arXiv subjects

Rochana R. Obadage

Publications and source records attributed to Rochana R. Obadage.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

URL Extraction from Scholarly Documents: A Cross-Format Comparative Analysis

URLs in scholarly documents link to rich external resources such as datasets, software, publications, and websites. Extracting these URLs is crucial in the data preparation stage of many downstream tasks, such as link rot analysis, web crawling, and building knowledge graphs. However, existing studies often downplay this phase, simply extracting URLs from a single format, usually text directly converted from PDFs. We present a systematic study evaluating URL extraction across six input formats (text with annotation layer, LaTeX, HTML, XML, Markdown, and PNG converted from PDF). To support the evaluation, we compiled a benchmark dataset consisting of 2,338 manually annotated URLs from 200 arXiv papers spanning a wide range of domains over a 33-year period. In addition to evaluating individual file formats, we also compared 63 composite input-format combinations. Our extensive evaluations indicate that TEXTWAL achieves the best performance among single-format inputs, while TEXTWAL+LaTeX achieves the best overall URL extraction performance. The same trend is observed for URLs linking to open-access datasets and software. To further validate these findings, we apply our format-specific URL extraction pipelines to a longitudinal random sample of 364,744 arXiv papers spanning 33 years. We observe a sharp increase in URL density after 2015, along with remarkable differences in URL extraction across file formats over time. Overall, our study highlights the importance of selecting an appropriate format for URL extraction from scholarly documents. The dataset and code are publicly available at: https://github.com/lamps-lab/arxiv-url-bench .

cs.DL↗

arXiv2026

ReplicatorBench: Benchmarking LLM Agents for Replicability in Social and Behavioral Sciences

The literature has witnessed an emerging interest in AI agents for automated assessment of scientific papers. Existing benchmarks focus primarily on the computational aspect of this task, testing agents' ability to reproduce or replicate research outcomes when having access to the code and data. This setting, while foundational, (1) fails to capture the inconsistent availability of new data for replication as opposed to reproduction, and (2) lacks ground-truth diversity by focusing only on reproducible papers, thereby failing to evaluate an agent's ability to identify non-replicable research. Furthermore, most benchmarks only evaluate outcomes rather than the replication process. In response, we introduce ReplicatorBench, an end-to-end benchmark, including human-verified replicable and non-replicable research claims in social and behavioral sciences for evaluating AI agents in research replication across three stages: (1) extraction and retrieval of replication data; (2) design and execution of computational experiments; and (3) interpretation of results, allowing a test of AI agents' capability to mimic the activities of human replicators in real world. To set a baseline of AI agents' capability, we develop ReplicatorAgent, an agentic framework equipped with necessary tools, like web search and iterative interaction with sandboxed environments, to accomplish tasks in ReplicatorBench. We evaluate ReplicatorAgent across four underlying large language models (LLMs), as well as different design choices of programming language and levels of code access. Our findings reveal that while current LLM agents are capable of effectively designing and executing computational experiments, they struggle with retrieving resources, such as new data, necessary to replicate a claim. All code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/CenterForOpenScience/llm-benchmarking.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

CC30k: A Citation Contexts Dataset for Reproducibility-Oriented Sentiment Analysis

Sentiments about the reproducibility of cited papers in downstream literature offer community perspectives and have shown as a promising signal of the actual reproducibility of published findings. To train effective models to effectively predict reproducibility-oriented sentiments and further systematically study their correlation with reproducibility, we introduce the CC30k dataset, comprising a total of 30,734 citation contexts in machine learning papers. Each citation context is labeled with one of three reproducibility-oriented sentiment labels: Positive, Negative, or Neutral, reflecting the cited paper's perceived reproducibility or replicability. Of these, 25,829 are labeled through crowdsourcing, supplemented with negatives generated through a controlled pipeline to counter the scarcity of negative labels. Unlike traditional sentiment analysis datasets, CC30k focuses on reproducibility-oriented sentiments, addressing a research gap in resources for computational reproducibility studies. The dataset was created through a pipeline that includes robust data cleansing, careful crowd selection, and thorough validation. The resulting dataset achieves a labeling accuracy of 94%. We then demonstrated that the performance of three large language models significantly improves on the reproducibility-oriented sentiment classification after fine-tuning using our dataset. The dataset lays the foundation for large-scale assessments of the reproducibility of machine learning papers. The CC30k dataset and the Jupyter notebooks used to produce and analyze the dataset are publicly available at https://github.com/lamps-lab/CC30k .

cs.DL↗

arXiv2025

Toward Robust URL Extraction for Open Science: A Study of arXiv File Formats and Temporal Trends

In this work, we study how URL extraction results depend on input format. We compiled a pilot dataset by extracting URLs from 10 arXiv papers and used the same heuristic method to extract URLs from four formats derived from the PDF files or the source LaTeX files. We found that accurate and complete URL extraction from any single format or a combination of multiple formats is challenging, with the best F1-score of 0.71. Using the pilot dataset, we evaluate extraction performance across formats and show that structured formats like HTML and XML produce more accurate results than PDFs or Text. Combining multiple formats improves coverage, especially when targeting research-critical resources. We further apply URL extraction on two tasks, namely classifying URLs into open-access datasets and software and the others, and analyzing the trend of URLs usage in arXiv papers from 1992 to 2024. These results suggest that using a combination of multiple formats achieves better performance on URL extraction than a single format, and the number of URLs in arXiv papers has been steadily increasing since 1992 to 2014 and has been drastically increasing from 2014 to 2024. The dataset and the Jupyter notebooks used for the preliminary analysis are publicly available at https://github.com/lamps-lab/arxiv-urls

cs.DL↗

arXiv2024

[Re] Network Deconvolution

Our work aims to reproduce the set of findings published in "Network Deconvolution" by Ye et al. (2020)[1]. That paper proposes an optimization technique for model training in convolutional neural networks. The proposed technique "network deconvolution" is used in convolutional neural networks to remove pixel-wise and channel-wise correlations before data is fed into each layer. In particular, we interrogate the validity of the authors' claim that using network deconvolution instead of batch normalization improves deep learning model performance. Our effort confirms the validity of this claim, successfully reproducing the results reported in Tables 1 and 2 of the original paper. Our study involved 367 unique experiments across multiple architectures, datasets, and hyper parameter configurations. For Table 1, while there were some minor deviations in accuracy when compared to the original values (within 10%), the overall trend was consistent with the original study's findings when training the models with epochs 20 and 100. For Table 2, all 14 reproduced values were consistent with the original values. Additionally, we document the training and testing times for each architecture in Table 1 with 1, 20, and 100 epoch settings for both CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100 datasets. We document the total execution times for Table 2 architectures with the ImageNet dataset. The data and software used for this reproducibility study are publicly available at https://github.com/lamps-lab/rep-network-deconvolution.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2024

Can citations tell us about a paper's reproducibility? A case study of machine learning papers

The iterative character of work in machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) and reliance on comparisons against benchmark datasets emphasize the importance of reproducibility in that literature. Yet, resource constraints and inadequate documentation can make running replications particularly challenging. Our work explores the potential of using downstream citation contexts as a signal of reproducibility. We introduce a sentiment analysis framework applied to citation contexts from papers involved in Machine Learning Reproducibility Challenges in order to interpret the positive or negative outcomes of reproduction attempts. Our contributions include training classifiers for reproducibility-related contexts and sentiment analysis, and exploring correlations between citation context sentiment and reproducibility scores. Study data, software, and an artifact appendix are publicly available at https://github.com/lamps-lab/ccair-ai-reproducibility .

cs.DL↗