More Rigorous Software Engineering Would Improve Reproducibility in Machine Learning Research
Reviewed by Pith T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved pith:7FNV5UPXrecord.jsonopen to challenge →
read the original abstract
While experimental reproduction remains a pillar of the scientific method, we observe that the software best practices supporting the reproduction of machine learning ( ML ) research are often undervalued or overlooked, leading both to poor reproducibility and damage to trust in the ML community. We quantify these concerns by surveying the usage of software best practices in software repositories associated with publications at major ML conferences and journals such as NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR, TMLR, and MLOSS within the last decade. We report the results of this survey that identify areas where software best practices are lacking and areas with potential for growth in the ML community. Finally, we discuss the implications and present concrete recommendations on how we, as a community, can improve reproducibility in ML research.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Can Coding Agents Reproduce Findings in Computational Materials Science?
AutoMat benchmark shows current LLM coding agents achieve at most 54.1% success when reproducing computational materials science claims from papers.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.