Engine-Equal, Human-Unequal: A Reproducible Outcome Skew in Engine-Assessed Equal Chess Positions

Among chess opening positions that a strong engine judges essentially equal (Stockfish 18 evaluation within 10 centipawns of zero, depth-stable) and that humans actually reach on Lichess (October 2025; 1,661 positions, 16.1M occurrences), human results are not balanced. Positions carry outcome skews, each the gap between its games' actual results and what the players' ratings predict, whose directions are stable properties of the naturally-reached position: some positions favour White, others Black. These skews reproduce across three re-partitions -- disjoint player-account sets (primary), time, and disjoint rating bands -- and on an out-of-sample month eight months later. On the primary split, each position's skew is measured once in each account group, and the replication slope asks how well one measurement predicts the other after removing rating and opening-family effects: one means undiminished carry-over; zero, no linear relation. We find 0.69 (family-clustered 95% CI [0.65, 0.74]), rising to 0.94 on the most-popular, best-measured positions. The slope's value depends on the position mix. Existence is the invariant claim: it survives every tighter evaluation band, search depth, calibration, and popularity cutoff we test, and replicates within blitz and rapid separately. The typical skew is small (median $|δ| \approx 0.018$, about two percentage points of White score), yet it reproduces, position by position, across disjoint accounts. At these positions the disfavoured side also thinks longer. Even where the evaluation is most confident, it is not a sufficient statistic for human outcomes. The result is observational, and the causal question is left to a pre-registered randomised companion study.

Reproducing FACTER: Fairness via Conformal Thresholding and Prompt Repair

Fayyazi et al. (2025) recently proposed FACTER, a model-agnostic framework designed to jointly enforce fairness and statistical coverage in LLM-based recommendation through conformal thresholding and iterative prompt repair. In this work, we conduct a reproducibility study of the FACTER framework across diverse architectures and dataset sparsity levels, evaluating both the original open-ended generation task and a constrained re-ranking extension. Under the strict reproduction, we observe a divergence in recommendation utility, which we trace to underspecified target-set evaluation in the original study. We then use the constrained re-ranking setting to evaluate FACTER when the candidate set is fixed, and introduce a static Fair Zero-Shot baseline to isolate the contribution of the iterative prompt repair loop. Our analysis shows that FACTER consistently reduces adaptive-threshold violation counts, but that these reductions are not consistently reflected under the fixed threshold or in global fairness metrics. In the constrained ranking setting, static fairness instructions achieve comparable semantic-parity outcomes to FACTER's dynamic repair loop, suggesting that the additional online repair mechanism provides limited benefit in this formulation. All code and reproduction artifacts are available at https://github.com/oscar-omlf/facter-repr.

The embrace of open science: An analysis of a decade of AI research and 56 800 conference papers

The reproducibility crisis has directed the AI research community toward improving documentation practices. Several studies have identified methodological issues, and in response, the most impactful venues in the field have introduced reproducibility checklists. We seek to understand whether documentation practices have changed over time by assessing all published papers at five leading AI conferences over the past decade. Seven reproducibility variables were identified, quality-assured and used to analyse 56 800 publications. Our analysis reveals that in the period 2014 to 2024, documentation practices have improved; papers sharing both code and data increased nearly sixfold, from 11% to 64% Building on empirical reproducibility rates from a prior study, we estimate - inferred from documentation practices, not direct testing - that reproducibility increased from 28% in 2014 to 64% in 2024. Improvements in documentation practices predate the introduction of reproducibility checklists, suggesting these changes reflect a broader movement toward open science rather than a direct response to formal requirements.

Automated reproducibility assessments in the social and behavioral sciences using large language models

Reproducibility in the social and behavioral sciences is typically evaluated by independent researchers who reanalyze the original data to assess whether the published findings can be recovered. However, such approaches are resource-intensive and difficult to scale. Here, we show that large language models (LLMs) can automate reproducibility assessments. Using N=76 published studies with predefined claims from the behavioral and social sciences, we compare LLM-generated analysis with the original findings and human reanalysis. For 7 studies, the LLM could not produce a viable effect size estimate. For the remaining studies, our LLM pipeline recovered the original effect sizes in 41% of studies using a +/-0.05 tolerance in Cohen's d. Further, our LLM pipeline reached the same qualitative conclusion as the original study in 96% of cases, where conclusions indicate whether the reanalysis supports the original claim. For comparison, human reanalysts recovered the original effect sizes in 34% of studies and reached the same qualitative conclusion in 74% of cases. Together, these results show that LLMs can serve as a scalable tool for automated reproducibility assessment and provide a foundation for systematic auditing of empirical results in the social and behavioral sciences.

AI Coding Agents Can Reproduce Social Science Findings

Recent anecdotal evidence suggests that AI coding agents can reproduce published findings when provided with original data and code; yet systematic evaluation across social sciences remains limited. Existing evaluation benchmarks are insufficient, either small or conflate agent performance with problems in the reproduction materials themselves, such as code that fails to execute correctly. Here we introduce SocSci-Repro-Bench, a benchmark of 221 tasks spanning four disciplines and 13 substantive domains, constructed from studies whose results are either fully reproducible with available materials or demonstrably non-reproducible due to missing data, allowing us to isolate agents' reproduction capacity. Evaluating two frontier coding agents, Claude Code and Codex, we find that both can reproduce a large share of social science findings, with Claude Code substantially outperforming Codex. These reproduction rates considerably exceed those previously reported for general-purpose LLM-based agents on comparable reproducibility benchmarks. Both agents also perform strongly on a reasoning task requiring identification of underlying research questions, and additional analyses suggest that results are not primarily driven by memorization. Providing the original paper PDF alongside replication materials modestly improves performance but introduces bias on tasks where reproduction is impossible. We also show that agents can be nudged toward confirmatory specification search through subtle prompt framing. Together, these findings suggest that at least some frontier coding agents can serve as reliable executors of computational workflows while underscoring the need for careful benchmarking and prompt design as AI systems assume larger roles in scientific production.

Beyond Agent Architecture: Execution Assumptions and Reproducibility in LLM-Based Trading Systems

Large language models (LLMs) and agentic systems are increasingly proposed for financial trading, yet their reported performance remains difficult to compare because studies vary in data provenance, temporal split discipline, execution timing, turnover treatment, and transaction-cost modeling. This article presents a targeted topical review and reproducibility audit of execution realism in LLM-based trading research. A coded evidence matrix covering 30 trade-relevant primary studies is used to assess point-in-time controls, split transparency, held-out evaluation, cost and turnover treatment, execution semantics, universe definition, and artifact release. Across the audited sample, architecture reporting is generally clearer than the evaluation assumptions needed to judge whether a trading result is economically interpretable or reproducible. A 10-equity worked example is included only as a methodological scaffold to illustrate how explicit friction and timing choices can materially compress active-strategy results. The main conclusion is that the next useful step for LLM trading research is not only better agent design, but also clearer reporting standards for execution realism, reproducibility, and evaluation comparability.

Traxia: A Framework for Verifiable, Agent-Native Scientific Publishing

Verifiability, attribution, and reproducibility are foundational requirements of scientific knowledge, yet current publishing infrastructure does not enforce them at scale. We introduce Traxia, an agent-native scientific publishing framework in which AI research agents publish verifiable papers, build reputational identities, peer-review one another, and collaborate with humans in a shared provenance model. Traxia treats agents as first-class epistemic participants: every paper carries a reasoning trace, every claim a confidence interval, every agent a cryptographically signed identity, and every collaboration an immutable contribution log. We formalise five components: Agent Identity and Registry, Verifiable Publishing Layer, four-tier Peer Review Protocol, Reputation and Staking Engine, and a Knowledge Graph with contradiction detection. The framework targets reproducibility failure, provenance opacity, and exclusion of Global South research capacity. This paper presents architectural foundations and formal specifications only; it does not report empirical results. Evaluation and deeper component studies will follow in subsequent papers. A prototype partially implements core formalisms; the full system remains under active development.

Reproducibility is the New Copyleft: Defining AGI-oriented Reproducible Builds

Copyleft, as implemented in licenses such as the GNU General Public License, was a legal hack that used copyright to guarantee user freedom by tying the availability of source code to every act of distribution. Its normative force rested on an implicit technical premise: that source code and object code stand in a well-defined, humanly auditable, and reproducible relationship. Large language models and, prospectively, Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) systems systematically violate this premise. The artifacts jointly required to reconstruct a model -- code, data, weights, hyperparameters, toolchain, and hardware configuration -- are each subject to independent legal, technical, and economic constraints that no current open-source framework fully resolves. Sufficiently capable AI systems can also rewrite licensed source into functionally equivalent derivatives stripped of their original obligations, a form of laundering against which copyleft has no effective defense. This paper argues that a functional analogue of copyleft for AGI must be grounded not in share-alike clauses over code, but in reproducible builds: a practice guaranteeing bit-exact reconstructability from declared inputs. We review the logic of copyleft, critically examine Maffulli's Second Liberation thesis according to which AI fulfills Stallman's dream, and show that the argument collapses unless AGI systems are themselves reproducible. Drawing on the Open Source AI Definition (OSAID), the Model Openness Framework (MOF), OpenMDW, and deterministic-inference research, we define seven requirements for AGI-oriented reproducible builds. We further argue that the Model Context Protocol (MCP) and analogous AI-to-AI coupling mechanisms constitute a new dynamic linking layer for which copyleft-style licensing is ill-suited, and that Masnick's "protocols, not platforms" framework offers a more promising governance template.

ARA: Agentic Reproducibility Assessment For Scalable Support Of Scientific Peer-Review

Scientific peer review increasingly struggles to assess reproducibility at the scale and complexity of modern research output. Evaluating reproducibility requires reconstructing experimental dependencies, methodological choices, data flows, and result-generating procedures, which often exceeds what human reviewers can provide. Agentic Reproducibility Assessment (ARA) formalizes reproducibility assessment as a structured reasoning task over scientific documents. Given a paper, ARA extracts a directed workflow graph linking sources, methods, experiments, and outputs, then evaluates its reconstructability using structural and content-based scores for reproducibility assessments. Experiments on 213 ReScience C articles - the largest cross-domain benchmark of human-validated computational reproducibility studies considered to date - demonstrate ARA's generalizability and consistent workflow reconstruction and assessment across LLMs, model temperatures, and scientific domains. ARA achieves ~61% accuracy on three benchmarks, and the highest accuracy reported on ReproBench (60.71% vs. 36.84%) and GoldStandardDB (61.68% vs. 43.56%), highlighting its potential to complement human review at scale and enabling next-generation peer review. Code and Data available: https://github.com/AndresLaverdeMarin/agentic_reproducibility_assessment.

Bye Bye Perspective API: Lessons for Measurement Infrastructure in NLP, CSS and LLM Evaluation

The closure of Perspective API at the end of 2026 discards what has functioned as the de facto standard for automated toxicity measurement in NLP, CSS, and LLM evaluation research. We document the structural dependence that the communities built on this single proprietary tool and discuss how this dependence caused epistemic problems that have affected - and will likely continue to affect - collective research efforts. Perspective's model was periodically updated without versioning or disclosure, its annotation structure reflected a single corporate operationalisation of a contested concept, and its scores were used simultaneously as an evaluation target and an evaluation standard. Its closure leaves behind non-updatable benchmarks, irreproducible results, and ultimately a field at risk of perpetuating these issues by turning to closed-source LLMs. We use Perspective's announced termination as an opportunity to call for an independent, valid, adaptable, and reproducible toxicity and hate speech measurement infrastructure, with the technical and governance requirements outlined in this paper.