18 ms·
Just to follow up on your last point, I have found that folks are often happy to send code, but code written in research labs is generally horrendous. I don't t
by pvnick 11y ago
Just to follow up on your last point, I have found that folks are often happy to send code, but code written in research labs is generally horrendous. I don't think that the "publish or die" culture and a culture of releasing all relevant code is compatible. It takes time to refactor and produce clean code - time that can be spent chasing the next publication.
- kwhitefoot 11y agoThen requiring the code to be published and runnable would have a salutary effect on the whole circus.
- SapphireSun 11y agoNot really... I don't see how that would be anything more than adding one more task to a million other tasks. It doesn't change incentives.
- IanCal 11y agoI don't see the need for clean code, I just want the code they used. I've repeatedly tried to find the code used to generate various visualisations (which were the entire point of the paper) and then found 1. "It'll be released soon" on a years old page 2. 404'ing personal pages on university sites 3. Finally some code But then the code didn't, and couldn't, generate the images they have. So now I'm not actually sure if the algorithm works as they say. This was also one of the more successful results I've had in trying to find research code outside of ML. I'm sure other disciplines are also good but ML is mostly what I've had to find. There's a part of the experiment which virtually anyone could replicate for a material cost of near 0 and check in detail if they wanted to and yet that seems to be the most poorly explained and shared part of it. You wouldn't get away with just mentioning the protocol you used in the lab without any references or explanations, would you?