Pith. sign in

REVIEW

A Step Toward Quantifying Independently Reproducible Machine Learning Research

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1909.06674 v1 pith:SHL2K45P submitted 2019-09-14 cs.LG cs.AIcs.DLstat.ML

classification cs.LGcs.AIcs.DLstat.ML
keywords codetowardindependentlyreproducibilityreproducibleresultsstepanalysis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

What makes a paper independently reproducible? Debates on reproducibility center around intuition or assumptions but lack empirical results. Our field focuses on releasing code, which is important, but is not sufficient for determining reproducibility. We take the first step toward a quantifiable answer by manually attempting to implement 255 papers published from 1984 until 2017, recording features of each paper, and performing statistical analysis of the results. For each paper, we did not look at the authors code, if released, in order to prevent bias toward discrepancies between code and paper.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools