4 ms·

Hey, DVC maintainer here. For those who interested in this topic, I like this one about the same problem - https://petewarden.com/2018/03/19/the-machine-learnin

Hey, DVC maintainer here. For those who interested in this topic, I like this one about the same problem - https://petewarden.com/2018/03/19/the-machine-learning-reproducibility-crisis/ https://petewarden.com/2018/03/19/the-machine-learning-repro... (industry focused) and an excellent talk from Patrick Ball - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSunU9GQdcI&t=1s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSunU9GQdcI&t=1s how they structure data projects.

Pick-A-Hill2019 6y ago
I agree and disagree (btw, previously 2 days ago at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23732531 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23732531). Yes I agree, nine times out of ten you've made a typo, connected the red wire where the black wire should be. But I diagree with the overall sentiment of the article which fails to highlight that - when all else has failed and you have double checked things your end ..... sometimes there IS a typo, an incorrect equation, a simple error IN THE ORIGINAL research. Sure, blame yourself as a first instinct (which is a good thing to do) BUT - There is indeed a replication crisis currently in all fields of study and research. Forgive the link to a totaly non-tech field but it illustrates my counter-point as well as any other. "The Role of Replication (The Replication Crisis in Psychology)"[1] The openness of psychological research – sharing our methodology and data via publication – is a key to the effectiveness of the scientific method. This allows other psychologists to know exactly how data were gathered, and it allows them to potentially use the same methods to test new hypotheses. In an ideal world, this openness also allows other researchers to check whether a study was valid by replication – essentially, using the same methods to see if they yield the same results. The ability to replicate allows us to hold researchers accountable for their work. [1] https://courses.lumenlearning.com/ivytech-psychology1/chapter/the-replication-crisis-in-psychology/ https://courses.lumenlearning.com/ivytech-psychology1/chapte...

Pick-A-Hill2019 6y ago

I agree and disagree (btw, previously 2 days ago at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23732531 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23732531). Yes I agree, nine times out of ten you've made a typo, connected the red wire where the black wire should be. But I diagree with the overall sentiment of the article which fails to highlight that - when all else has failed and you have double checked things your end ..... sometimes there IS a typo, an incorrect equation, a simple error IN THE ORIGINAL research. Sure, blame yourself as a first instinct (which is a good thing to do) BUT - There is indeed a replication crisis currently in all fields of study and research. Forgive the link to a totaly non-tech field but it illustrates my counter-point as well as any other. "The Role of Replication (The Replication Crisis in Psychology)"[1] The openness of psychological research – sharing our methodology and data via publication – is a key to the effectiveness of the scientific method. This allows other psychologists to know exactly how data were gathered, and it allows them to potentially use the same methods to test new hypotheses. In an ideal world, this openness also allows other researchers to check whether a study was valid by replication – essentially, using the same methods to see if they yield the same results. The ability to replicate allows us to hold researchers accountable for their work. [1] https://courses.lumenlearning.com/ivytech-psychology1/chapter/the-replication-crisis-in-psychology/ https://courses.lumenlearning.com/ivytech-psychology1/chapte...