Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study evaluates the efficacy of large language models (LLMs) in automating reproducibility assessments in the social and behavioral sciences by analyzing 76 published studies. The LLMs successfully recovered original effect sizes in 41% of cases and matched qualitative conclusions in 96% of instances, outperforming human reanalysts who achieved 34% and 74%, respectively. These findings highlight the potential of LLMs to streamline and scale reproducibility evaluations, addressing a significant challenge in the field.
LLMs can automate reproducibility assessments, achieving a 41% recovery rate of effect sizes鈥攐utperforming human analysts.
Reproducibility in the social and behavioral sciences is typically evaluated by independent researchers who reanalyze the original data to assess whether the published findings can be recovered. However, such approaches are resource-intensive and difficult to scale. Here, we show that large language models (LLMs) can automate reproducibility assessments. Using N=76 published studies with predefined claims from the behavioral and social sciences, we compare LLM-generated analysis with the original findings and human reanalysis. For 7 studies, the LLM could not produce a viable effect size estimate. For the remaining studies, our LLM pipeline recovered the original effect sizes in 41% of studies using a +/-0.05 tolerance in Cohen's d. Further, our LLM pipeline reached the same qualitative conclusion as the original study in 96% of cases, where conclusions indicate whether the reanalysis supports the original claim. For comparison, human reanalysts recovered the original effect sizes in 34% of studies and reached the same qualitative conclusion in 74% of cases. Together, these results show that LLMs can serve as a scalable tool for automated reproducibility assessment and provide a foundation for systematic auditing of empirical results in the social and behavioral sciences.
