11 ms·

Why would a published algorithm have to include runnable sample code unless it was part of a language specification or something?

• mcphage 11y ago
  How else is it repeatable? If the claim they're making is a proof—then yes, the proof is sufficient. But if they're making claims about execution "we churned through data set X with results Z", then without someone else able to run the same process, how else could someone verify your claims?
  • tzs 11y ago
    That's a fairly weak form of reproduction. Running their code on their data and seeing the same result just shows that they didn't make a clerical error when preparing their publication, and that the code is portable to your hardware. When someone else implements from the published algorithm, ideally without even looking at the code, and gets the same results, then we're getting into interesting reproduction.
    • mcphage 11y ago
      > Running their code on their data and seeing the same result just shows that they didn't make a clerical error when preparing their publication, and that the code is portable to your hardware. Or fraud, or any larger mistake. You can run it with other data to make sure the claims hold up. You can verify what they're saying is accurate, and not just a fluke in their data.