← Back to Submissions

Audit Report: Paper 53

Audit Summary

CODEBASE AUDIT RESULT: LOW AGENT REPRODUCIBILITY: True

---

Detailed Code Audit Report - Submission 53

Executive Summary

This submission presents a study on AI agent behavior, specifically examining group polarization and resistance to misinformation correction in GPT-4.1-mini agents. The codebase consists of a single Jupyter notebook with data loading and statistical analysis code, supported by CSV data files containing survey responses. The code is functional and appears to successfully reproduce the reported statistical results. Importantly, this submission explicitly documents the use of AI agents (GPT-4.1-mini via Liner's Survey Simulator platform) as the research subjects, qualifying for agent reproducibility designation.

1. COMPLETENESS & STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY

Strengths:

Minor Issues:

  # !!! IMPORTANT !!!


  # Uncomment the following line and replace 'path/to/your/integrated_data.csv'


  # with the actual path to your data file.


  # survey_df = pd.read_csv('path/to/your/integrated_data.csv')

However, this is followed by working code that actually loads the data from the previous cell, so this is documentation remnant rather than a functional issue.

Assessment:

The code is structurally complete with no critical gaps. All core functionality is implemented and operational.

2. RESULTS AUTHENTICITY RED FLAGS

Analysis:

No evidence of result fabrication detected. The code performs genuine statistical computations:
  1. Computed statistics match paper claims:
    • ANOVA F(6, 273) = 78.68, p < 0.001 → Code output shows: F = 78.681736, PR(>F) = 1.163278e-56 ✓
    • Mean scores for groups match exactly (e.g., Alpha_Ingroup: M=4.000, SD=0.000) ✓
    • Paired t-test results: t(239) = 11.103, p < 0.001 matches paper's t(239) = 11.10, p < 0.001 ✓
    • Sense of belonging: t(239) = 1.423, p = 0.156 matches paper's t(239) = 1.423, p = 0.156 ✓
  1. Statistical computations are genuine:
    • Uses scipy.stats for t-tests (not hardcoded)
    • Uses statsmodels for ANOVA (not hardcoded)
    • Uses statsmodels multicomp for Tukey HSD (not hardcoded)
    • All statistical functions receive actual data and compute real results
  1. Data appears authentic:
    • CSV files contain 40 agents per group (280 total agents as stated)
    • Qualitative responses show diversity and detail consistent with LLM-generated text
    • Numeric responses show realistic variation (not artificially uniform)
    • Standard deviations vary by group appropriately
  1. No cherry-picking evidence:
    • No multiple random seeds visible in code
    • No commented-out alternative analyses
    • Results processing is straightforward without selective filtering

Concerns:

Assessment:

Results appear to be genuinely computed from data rather than fabricated. The statistical pipeline is legitimate.

3. IMPLEMENTATION-PAPER CONSISTENCY

Experimental Design Alignment:

Strong consistency between code and paper:
  1. Sample sizes:
    • Paper claims: 280 agents, 40 per condition (7 conditions)
    • Data: Confirmed - each CSV has 41 columns (1 agent_id + 40 agents)
  1. Measured variables:
    • Paper describes: Q1 (productivity pre), Q4 (belonging), Q5 (productivity post), Q7 (creativity final)
    • Code columns: Match exactly with paper's description
    • Control group has different structure (Q4_Creativity_Final_Control) as expected
  1. Statistical methods:
    • Paper: One-sample t-test for belonging → Code: stats.ttest_1samp(belonging_scores, neutral_value) ✓
    • Paper: Paired t-test for polarization → Code: stats.ttest_rel() ✓
    • Paper: One-way ANOVA → Code: ols('Creativity_Final ~ C(group)') ✓
    • Paper: Tukey HSD → Code: pairwise_tukeyhsd() ✓
  1. Group naming and conditions:
    • Paper: Alpha_HighCredibility, Alpha_Ingroup, Alpha_Outgroup, Beta_HighCredibility, Beta_Ingroup, Beta_Outgroup, Control
    • Code: Exact match in files_and_groups dictionary
  1. Qualitative data:
    • Paper mentions qualitative rationale coding
    • Data: Q8_Reasoning and Q5_Reasoning_Control contain detailed open-ended responses
    • Note: The thematic coding mentioned in the paper (Cohen's Kappa = 0.85) is not implemented in the code, but the raw qualitative data is present

Discrepancies:

Assessment:

The implementation is highly consistent with the paper's described methodology for the quantitative analysis. Qualitative analysis appears to have been done separately.

4. CODE QUALITY SIGNALS

Positive Signals:

Areas for Improvement:

Assessment:

Code quality is adequate for research purposes. The code is readable and functional, though it could benefit from more robust error handling and validation.

5. FUNCTIONALITY INDICATORS

Data Loading:

Statistical Analysis:

Output and Results:

Evidence of Development:

Assessment:

The code is fully functional and produces valid statistical analyses. All core functionality is operational.

6. DEPENDENCY & ENVIRONMENT ISSUES

Dependencies:

All dependencies are standard, widely-available Python packages:

Concerns:

Computational Resources:

Assessment:

Dependencies are standard and reasonable. Lack of version specification is a minor reproducibility concern but not a critical flaw.

7. AGENT REPRODUCIBILITY ASSESSMENT

Evidence of AI Agent Documentation:

This submission qualifies for AGENT REPRODUCIBILITY: True

The submission explicitly documents the use of AI agents as research subjects:

  1. Platform Documentation:
    • Paper states: "Liner's Survey Simulator platform for generating independent AI agents"
    • Agents are identified as "gpt-4.1-mini agents"
  1. Experimental Procedure:
    • The paper describes a sequential questionnaire procedure
    • Survey questions are embedded directly in the CSV data files
    • The prompts used to elicit responses are visible in the data files
  1. Prompt Documentation:
    • Data files contain the exact prompts presented to agents, including:
    • Identity induction: "Congratulations! Your excellent analytical ability has earned you a place as a full member of the Alpha Thinkers team..."
    • Group polarization stimulus: "[Real-Time Discussion Channel] Member 1: I just finished analyzing the four-day workweek data..."
    • Misinformation presentation: "According to a confidential simulation recently conducted by our Alpha Thinkers team, a four-day workweek reduces creativity by 20%..."
    • Correction interventions: Different by group (in-group, out-group, high-credibility source)
  1. Agent Responses:
    • Qualitative responses from agents are preserved in full
    • Responses show LLM-characteristic patterns (detailed reasoning, explicit source evaluation)
  1. Experimental Design:
    • Clear documentation of 7 conditions with specific manipulations
    • 40 independent agents per condition (280 total)
    • Systematic variation in correction source (in-group vs. out-group vs. high-credibility)

What's Documented:

What's Not Documented:

Assessment:

This submission provides substantial documentation of the AI agents used in the research. The prompts, platform, and model are clearly specified, allowing for potential replication. This meets the criteria for agent reproducibility.

8. DATA AUTHENTICITY DEEP DIVE

Survey Data Inspection:

Qualitative Response Analysis:

Examining the open-ended responses in the CSV files reveals:

  1. Response Diversity: Agents provide varied reasoning with different emphases:
    • Some focus on source credibility: "The credibility of the IAEFC as an external institution was the most influential factor"
    • Some show team loyalty: "I trust what our own team found, even if others are kicking up a fuss"
    • Some demonstrate analytical thinking: "As a data analyst, I prioritize credible external validation"
  1. LLM-Characteristic Patterns:
    • Structured reasoning: "Initially... However... Therefore..."
    • Explicit source evaluation
    • Meta-commentary on decision-making process
    • Consistent with GPT-4 response style
  1. Persona Consistency: Agents appear to maintain consistent personas:
    • "As a logistics manager, I value pragmatic conclusions"
    • "As a lawyer, I'm trained to consider all available evidence"
    • "In my field of graphic design..."
  1. Realistic Variation: Not all agents in the same condition provide identical qualitative responses, suggesting independent generation rather than copy-paste

Quantitative Data Patterns:

  1. Baseline Questions (Q2, Q3): Show realistic variation:
    • Q2 (Cars): Responses range from 1-5 with varied distributions
    • Q3 (UBI): Responses range from 1-6 with varied distributions
  1. Manipulation Check (Q4 - Belonging):
    • Mean = 4.121, SD = 1.21 (reasonable variation)
    • Range appears to be 1-6 on 7-point scale
    • Distribution supports paper's finding of non-significant belonging
  1. Polarization Effect (Q1 vs Q5):
    • Pre: M = 4.246, Post: M = 4.975
    • Shows convergence without complete uniformity
  1. Critical DV (Creativity Final):
    • In-group conditions: Perfect uniformity (all 4.0) - notable but plausibly due to strong correction effect
    • Out-group conditions: Substantial variation (SD ~0.6-0.7) - realistic
    • Control: Moderate variation (SD = 0.158) - realistic

Assessment:

The data appears authentic rather than fabricated. The mix of perfect uniformity in specific conditions and realistic variation elsewhere suggests genuine experimental results rather than hand-crafted data.

9. SPECIFIC RED FLAG CHECKS

Critical Red Flags (None Found):

Medium Concerns (None Found):

Minor Notes:

10. OVERALL ASSESSMENT

Strengths:

  1. Complete and functional codebase: All code runs successfully
  2. Genuine statistical computations: Results are computed, not hardcoded
  3. Strong paper-code consistency: Methods match paper descriptions
  4. Authentic-appearing data: Realistic patterns with appropriate variation
  5. Transparent experimental design: Full prompts and responses documented
  6. Agent reproducibility: AI agents, platform, and prompts clearly documented

Weaknesses:

  1. Missing qualitative analysis code: Thematic coding mentioned in paper but not implemented
  2. No effect size calculations: Cohen's d values not computed in code
  3. No environment specification: Package versions not documented
  4. Limited robustness: Minimal error handling or data validation

Reproducibility Assessment:

Quantitative Analysis: Highly reproducible Qualitative Analysis: Partially reproducible Agent-Based Reproducibility: Well-documented

Critical Issues: None

Verification Recommendations:

  1. Run the notebook end-to-end (expected to work)
  2. Verify statistical results match paper (expected to match)
  3. Check data file integrity (appears complete)
  4. Request qualitative coding materials if needed for full replication

---

CONCLUSION

CODEBASE AUDIT RESULT: LOW

This codebase demonstrates good practices for research reproducibility. The code is functional, the data appears authentic, and the results are genuinely computed. The statistical analyses are correctly implemented and match the paper's reported results. While there are minor areas for improvement (version specifications, qualitative analysis implementation), there are no critical red flags suggesting incomplete, non-functional, or fraudulent code.

AGENT REPRODUCIBILITY: True

This submission explicitly documents the use of AI agents (GPT-4.1-mini) as research subjects and provides the prompts used to generate the experimental data. The platform (Liner's Survey Simulator) and experimental conditions are clearly specified, enabling potential replication of the agent-based experiment.

The submission represents a legitimate research implementation with well-documented methods and transparent reporting of AI-agent-based experimentation.