Papers › ReplicatorBench: Benchmarking LLM Agents for Replicability in Social and Behavioral Sciences

ReplicatorBench: Benchmarking LLM Agents for Replicability in Social and Behavioral Sciences

11 Feb 2026arXiv:2602.11354added by Syntology

Bang Nguyen, Dominik Soós, Qian Ma, Rochana R. Obadage, Zack Ranjan, Sai Koneru, Timothy M. Errington, Shakhlo Nematova, Sarah Rajtmajer, Jian Wu, Meng Jiang

Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).

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.

PaperPDFCode Syntology ran

In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.

For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2602.11354")

Code

Syntology Ran 0 of 7 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 7 have no recorded run.

By repository: found in paper text by Syntology: 7 samples from 1 repository, 0 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.

CenterForOpenScience/llm-benchmarking found in paper text by Syntology report

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

7 samples harvested; 0 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 7 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.

7unverified

Licence: 0 of the 7 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 CenterForOpenScience/llm-benchmarking. “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.

build_file_description CenterForOpenScience/llm-benchmarking/replicatorbench/core/utils.py found in paper text by Syntology unverified Apache-2.0 (permissive) · c2411d3b5ca91969 · report
get_dataset_head CenterForOpenScience/llm-benchmarking/replicatorbench/core/tools.py found in paper text by Syntology unverified Apache-2.0 (permissive) · 0ed6b34dbc59fed4 · report
get_dataset_shape CenterForOpenScience/llm-benchmarking/replicatorbench/core/tools.py found in paper text by Syntology unverified Apache-2.0 (permissive) · 79023117c29a812f · report
get_logger CenterForOpenScience/llm-benchmarking/replicatorbench/core/utils.py found in paper text by Syntology unverified Apache-2.0 (permissive) · f4404bef1f57ae8f · report
is_reasoning_model CenterForOpenScience/llm-benchmarking/replicatorbench/core/agent.py found in paper text by Syntology unverified Apache-2.0 (permissive) · 35de8cb766b8f29a · report
messages_to_responses_input CenterForOpenScience/llm-benchmarking/replicatorbench/core/agent.py found in paper text by Syntology unverified Apache-2.0 (permissive) · ff707c830cf936ee · report
summarize_eval_execute CenterForOpenScience/llm-benchmarking/replicatorbench/validator/aggregate_eval_scores.py found in paper text by Syntology unverified Apache-2.0 (permissive) · ad89bcab03841051 · report

Results from the paper

The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2602.11354, was issued in February 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.

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