A Collaborative Approach to Computational Reproducibility

Although a standard in natural science, reproducibility has been only episodically applied in experimental computer science. Scientific papers often present a large number of tables, plots and pictures that summarize the obtained results, but then loosely describe the steps taken to derive them. Not only can the methods and the implementation be complex, but also their configuration may require setting many parameters and/or depend on particular system configurations. While many researchers recognize the importance of reproducibility, the challenge of making it happen often outweigh the benefits. Fortunately, a plethora of reproducibility solutions have been recently designed and implemented by the community. In particular, packaging tools (e.g., ReproZip) and virtualization tools (e.g., Docker) are promising solutions towards facilitating reproducibility for both authors and reviewers. To address the incentive problem, we have implemented a new publication model for the Reproducibility Section of Information Systems Journal. In this section, authors submit a reproducibility paper that explains in detail the computational assets from a previous published manuscript in Information Systems

Measuring reproducibility of high-throughput experiments

Reproducibility is essential to reliable scientific discovery in high-throughput experiments. In this work we propose a unified approach to measure the reproducibility of findings identified from replicate experiments and identify putative discoveries using reproducibility. Unlike the usual scalar measures of reproducibility, our approach creates a curve, which quantitatively assesses when the findings are no longer consistent across replicates. Our curve is fitted by a copula mixture model, from which we derive a quantitative reproducibility score, which we call the "irreproducible discovery rate" (IDR) analogous to the FDR. This score can be computed at each set of paired replicate ranks and permits the principled setting of thresholds both for assessing reproducibility and combining replicates. Since our approach permits an arbitrary scale for each replicate, it provides useful descriptive measures in a wide variety of situations to be explored. We study the performance of the algorithm using simulations and give a heuristic analysis of its theoretical properties. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our method in a ChIP-seq experiment.Comment: Published in at http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/11-AOAS466 the Annals of Applied Statistics (http://www.imstat.org/aoas/) by the Institute of Mathematical Statistics (http://www.imstat.org

Reproducible Econometric Simulations

Reproducibility of economic research has attracted considerable attention in recent years. So far, the discussion has focused on reproducibility of empirical analyses. This paper addresses a further aspect of reproducibility, the reproducibility of computational experiments. We examine the current situation in econometrics and derive a set of guidelines from our findings. To illustrate how computational experiments could be conducted and reported we present an example from time series econometrics that explores the finite-sample power of certain structural change tests.computational experiment, reproducibility, simulation, software.

Replicability or reproducibility? On the replication crisis in computational neuroscience and sharing only relevant detail

Replicability and reproducibility of computational models has been somewhat understudied by “the replication movement.” In this paper, we draw on methodological studies into the replicability of psychological experiments and on the mechanistic account of explanation to analyze the functions of model replications and model reproductions in computational neuroscience. We contend that model replicability, or independent researchers' ability to obtain the same output using original code and data, and model reproducibility, or independent researchers' ability to recreate a model without original code, serve different functions and fail for different reasons. This means that measures designed to improve model replicability may not enhance (and, in some cases, may actually damage) model reproducibility. We claim that although both are undesirable, low model reproducibility poses more of a threat to long-term scientific progress than low model replicability. In our opinion, low model reproducibility stems mostly from authors' omitting to provide crucial information in scientific papers and we stress that sharing all computer code and data is not a solution. Reports of computational studies should remain selective and include all and only relevant bits of code

Replicability is not Reproducibility:\ud Nor is it Good Science

At various machine learning conferences, at various times, there have been discussions arising from the inability to replicate the experimental results published in a paper. There seems to be a wide spread view that we need to do something to address this problem, as it is essential to the advancement of our field. The most compelling argument would seem to be that reproducibility of experimental results is the hallmark of science. Therefore, given that most of us regard machine learning as a scientific discipline, being able to replicate experiments is paramount. I want to challenge this view by separating the notion of reproducibility, a generally desirable property, from replicability, its poor cousin. I claim there are important differences between the two. Reproducibility requires changes; replicability avoids them. Although reproducibility is desirable, I contend that the impoverished version, replicability, is one not worth having