HFEPX · Eval paper review

ReproBridge: Building Reproducibility into ML Research Artifacts

Yubo Wang, Rui Meng, Jaehyun Nam, Tomas Pfister +1 more

Published

Nov 5, 2026

Citations

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 (Low)

Extraction confidence

35% (Low)

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Rater population

Not reported

Signals refreshed

Nov 5, 2026

Open arXiv Find implementation Shortlist (0) RSS feed

Should you rely on this paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Abstract-only analysis, low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Human feedback signal

Not explicit

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation signal

Detected

Eval setup described

Usefulness for eval research

0/100

Adjacent candidate

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here

Human Eval Papers LLM-as-Judge Papers Pairwise Preference Papers Tool-Use Evaluation Search

Abstract

Reproducing machine learning experiments requires reconstructing procedures from information scattered across papers, released code, and supporting artifacts. For coding agents, reproduction success can therefore depend on their ability to fill in missing details, rather than on the released artifacts alone. We ask whether preserving recovered procedures and decisions improves subsequent independent reproduction. We define a standardized artifact design comprising a refined codebase, environment setup, experiment launchers, and a reproduction guide, and introduce ReproBridge, an agent workflow for constructing these refined reproducible artifacts. ReproBridge-Bench provides 1,029 tasks from 387 experiments across 36 papers, anchored by five human-verified reference scores per task. Agents attempt tasks in fresh sessions with raw code or refined artifacts; a separate Auditor checks execution evidence. Across four evaluated models, refined artifacts raise mean reproduction success from 76.4% to 92.6% and reduce downstream API spending by 19.7% on average. The cross-model success-rate spread narrows from 21.6 to 3.9 percentage points, with all four models achieving mean success rates above 90%. Removing any component reduces success in the ablation study, with the largest losses from code and environment removal. These results suggest that preserving execution knowledge helps even models with lower raw-code success reproduce experiments more reliably and at lower API cost.

What we could verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.