Daily Papers

We test whether Large Language Models (LLMs) can be used to simulate human participants in social-science studies. To do this, we run replications of 14 studies from the Many Labs 2 replication project with OpenAI's text-davinci-003 model, colloquially known as GPT3.5. Based on our pre-registered analyses, we find that among the eight studies we could analyse, our GPT sample replicated 37.5% of the original results and 37.5% of the Many Labs 2 results. However, we were unable to analyse the remaining six studies due to an unexpected phenomenon we call the "correct answer" effect. Different runs of GPT3.5 answered nuanced questions probing political orientation, economic preference, judgement, and moral philosophy with zero or near-zero variation in responses: with the supposedly "correct answer." In one exploratory follow-up study, we found that a "correct answer" was robust to changing the demographic details that precede the prompt. In another, we found that most but not all "correct answers" were robust to changing the order of answer choices. One of our most striking findings occurred in our replication of the Moral Foundations Theory survey results, where we found GPT3.5 identifying as a political conservative in 99.6% of the cases, and as a liberal in 99.3% of the cases in the reverse-order condition. However, both self-reported 'GPT conservatives' and 'GPT liberals' showed right-leaning moral foundations. Our results cast doubts on the validity of using LLMs as a general replacement for human participants in the social sciences. Our results also raise concerns that a hypothetical AI-led future may be subject to a diminished diversity-of-thought.

Reproducibility is central to research credibility, yet large-scale reanalysis of empricial data remains costly because replication packages vary widely in structure, software environment, and documentation. We develop and evaluate an agentic AI workflow that addresses this execution bottleneck while preserving scientific rigor. The system separates scientific reasoning from computational execution: researchers design fixed diagnostic templates, and the workflow automates the acquisition, harmonization, and execution of replication materials using pre-specified, version-controlled code. A structured knowledge layer records resolved failure patterns, enabling adaptation across heterogeneous studies while keeping each pipeline version transparent and stable. We evaluate this workflow on 92 instrumental variable (IV) studies, including 67 with manually verified reproducible 2SLS estimates and 25 newly published IV studies under identical criteria. For each paper, we analyze up to three two-stage least squares (2SLS) specifications, totaling 215. Across the 92 papers, the system achieves 87% end-to-end success overall. Conditional on accessible data and code, reproducibility is 100% at both the paper and specification levels. The framework substantially lowers the cost of executing established empirical protocols and can be adapted in empirical settings where analytic templates and norms of transparency are well established.

Optimism for accelerating scientific discovery with AI continues to grow. Current applications of AI in scientific research range from training dedicated foundation models on scientific data to agentic autonomous hypothesis generation systems to AI-driven autonomous labs. The need to measure progress of AI systems in scientific domains correspondingly must not only accelerate, but increasingly shift focus to more real-world capabilities. Beyond rote knowledge and even just reasoning to actually measuring the ability to perform meaningful work. Prior work introduced the Language Agent Biology Benchmark LAB-Bench as an initial attempt at measuring these abilities. Here we introduce an evolution of that benchmark, LABBench2, for measuring real-world capabilities of AI systems performing useful scientific tasks. LABBench2 comprises nearly 1,900 tasks and is, for the most part, a continuation of LAB-Bench, measuring similar capabilities but in more realistic contexts. We evaluate performance of current frontier models, and show that while abilities measured by LAB-Bench and LABBench2 have improved substantially, LABBench2 provides a meaningful jump in difficulty (model-specific accuracy differences range from -26% to -46% across subtasks) and underscores continued room for performance improvement. LABBench2 continues the legacy of LAB-Bench as a de facto benchmark for AI scientific research capabilities and we hope that it continues to help advance development of AI tools for these core research functions. To facilitate community use and development, we provide the task dataset at https://huggingface.co/datasets/futurehouse/labbench2 and a public eval harness at https://github.com/EdisonScientific/labbench2.

The replicability of papers is a cornerstone of scientific knowledge, ensuring the reliability of existing results and providing a base for further experiments. The act of replication typically illuminates details that were previously underspecified, and thus requires similar hypothesis-driven exploration to open-ended research. In this work, we develop Replica, a scalable task space for paper replication. To provide reward signal, we introduce an auto-generated rubric-based judge that has low noise and agrees with human assessment of replication quality. We post-train Faraday, a 27B-parameter "AI Scientist" agent that leverages coding agents as tools, surpassing the performance of Claude Opus 4.8 and GPT-5.5 on held-out replication tasks. Qualitative analysis of individual rollouts reveals that Faraday adopts a more scientifically-principled approach. We believe that our results provide a stepping stone towards AI agents capable of long-horizon scientific innovation without requiring complex harnesses.

National-scale magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) repositories increasingly integrate data from different studies and institutions. However, subject identifiers that are valid only within individual datasets are no longer guaranteed to remain globally unique after aggregation, making it possible for the same subject to be assigned multiple identifiers, which we define as identity duplication. Such duplication can create leakage between training and test data and inflate apparent performance in downstream biomedical studies. Existing methods do not provide an end-to-end, image-based workflow for auditing this problem at repository scale. In this work, we present HAPPEN, a human-in-the-loop pipeline for auditing identity duplication in T1-weighted brain MRI repositories. It combines SHA-256 fingerprinting for exact-duplicate detection with supervised contrastive retrieval of non-identical scans that may originate from the same person. Retrieved pairs are reviewed as candidates in a locally hosted interface rather than automatically classified as duplicates. We deployed the workflow in a 95,129-scan aggregated repository and assessed end-to-end recovery using 54 genetic-reference pairs. Transferability was assessed by locally deploying the same workflow on 22,386 scans at an independent institution without model retraining or image transfer. Deployment in the study repository identified 1,316 exact-duplicate scan groups and 1,275 reviewer-supported near-duplicate subject groups. Of these groups, 56% and 82%, respectively, crossed dataset boundaries. All 54 genetic-reference pairs were recovered. The external team independently completed the full workflow using a locally selected operating threshold and review standard.

With an increasing number of replication studies performed in psychological science, the question of how to evaluate the outcome of a replication attempt deserves careful consideration. Bayesian approaches allow to incorporate uncertainty and prior information into the analysis of the replication attempt by their design. The Replication Bayes Factor, introduced by Verhagen & Wagenmakers (2014), provides quantitative, relative evidence in favor or against a successful replication. In previous work by Verhagen & Wagenmakers (2014) it was limited to the case of t-tests. In this paper, the Replication Bayes Factor is extended to F-tests in multi-group, fixed-effect ANOVA designs. Simulations and examples are presented to facilitate the understanding and to demonstrate the usefulness of this approach. Finally, the Replication Bayes Factor is compared to other Bayesian and frequentist approaches and discussed in the context of replication attempts. R code to calculate Replication Bayes factors and to reproduce the examples in the paper is available at https://osf.io/jv39h/.

We need studies on conversational AI (CAI) at scale to understand human behavior and shape CAI design. However, fragmented reporting of systems and study configurations hinders replication, extension, and knowledge accumulation. We present Gricea, an open-science platform representing studies as configurable, deployable research artifacts that researchers can run, inspect, share, and reuse. Informed by a formative analysis of prior CAI research, Gricea couples study procedures, participant-facing systems, and conversational task behavior in. In a replication study using Gricea, we replicated configurations 93% of eligible CUI 2026 papers; while also flagging missing information in 96% of papers that hinder faithful replication --- further motivating Gricea's need. In a user study, researchers and practitioners from diverse backgrounds successfully constructed runnable studies addressing various open-ended research questions. Together, these findings demonstrate Gricea's support for constructing, reproducing, and extending CAI studies through shared research artifacts, enabling cumulative knowledge building through open science.

Frontier AI agents show increasing promise as scientific research assistants, and may eventually be useful for extended, open-ended research workflows. However, in order to use agents for novel research, we must first assess the underlying faithfulness and correctness of their work. To evaluate agents as research assistants, we introduce ReplicationBench, an evaluation framework that tests whether agents can replicate entire research papers drawn from the astrophysics literature. Astrophysics, where research relies heavily on archival data and computational study while requiring little real-world experimentation, is a particularly useful testbed for AI agents in scientific research. We split each paper into tasks which require agents to replicate the paper's core contributions, including the experimental setup, derivations, data analysis, and codebase. Each task is co-developed with the original paper authors and targets a key scientific result, enabling objective evaluation of both faithfulness (adherence to original methods) and correctness (technical accuracy of results). ReplicationBench is extremely challenging for current frontier language models: even the best-performing language models score under 20%. We analyze ReplicationBench trajectories in collaboration with domain experts and find a rich, diverse set of failure modes for agents in scientific research. ReplicationBench establishes the first benchmark of paper-scale, expert-validated astrophysics research tasks, reveals insights about agent performance generalizable to other domains of data-driven science, and provides a scalable framework for measuring AI agents' reliability in scientific research.

Scientific machine learning papers typically make computational claims, e.g., that the relative mean square error is less than 5% or that the 95% predictive credible interval covers the test data. A coding agent can be prompted to replicate those claims from paper materials alone, but the prompt does not by itself reliably preserve progress or check whether generated evidence supports the paper's claims. We introduce Paper-replication, a workflow that makes each selected paper claim a target with recorded evidence, and implement it as a coding-agent skill. The workflow makes the agent record those targets, reconstruct the paper's method, run computational experiments, link generated outputs to provenance and comparisons with the paper's claims, record where matched evidence appears in the replication report, and pass validation checks before completion. We evaluate Paper-replication on twelve independent runs across four scientific machine learning papers. All twelve workspaces pass the completion gate, and all 158 recorded targets are matched with report coverage. Even in this completed workspace state, repeated runs differ in how papers are divided into targets, in numerical fidelity to the source papers, in elapsed replication time, in the number of intermediate executions replaced before final evidence is accepted, and in the rules used to accept evidence. Paper-replication makes completion depend on workspace evidence and validation checks rather than on the agent's final message.

DeepLab2 is a TensorFlow library for deep labeling, aiming to provide a state-of-the-art and easy-to-use TensorFlow codebase for general dense pixel prediction problems in computer vision. DeepLab2 includes all our recently developed DeepLab model variants with pretrained checkpoints as well as model training and evaluation code, allowing the community to reproduce and further improve upon the state-of-art systems. To showcase the effectiveness of DeepLab2, our Panoptic-DeepLab employing Axial-SWideRNet as network backbone achieves 68.0% PQ or 83.5% mIoU on Cityscaspes validation set, with only single-scale inference and ImageNet-1K pretrained checkpoints. We hope that publicly sharing our library could facilitate future research on dense pixel labeling tasks and envision new applications of this technology. Code is made publicly available at https://github.com/google-research/deeplab2.

Progress in scientific discovery is rarely the result of a single "Eureka" moment, but is rather the product of hundreds of scientists incrementally working together toward a common goal. While existing agent workflows are capable of producing research autonomously, they do so in isolation, without the ability to continuously improve upon prior research results. To address these challenges, we introduce AgentRxiv-a framework that lets LLM agent laboratories upload and retrieve reports from a shared preprint server in order to collaborate, share insights, and iteratively build on each other's research. We task agent laboratories to develop new reasoning and prompting techniques and find that agents with access to their prior research achieve higher performance improvements compared to agents operating in isolation (11.4% relative improvement over baseline on MATH-500). We find that the best performing strategy generalizes to benchmarks in other domains (improving on average by 3.3%). Multiple agent laboratories sharing research through AgentRxiv are able to work together towards a common goal, progressing more rapidly than isolated laboratories, achieving higher overall accuracy (13.7% relative improvement over baseline on MATH-500). These findings suggest that autonomous agents may play a role in designing future AI systems alongside humans. We hope that AgentRxiv allows agents to collaborate toward research goals and enables researchers to accelerate discovery.

We introduce PaperBench, a benchmark evaluating the ability of AI agents to replicate state-of-the-art AI research. Agents must replicate 20 ICML 2024 Spotlight and Oral papers from scratch, including understanding paper contributions, developing a codebase, and successfully executing experiments. For objective evaluation, we develop rubrics that hierarchically decompose each replication task into smaller sub-tasks with clear grading criteria. In total, PaperBench contains 8,316 individually gradable tasks. Rubrics are co-developed with the author(s) of each ICML paper for accuracy and realism. To enable scalable evaluation, we also develop an LLM-based judge to automatically grade replication attempts against rubrics, and assess our judge's performance by creating a separate benchmark for judges. We evaluate several frontier models on PaperBench, finding that the best-performing tested agent, Claude 3.5 Sonnet (New) with open-source scaffolding, achieves an average replication score of 21.0\%. Finally, we recruit top ML PhDs to attempt a subset of PaperBench, finding that models do not yet outperform the human baseline. We https://github.com/openai/preparedness{open-source our code} to facilitate future research in understanding the AI engineering capabilities of AI agents.

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.