Automating Computational Reproducibility in Social Science: Comparing Prompt-Based and Agent-Based Approaches
Syed Mehtab Hussain Shah, Frank Hopfgartner, and Arnim Bleier

TL;DR
This study compares prompt-based and agent-based AI workflows for automating the diagnosis and repair of reproducibility failures in social science computational research, demonstrating higher success rates with agent-based systems.
Contribution
It introduces a controlled testbed for evaluating AI-driven reproducibility repair methods and shows that agent-based workflows outperform prompt-based approaches.
Findings
Prompt-based methods achieved 31-79% success rates.
Agent-based workflows achieved 69-96% success rates.
Complex failures benefited most from agent-based systems.
Abstract
Reproducing computational research is often assumed to be as simple as rerunning the original code with provided data. In practice, missing packages, fragile file paths, version conflicts, or incomplete logic frequently cause analyses to fail, even when materials are shared. This study investigates whether large language models and AI agents can automate the diagnosis and repair of such failures, making computational results easier to reproduce and verify. We evaluate this using a controlled reproducibility testbed built from five fully reproducible R-based social science studies. Realistic failures were injected, ranging from simple issues to complex missing logic, and two automated repair workflows were tested in clean Docker environments. The first workflow is prompt-based, repeatedly querying language models with structured prompts of varying context, while the second uses…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
