pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.02006 · v1 · pith:AUSKJACAnew · submitted 2026-06-01 · 💻 cs.SE

An Agentic Approach Towards Replication Package Quality Evaluation

Maximilian Alexander Amougou Mbida , Florian Angermeir This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 13:42 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.SE
keywords replication packagesartifact evaluationreproducibilitymulti-agent systemssoftware engineeringopen science guidelinesresearch artifacts
0
0 comments X

The pith

A multi-agent prototype evaluates replication package quality against 31 automated criteria derived from open-science guidelines.

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

This paper tests whether multi-agent systems can automate parts of checking research replication packages for reproducibility. It gathers hundreds of requirements from many sources, narrows them to 51 criteria, and makes 31 of those checkable by software without human input. The resulting prototype reviews packages and writes reports that point to specific improvements. Early runs on five packages reached 91 percent consistency across trials and 75 percent agreement with a human baseline, mainly on concrete items such as code presence and environment setup. If the method holds up, it could reduce the manual work that currently limits how widely artifacts are verified.

Core claim

By consolidating 380 requirements from 34 sources into 51 reproducibility criteria and operationalizing 31 for automated evaluation, the authors built a multi-agent prototype that inspects replication packages and produces evidence-grounded improvement reports. On five packages the system reached 91.4 percent inter-run consistency and 75.4 percent correctness against a manual baseline, performing strongest on structural checks such as code, environment, and artifact availability while showing weaker results on qualitative or mixed-method studies.

What carries the argument

The multi-agent prototype that translates the 31 operationalized reproducibility criteria into automated inspections of replication packages and generates evidence-grounded reports.

If this is right

  • The prototype performs best on structural criteria such as code, environment, and artifact availability.
  • It produces reports that can guide authors and reviewers on concrete fixes.
  • Inter-run consistency reaches 91.4 percent while overall correctness is 75.4 percent against manual review.
  • A small survey of researchers found perceived usefulness and adoption potential despite some cognitive load in planning steps.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The approach could allow reviewers to spend less time on routine structural checks and more on substantive research questions.
  • Authors might run the agents on their own packages before submission to catch issues early.
  • Extending the criteria to handle qualitative studies would increase the range of packages the system can usefully evaluate.

Load-bearing premise

The five replication packages tested represent the wider range of packages that would normally be submitted, and the manual baseline used for comparison is complete and accurate.

What would settle it

Applying the agents to a larger set of twenty or more replication packages drawn from varied study types and obtaining agreement with expert reviewers below 60 percent would indicate the method does not scale reliably.

read the original abstract

Reproducibility in empirical software engineering relies on complete, accessible, and reusable research artifacts, yet artifact evaluation remains largely manual and difficult to scale. This emerging results paper explores an agentic approach for assessing replication package quality by translating open-science guidelines into machine-verifiable criteria. We consolidate 380 requirements from 34 sources into 51 reproducibility criteria, of which 31 are operationalized for automated artifact-based evaluation. Based on these criteria, we implement a multi-agent prototype that automatically inspects replication packages and produces evidence-grounded improvement reports. A preliminary evaluation on five replication packages shows high inter-run consistency of 91.4\% and 75.4\% correctness, through micro-averaged agreement with a manual baseline. The agent performs best on structural criteria such as code, environment, and artifact availability, but struggles with qualitative or mixed-method studies. A pilot survey with seven software engineering researchers indicates well perceived usefulness and adoption potential, while revealing cognitive load in the human-in-the-loop planning step. Overall, these emerging results indicate that agentic research artifact evaluation has the potential to support authors and reviewers by automating selected routine checks.

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.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that translating open-science guidelines into 51 reproducibility criteria (31 operationalized) enables a multi-agent prototype to automatically inspect replication packages and generate improvement reports. A preliminary evaluation on five packages reports 91.4% inter-run consistency and 75.4% micro-averaged correctness against a manual baseline, with stronger performance on structural criteria and positive feedback from a seven-person survey, indicating potential to automate routine checks for authors and reviewers.

Significance. If the results hold, the work could help scale artifact evaluation in empirical software engineering by reducing manual effort on routine structural checks. Credit is due for consolidating 380 requirements from 34 sources into machine-verifiable criteria and for releasing a working multi-agent prototype. The modest sample and preliminary framing limit immediate broader impact.

major comments (2)
  1. [Evaluation section] Evaluation section: The central claim of potential to support authors and reviewers rests on results from only five replication packages, yet the manuscript provides no details on sampling method, diversity metrics, or inclusion of qualitative/mixed-method studies (where weaker performance is noted). This leaves the 75.4% correctness figure on uncertain footing for generalization.
  2. [Evaluation section] Evaluation section: The manual baseline used for the 75.4% micro-averaged correctness metric is described only as 'manual'; no information is given on how it was constructed, the number of raters, or inter-rater reliability. Without this, the agreement percentage cannot be confidently interpreted as a measure of system correctness.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §3] Abstract and §3: The distinction between the 51 consolidated criteria and the 31 operationalized ones could be clarified with an explicit mapping or table to help readers understand the scope of automation.
  2. [Survey section] The survey with seven researchers is presented as a pilot; adding response rate, recruitment method, or sample demographics would strengthen the usefulness claim.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for these constructive comments on the evaluation section. As an emerging results paper, the evaluation is intentionally preliminary, but we agree that additional details are needed to strengthen the presentation. We respond to each major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Evaluation section] Evaluation section: The central claim of potential to support authors and reviewers rests on results from only five replication packages, yet the manuscript provides no details on sampling method, diversity metrics, or inclusion of qualitative/mixed-method studies (where weaker performance is noted). This leaves the 75.4% correctness figure on uncertain footing for generalization.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript should provide more context on the five packages to support interpretation of the 75.4% figure. In the revised version we will add: (1) the sampling method (packages drawn from recent empirical SE venues with publicly available replication packages), (2) diversity metrics including study type distribution, and (3) explicit reference to the weaker performance on qualitative/mixed-method studies already noted in the abstract. These additions will clarify the scope without overstating generalizability. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Evaluation section] Evaluation section: The manual baseline used for the 75.4% micro-averaged correctness metric is described only as 'manual'; no information is given on how it was constructed, the number of raters, or inter-rater reliability. Without this, the agreement percentage cannot be confidently interpreted as a measure of system correctness.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the current description of the manual baseline is insufficient. In the revision we will expand the evaluation section to detail how the baseline was constructed (author-led criterion-by-criterion inspection of each package), the number of raters, and any inter-rater reliability assessment performed. If the baseline was produced by a single rater we will explicitly note this limitation and its implications for interpreting the agreement metric. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper presents an empirical prototype and reports direct measurements (91.4% consistency, 75.4% correctness via agreement with external manual baseline) plus a survey. No equations, derivations, fitted parameters called predictions, or self-citation chains appear in the provided text. Central claims rest on external comparisons rather than self-referential definitions or reductions to inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work is tool-building and empirical rather than axiomatic; the abstract does not introduce or rely on free parameters, mathematical axioms, or invented entities beyond the standard assumption that the chosen criteria capture reproducibility.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5724 in / 1195 out tokens · 17991 ms · 2026-06-28T13:42:04.641610+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Knuth , title =

    Donald E. Knuth , title =. Commun. 1974 , doi =

    1974

  2. [2]

    Dijkstra , title =

    Edsger W. Dijkstra , title =. Commun. 1968 , doi =

    1968

  3. [3]

    1993 , isbn =

    Jim Gray and Andreas Reuter , title =. 1993 , isbn =

    1993

  4. [4]

    1975 , crossref =

    On Time versus Space and Related Problems , booktitle =. 1975 , crossref =

    1975

  5. [5]

    16th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, Berkeley, California, USA, October 13-15, 1975 , publisher =

    1975

  6. [6]

    2024 , eprint=

    CORE-Bench: Fostering the Credibility of Published Research Through a Computational Reproducibility Agent Benchmark , author=. 2024 , eprint=

    2024

  7. [7]

    2025 , eprint=

    REPRO-BENCH: Can Agentic AI Systems Assess the Reproducibility of Social Science Research? , author=. 2025 , eprint=

    2025

  8. [8]

    2025 , eprint=

    PaperBench: Evaluating AI's Ability to Replicate AI Research , author=. 2025 , eprint=

    2025

  9. [9]

    2025 , eprint=

    LMR-BENCH: Evaluating LLM Agent's Ability on Reproducing Language Modeling Research , author=. 2025 , eprint=

    2025

  10. [10]

    and Hermann, Ben and Cito, J\"

    Winter, Stefan and Timperley, Christopher S. and Hermann, Ben and Cito, J\". A retrospective study of one decade of artifact evaluations , year =. doi:10.1145/3540250.3549172 , booktitle =

    work page doi:10.1145/3540250.3549172

  11. [11]

    2025 , note =

    metacheck: Check Research Outputs for Best Practices , author =. 2025 , note =

    2025

  12. [12]

    2025 , eprint=

    AutoReproduce: Automatic AI Experiment Reproduction with Paper Lineage , author=. 2025 , eprint=

    2025

  13. [13]

    2025 , eprint=

    ResearchCodeAgent: An LLM Multi-Agent System for Automated Codification of Research Methodologies , author=. 2025 , eprint=

    2025

  14. [14]

    2020 , url =

    Association for Computing Machinery , title =. 2020 , url =

    2020

  15. [15]

    2025 , eprint=

    A Framework for Supporting the Reproducibility of Computational Experiments in Multiple Scientific Domains , author=. 2025 , eprint=

    2025

  16. [16]

    2025 , eprint=

    Let's Talk About It: Making Scientific Computational Reproducibility Easy , author=. 2025 , eprint=

    2025

  17. [17]

    2026 , eprint=

    Agent-Based Software Artifact Evaluation , author=. 2026 , eprint=

    2026

  18. [18]

    2019 , publisher=

    Reproducibility and replicability in science , author=. 2019 , publisher=

    2019

  19. [19]

    Empirical Software Engineering , volume=

    Replication of empirical studies in software engineering research: a systematic mapping study , author=. Empirical Software Engineering , volume=. 2014 , publisher=

    2014

  20. [20]

    2020 , eprint=

    Empirical Standards for Software Engineering Research , author=. 2020 , eprint=

    2020

  21. [21]

    2025 , eprint=

    Guidelines for Empirical Studies in Software Engineering involving Large Language Models , author=. 2025 , eprint=

    2025

  22. [22]

    2025 , doi=

    Agentic Design Patterns , author=. 2025 , doi=

    2025

  23. [23]

    2025 , url =

    LangGraph — Low-level orchestration framework for language agents , author =. 2025 , url =

    2025

  24. [24]

    2023 , note =

    Langfuse — Open‑Source LLM Engineering Platform , author =. 2023 , note =

    2023

  25. [25]

    CORE Conference Rankings Portal , url =

  26. [26]

    SCImago Journal & Country Rank (SJR) , url =

  27. [27]

    Davis , journal =

    Fred D. Davis , journal =. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , urldate =

  28. [28]

    Empirical Software Engineering , publisher =

    Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in software engineering , author =. Empirical Software Engineering , publisher =

  29. [29]

    1985 , publisher=

    Naturalistic inquiry , author=. 1985 , publisher=

    1985

  30. [30]

    doi:10.1145/3477535

    Liu, Chao and Gao, Cuiyun and Xia, Xin and Lo, David and Grundy, John and Yang, Xiaohu , title =. 2021 , issue_date =. doi:10.1145/3477535 , journal =

    work page doi:10.1145/3477535 2021

  31. [31]

    2023 , issn =

    Revisiting the reproducibility of empirical software engineering studies based on data retrieved from development repositories , journal =. 2023 , issn =. doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2023.107318 , author =

    work page doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2023.107318 2023

  32. [32]

    Empirical Software Engineering , volume=

    On the reproducibility of empirical software engineering studies based on data retrieved from development repositories , author=. Empirical Software Engineering , volume=. 2012 , publisher=

    2012

  33. [33]

    Scientific Data , volume=

    A large-scale study on research code quality and execution , author=. Scientific Data , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  34. [34]

    2025 , issn =

    Characterising reproducibility debt in scientific software: A systematic literature review , journal =. 2025 , issn =. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2024.112327 , author =

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jss.2024.112327 2025

  35. [35]

    2026 IEEE/ACM 48th International Conference on Software Engineering , pages =

    Angermeir, Florian and Amougou, Maximilian and Kreitz, Mark and Bauer, Andreas and Linhuber, Matthias and Fucci, Davide and Moyón, Fabiola and Mendez, Daniel and Gorschek, Tony , title =. 2026 IEEE/ACM 48th International Conference on Software Engineering , pages =. 2026 , doi =

    2026