# CORE-Bench: Fostering the Credibility of Published Research Through a Computational Reproducibility Agent Benchmark

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.11363 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.11363/

## Key facts

- Cited by 123 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Web, search, and research agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 23 of its 90 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 17 Sep 2024.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Web, search, and research agents](https://mlsanity.com/agents/web-search-and-research-agents/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 23 of 23)

- [Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03374/) (2021)
- [SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06770/) (2023)
- [SWE-agent: Agent-Computer Interfaces Enable Automated Software Engineering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.15793/) (2024)
- [Competition-Level Code Generation with AlphaCode](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.07814/) (2022)
- [τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12045/) (2024)
- [The AI Scientist: Towards Fully Automated Open-Ended Scientific Discovery](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.06292/) (2024)
- [Large Language Monkeys: Scaling Inference Compute with Repeated Sampling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21787/) (2024)
- [AI and the Everything in the Whole Wide World Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2111.15366/) (2021)
- [Improving Reproducibility in Machine Learning Research (A Report from the NeurIPS 2019 Reproducibility Program)](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2003.12206/) (2020)
- [AI Agents That Matter](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.01502/) (2024)
- [Lessons from the Trenches on Reproducible Evaluation of Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.14782/) (2024)
- [SciCode: A Research Coding Benchmark Curated by Scientists](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.13168/) (2024)
- [MultiPL-E: A Scalable and Extensible Approach to Benchmarking Neural Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2208.08227/) (2022)
- [ChartBench: A Benchmark for Complex Visual Reasoning in Charts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.15915/) (2023)
- [DiscoveryBench: Towards Data-Driven Discovery with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.01725/) (2024)
- [A Step Toward Quantifying Independently Reproducible Machine Learning Research](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.06674/) (2019)
- [CiteME: Can Language Models Accurately Cite Scientific Claims?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.12861/) (2024)
- [The Larger the Better? Improved LLM Code-Generation via Budget Reallocation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.00725/) (2024)
- [A Systematic Review of Reproducibility Research in Natural Language Processing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.07929/) (2021)
- [Security of AI Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.08689/) (2024)
- [PyBench: Evaluating LLM Agent on various real-world coding tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.16732/) (2024)
- [A large-scale study on research code quality and execution](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.12793/) (2021)
- [Computational reproducibility of Jupyter notebooks from biomedical publications](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.07333/) (2023)

## Built on by (most cited first, 30 of 123)

- [PaperBench: Evaluating AI's Ability to Replicate AI Research](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.01848/) (2025)
- [Survey on Evaluation of LLM-based Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.16416/) (2025)
- [Evaluation and Benchmarking of LLM Agents: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.21504/) (2025)
- [Holistic Agent Leaderboard: The Missing Infrastructure for AI Agent Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.11977/) (2025)
- [BixBench: a Comprehensive Benchmark for LLM-based Agents in Computational Biology](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.00096/) (2025)
- [SHADE-Arena: Evaluating Sabotage and Monitoring in LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.15740/) (2025)
- [SciReplicate-Bench: Benchmarking LLMs in Agent-driven Algorithmic Reproduction from Research Papers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.00255/) (2025)
- [AIRS-Bench: a Suite of Tasks for Frontier AI Research Science Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.06855/) (2026)
- [EnvBench: A Benchmark for Automated Environment Setup](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.14443/) (2025)
- [ResearchCodeBench: Benchmarking LLMs on Implementing Novel Machine Learning Research Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.02314/) (2025)
- [AutoReproduce: Automatic AI Experiment Reproduction with Paper Lineage](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.20662/) (2025)
- [When AI Co-Scientists Fail: SPOT-a Benchmark for Automated Verification of Scientific Research](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.11855/) (2025)
- [SWE-Marathon: Can Agents Autonomously Complete Ultra-Long-Horizon Software Work?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.07682/) (2026)
- [FEABench: Evaluating Language Models on Multiphysics Reasoning Ability](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.06260/) (2025)
- [AI Scientists Fail Without Strong Implementation Capability](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.01372/) (2025)
- [REPRO-Bench: Can Agentic AI Systems Assess the Reproducibility of Social Science Research?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.18901/) (2025)
- [Uncertainty Quantification in LLM Agents: Foundations, Emerging Challenges, and Opportunities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.05073/) (2026)
- [RExBench: Can coding agents autonomously implement AI research extensions?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.22598/) (2025)
- [ResearchClawBench: A Benchmark for End-to-End Autonomous Scientific Research](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.07591/) (2026)
- [FIRE-Bench: Evaluating AI Agents on the Rediscovery of Scientific Insights](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.02905/) (2026)
- [The AI Agent Index](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.01635/) (2025)
- [AutoAdvExBench: Benchmarking autonomous exploitation of adversarial example defenses](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.01811/) (2025)
- [The Automated LLM Speedrunning Benchmark: Reproducing NanoGPT Improvements](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.22419/) (2025)
- [How Far Are AI Scientists from Changing the World?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.23276/) (2025)
- [PaperArena: An Evaluation Benchmark for Tool-Augmented Agentic Reasoning on Scientific Literature](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.10909/) (2025)
- [Jr. AI Scientist and Its Risk Report: Autonomous Scientific Exploration from a Baseline Paper](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.04583/) (2025)
- [HeurekaBench: A Benchmarking Framework for AI Co-scientist](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.01678/) (2026)
- [ReplicationBench: Can AI Agents Replicate Astrophysics Research Papers?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.24591/) (2025)
- [SciCoQA: Quality Assurance for Scientific Paper--Code Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.12910/) (2026)
- [How Well Does Agent Development Reflect Real-World Work?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.01203/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

AI agents have the potential to aid users on a variety of consequential tasks, including conducting scientific research. To spur the development of useful agents, we need benchmarks that are challenging, but more crucially, directly correspond to real-world tasks of interest. This paper introduces such a benchmark, designed to measure the accuracy of AI agents in tackling a crucial yet surprisingly challenging aspect of scientific research: computational reproducibility. This task, fundamental to the scientific process, involves reproducing the results of a study using the provided code and data. We introduce CORE-Bench (Computational Reproducibility Agent Benchmark), a benchmark consisting of 270 tasks based on 90 scientific papers across three disciplines (computer science, social science, and medicine). Tasks in CORE-Bench consist of three difficulty levels and include both language-only and vision-language tasks. We provide an evaluation system to measure the accuracy of agents in a fast and parallelizable way, saving days of evaluation time for each run compared to a sequential implementation. We evaluated two baseline agents: the general-purpose AutoGPT and a task-specific agent called CORE-Agent. We tested both variants using two underlying language models: GPT-4o and GPT-4o-mini. The best agent achieved an accuracy of 21% on the hardest task, showing the vast scope for improvement in automating routine scientific tasks. Having agents that can reproduce existing work is a necessary step towards building agents that can conduct novel research and could verify and improve the performance of other research agents. We hope that CORE-Bench can improve the state of reproducibility and spur the development of future research agents.