Papers › An Analyst-Inspector Framework for Evaluating Reproducibility of LLMs in Data Science

An Analyst-Inspector Framework for Evaluating Reproducibility of LLMs in Data Science

23 Feb 2025arXiv:2502.16395archive 2025-07-28

Qiuhai Zeng, Claire Jin, Xinyue Wang, Yuhan Zheng, Qunhua Li

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated potential for data science tasks via code generation. However, the exploratory nature of data science, alongside the stochastic and opaque outputs of LLMs, raise concerns about their reliability. While prior work focuses on benchmarking LLM accuracy, reproducibility remains underexplored, despite being critical to establishing trust in LLM-driven analysis. We propose a novel analyst-inspector framework to automatically evaluate and enforce the reproducibility of LLM-generated data science workflows - the first rigorous approach to the best of our knowledge. Defining reproducibility as the sufficiency and completeness of workflows for reproducing functionally equivalent code, this framework enforces computational reproducibility principles, ensuring transparent, well-documented LLM workflows while minimizing reliance on implicit model assumptions. Using this framework, we systematically evaluate five state-of-the-art LLMs on 1,032 data analysis tasks across three diverse benchmark datasets. We also introduce two novel reproducibility-enhancing prompting strategies. Our results show that higher reproducibility strongly correlates with improved accuracy and reproducibility-enhancing prompts are effective, demonstrating structured prompting's potential to enhance automated data science workflows and enable transparent, robust AI-driven analysis. Our code is publicly available.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

3 samples harvested; 0 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 3 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 0 of the 3 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from qunhualilab/llm-ds-reproducibility. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Tasks

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections