Rollout Cards: A Reproducibility Standard for Agent Research
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Reproducibility problems that have long affected machine learning and reinforcement learning are now surfacing in agent research: papers compare systems by reported scores while leaving the rollout records behind those scores difficult to inspect. For agentic tasks, this matters because the same behaviour can receive different reported scores when evaluations select different parts of a rollout or apply different reporting rules. In a structured audit of 50 popular training and evaluation repositories, we find that none report how many runs failed, errored, or were skipped alongside headline scores. We also document 37 cases where reporting rules can change task-success rates, cost/token accounting, or timing measurements for fixed evidence, sometimes dramatically. We treat rollout records, not reported scores, as the unit of reproducibility for agent research. We introduce rollout cards: publication bundles that preserve the rollout record and declare the views, reporting rules, and drops manifests behind reported scores. We validate rollout cards in two settings. First, four partial public releases in tool safety, multi-agent systems, theorem proving, and search let us compute analyses their original reports did not include. Second, re-grading preserved benchmark outputs across short-answer, code-generation, and tool-use tasks shows that changing only the reporting rule can change reported scores by 20.9 absolute percentage points and, in some cases, invert rankings of frontier models. We release a reference implementation integrated into Ergon, an open-source reinforcement learning gym, and publicly publish Ergon-produced rollout-card exports for benchmarks spanning tool use, software engineering, web interaction, multi-agent coordination, safety, and search to support future research.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 35 of its 57 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 May 2026.
Builds on
35 of 57 references.
References · 35
- 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,768
- 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,193
- 2023Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Modelscited by 3,155
- 2024HybridFlow: A Flexible and Efficient RLHF Frameworkcited by 1,980
- 2023WebArena: A Realistic Web Environment for Building Autonomous Agentscited by 1,908
- 2023ToolLLM: Facilitating Large Language Models to Master 16000+ Real-world APIscited by 1,880
- 2024SWE-agent: Agent-Computer Interfaces Enable Automated Software Engineeringcited by 1,628
- 2018Datasheets for Datasetscited by 1,371
- 2025Understanding R1-Zero-Like Training: A Critical Perspectivecited by 1,276
- 2018Model Cards for Model Reportingcited by 1,068
- 2021Deep Reinforcement Learning at the Edge of the Statistical Precipicecited by 781
- 2017Deep Reinforcement Learning that Matterscited by 727
23 more
- 2025Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail?cited by 559
- 2016The Option-Critic Architecturecited by 433
- 2025Multi-Agent Collaboration Mechanisms: A Survey of LLMscited by 424
- 2024AgentHarm: A Benchmark for Measuring Harmfulness of LLM Agentscited by 406
- 2021MiniF2F: a cross-system benchmark for formal Olympiad-level mathematicscited by 380
- 2025RAGEN: Understanding Self-Evolution in LLM Agents via Multi-Turn Reinforcement Learningcited by 357
- 2024ReST-MCTS*: LLM Self-Training via Process Reward Guided Tree Searchcited by 338
- 2020Improving Reproducibility in Machine Learning Research (A Report from the NeurIPS 2019 Reproducibility Program)cited by 318
- 2025rStar-Math: Small LLMs Can Master Math Reasoning with Self-Evolved Deep Thinkingcited by 308
- 2024Frontier Models are Capable of In-context Schemingcited by 252
- 2025Survey on Evaluation of LLM-based Agentscited by 190
- 2025Measuring AI Ability to Complete Long Software Taskscited by 142
- 2025SWE-rebench: An Automated Pipeline for Task Collection and Decontaminated Evaluation of Software Engineering Agentscited by 127
- 2025Reinforcement Learning for Long-Horizon Interactive LLM Agentscited by 103
- 2025Agent Lightning: Train ANY AI Agents with Reinforcement Learningcited by 94
- 2025ResearchRubrics: A Benchmark of Prompts and Rubrics For Evaluating Deep Research Agentscited by 80
- 2023An In-Context Learning Agent for Formal Theorem-Provingcited by 78
- 2023Learning adaptive planning representations with natural language guidancecited by 36
- 2025Revisiting Multi-Agent Debate as Test-Time Scaling: A Systematic Study of Conditional Effectivenesscited by 18
- 2024N-Agent Ad Hoc Teamworkcited by 15
- 2024ReDel: A Toolkit for LLM-Powered Recursive Multi-Agent Systemscited by 8
- 2025Large Language Models for Software Engineering: A Reproducibility Crisiscited by 8
- 2025Combining Large Language Models and Symbolic Reasoning for Multi-Robot Temporal Planning through Explainable Knowledge Basescited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Beyond Pass@k: Measuring Reliability and Security of Agentic Code Generation
- 2026Agent Error Dataset: Scaling 50,000 Error--Diagnosis Pairs for Failure Analysis and Error-Aware Post-Training
- 2026AgentBeats: Agentifying Agent Assessment for Openness, Standardization, and Reproducibility
- 2026RSIBench-Data: Benchmarking Data-Centric Research for Recursive Self-Improvement
- 2026ReproRepo: Scaling Reproducibility Audits with GitHub Repository Issues
- 2026SkillsVote: Lifecycle Governance of Agent Skills from Collection, Recommendation to Evolution
- 2026Reproducibility in the Age of Agentic AI: Context Engineering at the Timescale of a Codebase
- 2026AI Coding Agents Can Reproduce Social Science Findings