (96.6%) surface only after the agent has actually run a calculation, with a reading-only ceiling of 1.8%. Critique emerges from reproduction, not from reading. In depth, on one Nature Communications paper on multiscale device simulation of a 2D-material MOSFET, a fresh agent inheriting a verified reproduction pipeline autonomously produces a 14-concern physics inventory and a complete, submission-form six-page Comment that revises the paper's L_G = 5 nm headline. Two of its L_G = 5 nm headline-challenging attacks - a source-degeneration contact-resistance bound and a Sb-doping degradation ratio - are absent from the published 21-reviewer peer review.

Robotic path planning problems are often NP-hard, and practical solutions typically rely on approximation algorithms with provable performance guarantees for general cases. While designing such algorithms is challenging, formally proving their approximation optimality is even more demanding, which requires domain-specific geometric insights and multi-step mathematical reasoning over complex operational constraints. Recent Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong performance on mathematical reasoning benchmarks, yet their ability to assist with research-level optimality proofs in robotic path planning remains under-explored. In this work, we introduce the first benchmark for evaluating LLMs on approximation-ratio proofs of robotic path planning algorithms. The benchmark consists of 34 research-grade proof tasks spanning diverse planning problem types and complexity levels, each requiring structured reasoning over algorithm descriptions, problem constraints, and theoretical guarantees. Our evaluation of state-of-the-art proprietary and open-source LLMs reveals that even the strongest models struggle to produce fully valid proofs without external domain knowledge. However, providing LLMs with task-specific in-context lemmas substantially improves reasoning quality, a factor that is more effective than generic chain-of-thought prompting or supplying the ground-truth approximation ratio as posterior knowledge. We further provide fine-grained error analysis to characterize common logical failures and hallucinations, and demonstrate how each error type can be mitigated through targeted context augmentation.

This paper replicates and extends the system used in the AuTexTification shared task for authorship attribution of machine-generated texts. Exact replication was not possible because of differences in data splits, model availability, and implementation details, which we document as a case study in reproducibility. We tested newer multilingual language models (mDeBERTa-v3-base, Qwen, mGPT) and added 26 document-level stylometric features, using ablation, permutation importance, and SHAP analysis to assess feature influence. A single shared configuration was applied to both English and Spanish across Subtask 1 and Subtask 2. Averaged over three random seeds, the shared multilingual configuration performs comparably to or better than the language-specific baseline, with the clearest gains on model attribution (Subtask 2). The additional stylometric features yield small improvements, led by lexical diversity, but their contribution falls within seed variance once predictability-based probabilities are included, which remain the dominant signal. The study also shows that clear documentation is important for reliable replication and fair comparison of systems.

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).

Multilingual NLP research increasingly involves hundreds or thousands of languages across different datasets. Managing, discovering, and reporting language metadata becomes a common hurdle at these scales. We present QQ, a metadata toolkit and browser explorer. QQ compiles language metadata sources into a graph of language varieties, scripts, regions, identifiers, names, and relations, and exposes it through a Python API, a command-line interface, and a browser-based explorer. Users can normalize identifiers, retrieve metadata, traverse relations, and discover which external resources contain a language. We demonstrate QQ on three workflows: an audit of the HuggingFace Hub, linking resources that use different identifier systems, and generating reproducible language-reporting tables. QQ supports FAIR-oriented metadata practices through versioning, open formats, and reusable interfaces.

Privacy preserving machine learning deployments in sensitive deep learning applications; from medical imaging to autonomous systems; increasingly require combining multiple techniques. Yet, practitioners lack systematic guidance to assess the synergistic and non-additive interactions of these hybrid configurations, relying instead on isolated technique analysis that misses critical system level interactions. We introduce PrivacyBench, a benchmarking framework that reveals striking failures in privacy technique combinations with severe deployment implications. Through systematic evaluation across ResNet18 and ViT models on medical datasets, we uncover that FL + DP combinations exhibit severe convergence failure, with accuracy dropping from 98% to 13% while compute costs and energy consumption substantially increase. In contrast, FL + SMPC maintains near-baseline performance with modest overhead. Our framework provides the first systematic platform for evaluating privacy-utility-cost trade-offs through automated YAML configuration, resource monitoring, and reproducible experimental protocols. PrivacyBench enables practitioners to identify problematic technique interactions before deployment, moving privacy-preserving computer vision from ad-hoc evaluation toward principled systems design. These findings demonstrate that privacy techniques cannot be composed arbitrarily and provide critical guidance for robust deployment in resource-constrained environments.

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.

Safety alignment in Large Language Models is critical for healthcare; however, reliance on binary refusal boundaries often results in over-refusal of benign queries or unsafe compliance with harmful ones. While existing benchmarks measure these extremes, they fail to evaluate Safe Completion: the model's ability to maximise helpfulness on dual-use or borderline queries by providing safe, high-level guidance without crossing into actionable harm. We introduce Health-ORSC-Bench, the first large-scale benchmark designed to systematically measure Over-Refusal and Safe Completion quality in healthcare. Comprising 31,920 benign boundary prompts across seven health categories (e.g., self-harm, medical misinformation), our framework uses an automated pipeline with human validation to test models at varying levels of intent ambiguity. We evaluate 30 state-of-the-art LLMs, including GPT-5 and Claude-4, revealing a significant tension: safety-optimised models frequently refuse up to 80% of "Hard" benign prompts, while domain-specific models often sacrifice safety for utility. Our findings demonstrate that model family and size significantly influence calibration: larger frontier models (e.g., GPT-5, Llama-4) exhibit "safety-pessimism" and higher over-refusal than smaller or MoE-based counterparts (e.g., Qwen-3-Next), highlighting that current LLMs struggle to balance refusal and compliance. Health-ORSC-Bench provides a rigorous standard for calibrating the next generation of medical AI assistants toward nuanced, safe, and helpful completions. Furthermore, our benchmark facilitates reproducible evaluation, encourages safety calibration, and supports development of clinically reliable, context-aware, human-aligned medical AI systems. Our code and data are available at: https://github.com/ZhihaoZhang97/Health-ORSC-Bench. Warning: Some contents may include toxic or undesired contents.

Software testing is crucial for ensuring the correctness and reliability of software systems. Automated generation of issue reproduction tests from natural language issue descriptions enhances developer productivity by simplifying root cause analysis, promotes test-driven development -- "test first, write code later", and can be used for improving the effectiveness of automated issue resolution systems like coding agents. Existing methods proposed for this task predominantly rely on closed-source LLMs, with limited exploration of open models. To address this, we propose SWE-Tester -- a novel pipeline for training open-source LLMs to generate issue reproduction tests. First, we curate a high-quality training dataset of 41K instances from 2.6K open-source GitHub repositories and use it to train LLMs of varying sizes and families. The fine-tuned models achieve absolute improvements of up to 10% in success rate and 21% in change coverage on SWT-Bench Verified. Further analysis shows consistent improvements with increased inference-time compute, more data, and larger models. These results highlight the effectiveness of our framework for advancing open-source LLMs in this domain.

Across the social and medical sciences, researchers recognize that specifying planned research activities (i.e., 'registration') prior to the commencement of research has benefits for both the transparency and rigour of science. Despite this, evidence suggests that study registrations frequently go unexamined, minimizing their effectiveness. In a way this is no surprise: manually checking registrations against papers is labour- and time-intensive, requiring careful reading across formats and expertise across domains. The advent of AI unlocks new possibilities in facilitating this activity. We present RegCheck, a modular LLM-assisted tool designed to help researchers, reviewers, and editors from across scientific disciplines compare study registrations with their corresponding papers. Importantly, RegCheck keeps human expertise and judgement in the loop by (i) ensuring that users are the ones who determine which features should be compared, and (ii) presenting the most relevant text associated with each feature to the user, facilitating (rather than replacing) human discrepancy judgements. RegCheck also generates shareable reports with unique RegCheck IDs, enabling them to be easily shared and verified by other users. RegCheck is designed to be adaptable across scientific domains, as well as registration and publication formats. In this paper we provide an overview of the motivation, workflow, and design principles of RegCheck, and we discuss its potential as an extensible infrastructure for reproducible science with an example use case.

This version reports a reproducibility audit of the frozen-encoder experiments presented in version 1. The numerical discrimination results are reproducible from the preserved artifacts, but their original attribution to interferometric pretraining is not supported. The released checkpoint contains a nested model state that loads without missing parameters, whereas loading the outer checkpoint dictionary leaves almost the entire EfficientNet-B0 feature stack uninitialized. Preserved embeddings labelled as interferometric have norms of order $10^{-12}$, matching freshly initialized EfficientNet-B0 networks and differing by more than twelve orders of magnitude from the preserved ImageNet embeddings. A second, separately preserved near-zero embedding set produces almost the same IMS 4th-test anomaly scores ($r=0.987$) and record-level discrimination (AUC $0.9812$ versus $0.9818$). We therefore withdraw the causal claim that IMS performance demonstrates a morphological prior transferred from gravitational-wave instrumentation. We reanalyse the controlled IMS splits at matched observed false-positive rates and add multivariate classical signal baselines. The near-zero representations retain strong tail separation, particularly in the 2nd and 4th IMS runs, but this is now interpreted as an exploratory architecture-and-initialization effect coupled to Mahalanobis scoring. A separate PRONOSTIA audit shows that the original large warning times were induced by a lifetime-fraction baseline; under fixed-time evaluation, a ten-feature classical baseline outperforms the preserved encoder scores. These results illustrate how checkpoint provenance, finite-sample calibration, architecture, and target-domain baselines can create an appearance of cross-domain transfer. They also define the controls required before assigning physical meaning to frozen-representation anomaly scores.

Existing AI disclosure mandates in scholarship require that AI assistance be reported but leave transparency philosophically unspecified: they fix the duty without explaining what the duty serves. We argue that ethical inquiry is essentially contested at two independent levels -- about what it is, and about what it demands of the inquirer -- defeating output-only evaluation and welfare-economic dismissal of the transparency question, and, by extension, reproducibility framings imported from the empirical sciences. The transparency duty is grounded instead in agent-integrity: the legibility, before a community of inquiry, of the identity-constituting commitments that the author's mode of philosophising expresses. Because the standards for evaluating such work are not communally settled, the achievable goal for transparency is not evaluation against agreed criteria but tracking -- accumulating the evidentiary record that lets each tradition assess the work on its own terms and makes future normative judgments possible. We develop a documentation-adequacy framework that operationalises Meaningful Human Control through five transparency elements -- declaration, navigation, documentation account, process documentation, and development records -- demonstrated by the paper itself, whose full documentation record is archived at a persistent identifier. The framework is a first iteration subject to revision, not a settled standard.

Benchmark quality is critical for meaningful evaluation and sustained progress in time series forecasting, particularly with the rise of pretrained models. Existing benchmarks often have limited domain coverage or overlook real-world settings such as tasks with covariates. Their aggregation procedures frequently lack statistical rigor, making it unclear whether observed performance differences reflect true improvements or random variation. Many benchmarks lack consistent evaluation infrastructure or are too rigid for integration into existing pipelines. To address these gaps, we propose fev-bench, a benchmark of 100 forecasting tasks across seven domains, including 46 with covariates. Supporting the benchmark, we introduce fev, a lightweight Python library for forecasting evaluation emphasizing reproducibility and integration with existing workflows. Using fev, fev-bench employs principled aggregation with bootstrapped confidence intervals to report performance along two dimensions: win rates and skill scores. We report results on fev-bench for pretrained, statistical, and baseline models and identify promising future research directions.

Event-based cameras are bio-inspired sensors that detect light changes asynchronously for each pixel. They are increasingly used in fields like computer vision and robotics because of several advantages over traditional frame-based cameras, such as high temporal resolution, low latency, and high dynamic range. As with any camera, the output's quality depends on how well the camera's settings, called biases for event-based cameras, are configured. While frame-based cameras have advanced automatic configuration algorithms, there are very few such tools for tuning these biases. A systematic testing framework would require observing the same scene with different biases, which is tricky since event cameras only generate events when there is movement. Event simulators exist, but since biases heavily depend on the electrical circuit and the pixel design, available simulators are not well suited for bias tuning. To allow reproducibility, we present BiasBench, a novel event dataset containing multiple scenes with settings sampled in a grid-like pattern. We present three different scenes, each with a quality metric of the downstream application. Additionally, we present a novel, RL-based method to facilitate online bias adjustments.

Despite the growing interest in jailbreaks as an effective red-teaming tool for building safe and responsible large language models (LLMs), flawed evaluation system designs have led to significant discrepancies in their effectiveness assessments. With a systematic measurement study based on 37 jailbreak studies since 2022, we find that existing evaluation systems lack case-specific criteria, resulting in misleading conclusions about their effectiveness and safety implications. In this paper, we introduce GuidedBench, a novel benchmark comprising a curated harmful question dataset and GuidedEval, an evaluation system integrated with detailed case-by-case evaluation guidelines. Experiments demonstrate that GuidedBench offers more accurate evaluations of jailbreak performance, enabling meaningful comparisons across methods. GuidedEval reduces inter-evaluator variance by at least 76.03%, ensuring reliable and reproducible evaluations. We reveal why existing jailbreak benchmarks fail to evaluate accurately and suggest better evaluation practices.

Code-related benchmarks play a critical role in evaluating large language models (LLMs), yet their quality fundamentally shapes how the community interprets model capabilities. In the past few years, awareness of benchmark quality has grown. Yet, after a decade-scale (2014-2025) survey over 672 code benchmarks, we observed a lag between growing awareness and actual practice. For example, in 2025 alone, the number of benchmarks that ignore code coverage when providing test cases nearly matches the total count accumulated across the previous ten years. In response, we take a clear position: Code benchmarks must prioritize rigor in benchmark construction, reliability in evaluation, and reproducibility in release. To operationalize this position, we introduce a code benchmark guideline HOW2BENCH with 55 checklists. Finally, our further human study also exposed that the current issues not only stem from the significant effort required, but also from a lack of awareness regarding their importance.

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.

We consider a replicable stochastic multi-armed bandit algorithm that ensures, with high probability, that the algorithm's sequence of actions is not affected by the randomness inherent in the dataset. Replicability allows third parties to reproduce published findings and assists the original researcher in applying standard statistical tests. We observe that existing algorithms require $O(K^2/ρ^2)$ times more regret than nonreplicable algorithms, where $K$ is the number of arms and $ρ$ is the level of nonreplication. However, we demonstrate that this additional cost is unnecessary when the time horizon $T$ is sufficiently large for a given $K, ρ$, provided that the magnitude of the confidence bounds is chosen carefully. Therefore, for a large $T$, our algorithm only requires $K^2/ρ^2$ times smaller amount of exploration than existing algorithms. To ensure the replicability of the proposed algorithms, we incorporate randomness into their decision-making processes. We propose a principled approach to limiting the probability of nonreplication. This approach elucidates the steps that existing research has implicitly followed. Furthermore, we derive the first lower bound for the two-armed replicable bandit problem, which implies the optimality of the proposed algorithms up to a $\log\log T$ factor for the two-armed case.

Pneumatically-actuated anthropomorphic robots with high degrees of freedom (DOF) offer significant potential for physical human-robot interaction. However, precise control of pneumatic actuators is challenging due to their inherent nonlinearities. This paper presents the development of a compact 13-DOF upper-body humanoid robot. To assess the feasibility of an effective controller, we first investigate its key dynamic properties, such as actuation time delays, and confirm that its behavior is reproducible across repeated trials. Leveraging this reproducibility, we implement a preliminary data-driven controller for a 4-DOF arm subsystem based on a multilayer perceptron with explicit time delay compensation. The network was trained on random movement data to generate pressure commands for tracking arbitrary trajectories. In comparative evaluations on this subsystem, the data-driven controller achieved lower tracking errors than a traditional PID controller. This result suggests that data-driven approaches are a promising option for controlling complex, high-DOF pneumatic robots.