3 ms·
That only proves that their analysis is right. It doesn't rule out the possibility that their results are caused by a quirk of their implementation. To really
by a-priori 13y ago
That only proves that their analysis is right. It doesn't rule out the possibility that their results are caused by a quirk of their implementation.
To really validate a paper you have to be able to recreate their code from a high-level description, then check that.
- aaren 13y agoI agree, but this would give you a starting point in that you could see exactly what steps were used to create the figures in a paper. It might be that their high level description (usually in papers anyway) is correct but their implementation is flawed in some subtle way that peer review doesn't pick up. Assuming a correct implementation this would be useful for anyone wanting to use the methods of the paper. For example, I've spent the last 3 weeks coding a numerical solver for some equations in a fluid mechanics paper. Having the code for this available would have saved me figuring out all the quirks of the solution.