arxiv: 2604.18752 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-20 · ✦ hep-ph · hep-ex

Recognition: unknown

A Scientific Human-Agent Reproduction Pipeline

Joschka Birk , Gregor Kasieczka , Siddharth Mishra-Sharma , Benjamin Nachman , Dennis Noll , Tanvi Wamorkar

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 03:37 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph hep-ex

keywords scientific reproductionhuman-agent collaborationAI-assisted analysisparticle physicsjet classificationreproducibilitycode generation

0 comments

The pith

SHARP enables faithful reproduction of scientific analyses through structured human-AI collaboration.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper introduces SHARP, a pipeline that turns the reproduction of scientific papers into a series of steps handled mostly by AI agents. An AI agent generates, tests, and refines code based on the paper, while the human researcher steps in at checkpoints to review, correct, and guide the scientific decisions. This was shown by successfully reproducing a jet classification task from a particle physics paper, matching the original results in performance and code quality. The approach reduces the manual effort of reproduction and lets researchers focus on understanding rather than implementation details. If this works broadly, more analyses could be reproduced and extended without the usual high cost in time.

Core claim

SHARP decomposes a reproduction task into discrete steps executed autonomously by AI subagents specialized in code generation, testing, and quality assurance. Human researchers review progress at defined checkpoints, provide feedback, and steer the analysis. When applied to reproducing a jet classification analysis in particle physics, the resulting code achieved performance comparable to the original publication, with high faithfulness to the described method.

What carries the argument

SHARP, the Scientific Human-Agent Reproduction Pipeline, which structures the task as autonomous agent steps with human review checkpoints.

Load-bearing premise

AI agents can autonomously produce correct analysis code from scientific descriptions when humans provide targeted feedback at checkpoints.

What would settle it

If the code produced by the SHARP pipeline for the jet classification task yields significantly different performance metrics or incorrect physics results compared to the original paper.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.18752 by Benjamin Nachman, Dennis Noll, Gregor Kasieczka, Joschka Birk, Siddharth Mishra-Sharma, Tanvi Wamorkar.

read the original abstract

Reproducing scientific analyses is essential for preserving knowledge, building extensible codebases, and deepening researcher understanding - yet the effort often outweighs its academic recognition. We argue that the reproduction of scientific data analyses is fundamentally a translation task: converting human-readable knowledge (papers, documentation) into machine-readable analysis code. This makes it uniquely well-suited for AI agents. We present SHARP (Scientific Human-Agent Reproduction Pipeline), a structured framework for reproducing scientific analyses through human-agent collaboration. SHARP decomposes a reproduction task into discrete steps, which an AI agent executes autonomously using specialized subagents for code generation, testing, and quality assurance. At defined checkpoints, the researcher reviews progress, provides feedback, and steers the analysis - keeping the human firmly in control of scientific judgment while the agent handles implementation. We demonstrate SHARP by reproducing a jet classification task in particle physics from a published paper. We evaluate the reproduction along three axes: analysis performance against the original results, code quality and faithfulness, and the nature of the human-agent conversation. The latter is evaluated with a novel framework for characterizing human-agent interactions. Our work highlights a practical model for AI-assisted scientific reproduction where the researcher's role shifts from writing code to understanding, evaluating, and directing - elevating human understanding rather than replacing it.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

SHARP gives a practical breakdown of AI agents for reproducing analyses with human checkpoints, shown on one jet classification task, but the single demo leaves the reliability claim lightly supported.

read the letter

The main contribution is the SHARP pipeline, which splits a reproduction job into steps run by specialized sub-agents for code writing, testing, and checks, with the human stepping in at fixed points to review and redirect. They also add a way to categorize the back-and-forth between person and agent. That combination is new enough to stand out from generic agent papers. They test it by reproducing a published jet classification analysis in particle physics, which is a solid, non-trivial choice rather than a toy example. The evaluation covers final performance match, code faithfulness, and the interaction style, and the framing that the human stays in charge of the science while the agent handles the typing is realistic and useful. The paper is clear about shifting researcher effort from implementation to oversight. The main weakness is that the demonstration stays at the level of one successful case without numbers on how close the output came to the original, what kinds of errors appeared, how many rounds of feedback were needed, or an independent check that the code was faithful rather than just coincidentally close in performance. The stress-test point about checkpoints missing subtle scientific mistakes holds weight here; without those details the central assumption that current agents plus limited human steering will produce correct physics code remains untested beyond this instance. The work is aimed at people building or using AI tools for data-heavy science, especially in high-energy physics and similar fields. It is worth sending to peer review because the framework is concrete and the application is real, even though revisions would need to add quantitative evidence and failure analysis to make the claims stronger.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces SHARP, a structured framework for reproducing scientific analyses via human-AI agent collaboration. It decomposes reproduction tasks into discrete autonomous steps executed by specialized subagents for code generation, testing, and quality assurance, with defined human checkpoints for review, feedback, and steering. The framework is demonstrated by reproducing a jet classification task from a published particle physics paper and evaluated along three axes: analysis performance matching the original, code quality and faithfulness, and the nature of human-agent interactions (using a novel characterization framework).

Significance. If the demonstration holds, SHARP provides a practical model for AI-assisted reproduction that keeps the researcher in control of scientific judgment while automating implementation details. This could aid reproducibility and knowledge preservation in data-intensive fields. The novel framework for characterizing human-agent conversations is a clear strength and could be useful beyond this application.

major comments (3)

[Abstract and demonstration section] Abstract and demonstration section: The paper reports a successful reproduction of the jet classification task but provides no quantitative metrics (e.g., accuracy, AUC, or side-by-side comparison tables to the original results), error analysis, or discussion of failure modes. This leaves the central claim of faithful reproduction only modestly supported, as performance matching could arise from compensatory mistakes rather than correct implementation.
[Evaluation section on human-agent conversation] Evaluation section on human-agent conversation: The manuscript does not report the number of iterations per checkpoint, specific error types encountered by the subagents, or an independent audit showing that performance-matched output implies faithful code rather than coincidental agreement. This directly bears on the load-bearing assumption that discrete human checkpoints plus feedback suffice to catch and correct scientific errors.
[SHARP framework description] SHARP framework description: The claim that current AI agents can autonomously translate complex scientific descriptions into correct analysis code between human checkpoints is presented without testing beyond the single chosen example or discussion of potential limitations when the original analysis contains subtle physics choices.

minor comments (2)

[Demonstration section] Ensure the original paper being reproduced is cited with full bibliographic details in the demonstration section for easy cross-reference.
[Evaluation section] The novel interaction characterization framework is introduced but its precise criteria or scoring rubric could be clarified with an example from the jet task conversation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive evaluation of the significance of SHARP and for the detailed, constructive comments. We address each major point below, indicating where revisions will be made to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: The paper reports a successful reproduction of the jet classification task but provides no quantitative metrics (e.g., accuracy, AUC, or side-by-side comparison tables to the original results), error analysis, or discussion of failure modes. This leaves the central claim of faithful reproduction only modestly supported, as performance matching could arise from compensatory mistakes rather than correct implementation.

Authors: We agree that quantitative metrics are necessary to robustly support the claim of faithful reproduction. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated table comparing key performance metrics (accuracy, AUC, and any other relevant observables) between the original paper and the SHARP reproduction. We will also include an error analysis and explicit discussion of any failure modes observed during the process, thereby reducing the possibility that agreement arises from compensatory errors. revision: yes
Referee: The manuscript does not report the number of iterations per checkpoint, specific error types encountered by the subagents, or an independent audit showing that performance-matched output implies faithful code rather than coincidental agreement. This directly bears on the load-bearing assumption that discrete human checkpoints plus feedback suffice to catch and correct scientific errors.

Authors: We acknowledge that greater transparency on the interaction process would strengthen the evaluation. We will expand the relevant section to report the number of iterations at each checkpoint and to categorize the specific error types encountered by the subagents. Our existing code-quality assessment already includes manual inspection of generated code against the source description; we will elaborate on this procedure to address concerns about coincidental agreement. A fully independent external audit lies outside the scope of the current work but can be noted as a desirable future extension. revision: partial
Referee: The claim that current AI agents can autonomously translate complex scientific descriptions into correct analysis code between human checkpoints is presented without testing beyond the single chosen example or discussion of potential limitations when the original analysis contains subtle physics choices.

Authors: The demonstration is intentionally focused on a single, well-documented example to illustrate the framework. We will add a new limitations subsection that explicitly discusses challenges that may arise with subtle physics choices (e.g., specific variable definitions, kinematic selections, or approximations) and note that broader multi-analysis validation is planned for future work. This will clarify the current scope while preserving the general applicability of SHARP. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: SHARP framework defined independently and evaluated externally

full rationale

The paper introduces SHARP as a human-agent collaboration framework for reproducing analyses, decomposed into discrete steps with human checkpoints. It is demonstrated and evaluated by direct comparison to an external published jet classification paper, with metrics on performance, code quality, and interaction nature. No equations, fitted parameters, predictions, or central claims reduce by construction to inputs defined within the paper. No self-citations are load-bearing for the framework definition or uniqueness. The derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that AI agents possess sufficient capability for autonomous code generation and testing of scientific analyses when given human guidance at checkpoints. No free parameters or invented physical entities are introduced; the framework itself is the primary new construct.

axioms (1)

domain assumption AI agents can reliably translate human-readable scientific descriptions into correct machine-readable analysis code between human review checkpoints
Invoked throughout the description of autonomous sub-agent execution and the demonstration on the jet classification task.

invented entities (2)

SHARP framework no independent evidence
purpose: To structure human-AI collaboration for analysis reproduction
Newly defined pipeline with discrete steps and checkpoints; no independent evidence outside this work.
specialized subagents for code generation, testing, and quality assurance no independent evidence
purpose: To execute autonomous portions of the reproduction task
Introduced as components of SHARP; no external validation provided.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5537 in / 1392 out tokens · 43036 ms · 2026-05-10T03:37:49.964109+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

[1]

Schwartz

Matthew D. Schwartz. Resummation of the C-Parameter Sudakov Shoulder Using Effective Field Theory, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2601.02484

work page arXiv 2026
[2]

Learning to Unscramble: Simplifying Symbolic Expressions via Self-Supervised Oracle Trajectories

David Shih. Learning to Unscramble: Simplifying Symbolic Expressions via Self-Supervised Oracle Trajectories, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2603.11164

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[3]

Learning to Unscramble Feynman Loop Integrals with SAILIR

David Shih. Learning to Unscramble Feynman Loop Integrals with SAILIR, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.05034

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[4]

The AI Scientist: Towards Fully Automated Open-Ended Scientific Discovery

Chris Lu, Cong Lu, Robert Tjarko Lange, Jakob Foerster, Jeff Clune, and David Ha. The AI Scientist: Towards Fully Automated Open-Ended Scientific Discovery, 2024. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2408.06292

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2024
[5]

Automating High Energy Physics Data Analysis with LLM-Powered Agents,

Eli Gendreau-Distler, Joshua Ho, Dongwon Kim, Luc Tomas Le Pottier, Haichen Wang, and Chengxi Yang. Automating High Energy Physics Data Analysis with LLM-Powered Agents,
[6]

URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2512.07785

work page arXiv
[7]

karpathy/autoresearch, April 2026

Andrej Karpathy. karpathy/autoresearch, April 2026. URLhttps://github.com/karpathy/ autoresearch. original-date: 2026-03-06T22:00:43Z

2026
[8]

Agentic AI – Physicist Collaboration in Experimental Particle Physics: A Proof-of-Concept Measure- ment with LEP Open Data, 2026

Anthony Badea, Yi Chen, Marcello Maggi, Yen-Jie Lee, and Electron-Positron Alliance. Agentic AI – Physicist Collaboration in Experimental Particle Physics: A Proof-of-Concept Measure- ment with LEP Open Data, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2603.05735

work page arXiv 2026
[9]

PRBench: End-to-end Paper Reproduction in Physics Research, 2026

Shi Qiu et al. PRBench: End-to-end Paper Reproduction in Physics Research, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.27646

work page arXiv 2026
[10]

Agents of Discovery, 2026

Sascha Diefenbacher, Anna Hallin, Gregor Kasieczka, Michael Krämer, Anne Lauscher, and Tim Lukas. Agents of Discovery, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2509.08535

work page arXiv 2026
[11]

Esmail, A

W. Esmail, A. Hammad, and M. Nojiri. CoLLM: AI engineering toolbox for end-to-end deep learning in collider analyses, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2602.06496

work page arXiv 2026
[12]

Ai agents can already autonomously perform experimental high energy physics,

Eric A. Moreno, Samuel Bright-Thonney, Andrzej Novak, Dolores Garcia, and Philip Harris. AI Agents Can Already Autonomously Perform Experimental High Energy Physics, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.20179

work page arXiv 2026
[13]

software engineer

Geoffrey Huntley. Ralph Wiggum as a "software engineer", July 2025. URL https:// ghuntley.com/ralph/

2025
[14]

SHARP: Template to reproduce scientific analyses with a coding agent., April 2026

Dennis Noll and Joschka Birk. SHARP: Template to reproduce scientific analyses with a coding agent., April 2026. URLhttps://github.com/stanford-ai4physics/sharp

2026
[15]

Claude Code Docs, 2026

Anthropic. Claude Code Docs, 2026. URL https://code.claude.com/docs/en/ overview

2026
[16]

FlexCAST: Enabling Flexible Scientific Data Analyses, 7

Benjamin Nachman and Dennis Noll. FlexCAST: Enabling Flexible Scientific Data Analyses, 7
[17]

URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2507.11528

work page arXiv
[18]

Giordano et al., HEPScore: A new CPU benchmark for the WLCG , EPJ Web of Conf

Marcel Rieger. End-to-End Analysis Automation over Distributed Resources with Luigi Analysis Workflows.EPJ Web Conf., 295:05012, 2024. doi: 10.1051/epjconf/202429505012

work page doi:10.1051/epjconf/202429505012 2024
[19]

Qu and L

Huilin Qu and Loukas Gouskos. ParticleNet: Jet Tagging via Particle Clouds.Phys. Rev. D, 101 (5):056019, 2020. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.056019

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.101.056019 2020
[20]

Kasieczka, T

Gregor Kasieczka, Tilman Plehn, Jennifer Thompson, and Michael Russel. Top Quark Tagging Reference Dataset, March 2019. URLhttps://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2603256

work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.2603256 2019
[21]

Butteret al.,The Machine Learning landscape of top taggers, SciPost Phys.7, 014 (2019), doi:10.21468/SciPostPhys.7.1.014,1902.09914

Anja Butter et al. The Machine Learning landscape of top taggers.SciPost Phys., 7:014, 2019. doi: 10.21468/SciPostPhys.7.1.014

work page doi:10.21468/scipostphys.7.1.014 2019
[22]

claude-hpc: Sandboxed Claude Code environment for HPC and local Docker, April 2026

Dennis Noll and Joschka Birk. claude-hpc: Sandboxed Claude Code environment for HPC and local Docker, April 2026. URLhttps://github.com/nollde/claude-hpc

2026
[23]

claude-parser: Display and Analyze Conversations with Claude, April 2026

Dennis Noll. claude-parser: Display and Analyze Conversations with Claude, April 2026. URL https://github.com/nollde/claude-parser. 6

2026