Beyond the Text: Verifying That Agent-Written Papers Are Backed by Their Artifacts

Abstract

Large language model agents are increasingly capable of conducting research autonomously, producing research documents alongside the code and experiments that ostensibly support them. Yet whether the reported findings are consistently supported by corresponding implementations and execution evidence remains largely unexplored: existing review practices primarily assess textual quality and cannot reliably identify inconsistencies such as hard-coded metrics, unimplemented methods, or unsupported experimental results. We present ReAgent, an automated auditing framework for assessing the consistency between agent-generated research documents and their associated repositories. ReAgent constructs structured representations of scientific claims from research documents and uses them to guide repository analysis and evidence collection. Static auditing examines whether claimed methodologies, implementations, and experimental configurations are consistently reflected in the repository, while dynamic auditing executes relevant experiments and collects execution evidence to assess empirical findings. By combining static analysis with dynamic evidence, ReAgent identifies inconsistencies that may remain hidden under either perspective alone, such as experiments that reproduce reported numbers while deviating from the claimed methodology. The collected evidence and audit decisions are organized into a structured repository-level audit report, enabling transparent evidence traceability. We evaluate ReAgent on a manually curated benchmark of agent-generated research document--repository pairs and compare it against representative static and reproduction-based baselines. Experimental results demonstrate that ReAgent effectively identifies inconsistencies between reported research findings and their supporting repository evidence.