leaderboard management

This work proposes ReproScore, a novel framework that explicitly decouples reproducibility readiness (RRS) from reproducibility outcomes (ROS)—a distinction often conflated in existing tools that mistakenly treat static repository completeness as a proxy for successful execution. RRS comprises 26 fine-grained submetrics assessing code and documentation quality, while ROS is derived through sandboxed execution probes. The two dimensions are integrated into an adaptive composite score (RCS), with customizable metric weights via versioned YAML configurations contributed by the community. Empirical evaluation across 423 GitHub repositories spanning five failure modes demonstrates that environment-related metrics effectively discriminate failure types, yet reveals a near-zero correlation between RRS and actual execution success—exposing a critical “readiness–outcome gap” and thereby validating the necessity and efficacy of the proposed architectural separation.

This work addresses the fundamental lack of fairness and robustness in evaluating model transferability across domains. We propose the first systematic, standardized benchmarking framework for assessing cross-domain transfer capability. Our method introduces a unified multi-source-domain–target-domain evaluation protocol, encompassing diverse transfer tasks and perturbation-robustness analysis, and adopts head-training (i.e., linear-probe fine-tuning) as the consistent evaluation paradigm. Empirical analysis reveals significant performance discrepancies among existing transferability metrics under varying experimental settings, undermining their reliability. Our framework substantially improves assessment fidelity, yielding an average 3.5% gain in transfer performance under standard head-training configurations. To foster reproducibility and rigorous comparison, we fully open-source all code, datasets, and evaluation pipelines—establishing a new, standardized paradigm for transferability measurement.

This study addresses the underexplored engineering challenges in existing machine learning evaluation frameworks, where operational issues and their root causes have lacked systematic investigation. To bridge this gap, the work formally establishes evaluation engineering as a distinct research direction within software engineering. Through an empirical analysis of 57 frameworks and a comprehensive categorization of 16,560 reported issues across a newly proposed five-stage workflow model, the study reveals that 41.4% of problems originate in the specification phase, while 61.7% of classified issues stem from missing functionality, inadequate documentation, and insufficient input validation. The findings yield a structured taxonomy of evaluation-related problems and provide empirical evidence to inform the design and improvement of robust evaluation systems.

This work proposes an AI agent–driven workflow to address the high costs of reproducing large-scale empirical studies, which often stem from discrepancies in computational environments, code, and documentation. The approach decouples scientific reasoning from computational execution: researchers supply standardized diagnostic templates, and the system automatically retrieves and orchestrates reproduction materials within a version-controlled environment. A structured knowledge layer captures failure patterns, enabling adaptive reproduction across heterogeneous studies while ensuring transparency and stability of the analytical pipeline. Evaluated on 92 instrumental variable studies, the method achieves an 87% end-to-end reproduction success rate; when data and code are available, it attains 100% success at both the paper and model levels.

This work addresses the efficiency bottleneck of manual reproducibility reviews in safety-critical domains such as the Internet of Things and cyber-physical systems, which hampers research transparency and deployability. The paper presents the first systematic framework leveraging large language models (LLMs) to automate reproducibility assessment by integrating natural language understanding, code generation, sandboxed environment auto-configuration, and rule-guided flaw detection. This approach enables reproducibility scoring, automatic execution environment setup, and identification of methodological flaws. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed method achieves over 72% accuracy in reproducibility judgment, automatically constructs executable environments for 28% of runnable artifacts, and attains F1 scores exceeding 92% across seven common categories of methodological defects, substantially enhancing both the efficiency and quality of reproducibility review.

Existing attribution methods lack a unified, scalable, and reproducible evaluation framework, hindering systematic comparison. To address this gap, this work proposes the first modular benchmarking framework for attribution, decoupling the pipeline into five interoperable layers—data, preprocessing, model, attribution method, and evaluation—and enabling flexible integration through abstract interfaces and a dynamic registration mechanism. The framework introduces an innovative four-tier categorization system coupled with an automated testing protocol that rigorously validates whether each implemented method reproduces results from its original publication. An interactive web interface further supports multidimensional configuration and comparative analysis. Currently integrating 28 state-of-the-art attribution methods, the framework establishes the first automated, quantitative guarantee of method-level reproducibility in the field.

This work addresses the limitations of existing reproducibility assessment methods, which rely on manual annotations and thus lack scalability and authentic supervision signals reflecting real-world reproduction challenges. The authors propose the first scalable evaluation framework that leverages GitHub user-submitted issues as natural supervision, enabling large-scale assessment of large language model (LLM) agents’ ability to identify paper-to-code reproducibility issues without human annotation. By integrating language understanding with code context analysis, the approach enables non-execution-based detection of reproducibility barriers. Experimental results demonstrate that the best-performing LLM agent identifies at least one semantically relevant reproducibility issue—aligned with those reported by humans—in approximately 90% of the evaluated papers, exhibiting strong performance in both failure detection and semantic localization.

This study addresses the limitations of existing AI evaluation methods, which often fail to align with real-world user needs, contextual nuances, and local policies, while manual assessment remains difficult to scale. To bridge this gap, the authors propose an auditable and iterative, context-aware evaluation framework that integrates persona-driven test case generation, domain-specific scoring rubrics, and a hybrid adjudication mechanism combining human reviewers and LLM-based judges. Automated scoring is activated only when sufficient agreement between LLM judgments and human annotations is achieved. A three-week pilot across four organizations involving 108 annotated question-answer pairs demonstrates that the approach effectively balances policy alignment with scalable automation, enabling reliable end-to-end evaluation of AI systems.

This study addresses the ambiguity and inconsistency in evaluation criteria for software engineering replication studies, which have led to contradictory interpretations and uncertainty in reported results. Through a systematic review of ten replication studies published between 2021 and 2025, combined with qualitative content analysis, statistical principles, and modeling of measurement uncertainty, this work is the first to uncover the heterogeneity and lack of standardized practices in current evaluation approaches. Building on these insights, the paper proposes a unified evaluation framework that integrates statistical theory, methodological rigor, and measurement theory. Empirical illustration demonstrates that the framework effectively enhances the transparency, consistency, comparability, and reliability of replication studies in software engineering.

This study addresses the lack of reproducibility in current agent safety evaluations, where identical surface-level outcomes may stem from vastly different evidentiary bases, undermining validity verification. To resolve this, the authors propose a cross-platform, vendor-neutral reproducibility measurement framework that introduces, for the first time, decision-level reproducibility metrics and a claim-evidence overstatement gap. The approach incorporates an evidence sufficiency card and a release gating mechanism, built upon a counterfactual replay intervention protocol, replay precondition probes, cross-framework adapters, and a twelve-dimensional evidence scoring system. Crucially, it enables evaluation on both public and bundled trajectories without requiring new model executions. Experiments demonstrate that semantically equivalent inputs yield sufficiency scores ranging from 0.458 to 0.833; the release gate successfully blocks low-scoring variants (0.542) while approving high-scoring versions (0.667). All results are fully reproducible via an open-source package.