3 ms·

> but this kind of thing sets a high standard for reproducibility of published results. I think making the code available is good, but I think we should be car

> but this kind of thing sets a high standard for reproducibility of published results. I think making the code available is good, but I think we should be careful how we use the term "reproducibility". Pulling your repo and running it had better give the same results, but it's not the same sort of thing as building my own experimental setup according to a paper's specification. The latter gives more room for variability such that successful replication speaks more strongly to the robustness of the result, and also puts human brain power next to each step of the process in a way where weirdness might be noticed. Replication should probably involve reimplementation, if it's to carry its traditional weight. In the event that we fail to replicate, though, having the source code for both versions is likely to be hugely informative.

enchiridion 6y ago
While I agree, I think reimplementation is high bar for most research, especially in very niche areas. I think think extension also carries similar value. It is less grunt work to do, but still requires a deep understanding of the existing code. "Weirdness" should quickly become apparent.
dekhn 6y ago
I think this is a fair point, but in my experience, having a concrete replica that people can start from (and compare to the paper) can make a year's difference in speeding up progress. Many times, I've read a paper, thought something was great, and then implemented the paper and failed to reproduce the author's results. In the cases where I've been able to compare my implementation to a reference on github, I often find the paper doesn't match the code, or a subtle data processing step was left out. Having a replica (a commit hash and a pointed to versioned input data) can often make a huge difference in time.
- dllthomas 6y ago
  Yeah, I'm certainly not saying it isn't advisable or even important. I'm just saying it's not the same thing as replication.

enchiridion 6y ago

While I agree, I think reimplementation is high bar for most research, especially in very niche areas. I think think extension also carries similar value. It is less grunt work to do, but still requires a deep understanding of the existing code. "Weirdness" should quickly become apparent.

dekhn 6y ago

I think this is a fair point, but in my experience, having a concrete replica that people can start from (and compare to the paper) can make a year's difference in speeding up progress. Many times, I've read a paper, thought something was great, and then implemented the paper and failed to reproduce the author's results. In the cases where I've been able to compare my implementation to a reference on github, I often find the paper doesn't match the code, or a subtle data processing step was left out. Having a replica (a commit hash and a pointed to versioned input data) can often make a huge difference in time.

dllthomas 6y ago
Yeah, I'm certainly not saying it isn't advisable or even important. I'm just saying it's not the same thing as replication.