The Implementation Lottery: Auditing Idea Reliability in Automated Research

Abstract

Automated research agents use program scores to judge ideas. We call variation in this evidence across implementations the implementation lottery. We introduce an Idea Reliability Audit that freezes mechanism specifications, samples independent programs, and compares selected code with fresh implementations of its mechanism. Across 3,048 assignments on 31 tabular classification tasks, all four primary aggregation tests have Holm-adjusted $p\geq0.56$. Under mean-of-five selection, the prespecified secondary intention-to-treat comparison gives selected-code premiums of 0.38 [0.08, 0.82] and 0.45 [0.05, 1.12] accuracy-equivalent points for Bounded and Agentic execution, respectively. Minimum task-deletion means are 0.20 and 0.14. Fidelity conditioning exposes concentration: the Agentic premium falls from 0.33 to 0.01 when one task is removed. Post-outcome analysis finds cross-split variation on 41 of 70 paired cards per process. Exploratory replay gives nearly equal Bounded point losses at four and twenty implementations; Agentic point losses decrease across the four evaluated budget rules. Under duration costs, one seed per program minimizes fitted common-design variance. The two-seed design becomes preferable when implementation-to-seed cost ratios exceed approximately 13 or 9.5 in the continuous-budget model. The audit distinguishes evidence for reusing a selected artifact from evidence for implementing its idea again.