Posts about reproducible paper (old posts, page 4)

The RAMP framework: from reproducibility to transparency in the design and optimization of scientific workflows

The RAMP (Rapid Analytics and Model Prototyping) is a software and project management tool developed by the Paris-Saclay Center for Data Science. The original goal was to accelerate the adoption of high-quality data science solutions for domain science problems by running rapid collaborative prototyping sessions. Today it is a full-blown data science project management tool promoting reproducibility, fair and transparent model evaluation, and democratization of data science. We have used the framework for setting up and solving about twenty scientific problems, for organizing scientific sub-communities around these events, and for training novice data scientists.

Three Dimensions of Reproducibility in Natural Language Processing

Despite considerable recent attention to problems with reproducibility of scientific research, there is a striking lack of agreement about the definition of the term. That is a problem, because the lack of a consensus definition makes it difficult to compare studies of reproducibility, and thus to have even a broad overview of the state of the issue in natural language processing. This paper proposes an ontology of reproducibility in that field. Its goal is to enhance both future research and communication about the topic, and retrospective meta-analyses. We show that three dimensions of reproducibility, corresponding to three kinds of claims in natural language processing papers, can account for a variety of types of research reports. These dimensions are reproducibility of a conclusion, of a finding, and of a value. Three biomedical natural language processing papers by the authors of this paper are analyzed with respect to these dimensions.

YAMP: a containerised workflow enabling reproducibility in metagenomics research

YAMP is a user-friendly workflow that enables the analysis of whole shotgun metagenomic data while using containerisation to ensure computational reproducibility and facilitate collaborative research. YAMP can be executed on any UNIX-like system, and offers seamless support for multiple job schedulers as well as for Amazon AWS cloud. Although YAMP has been developed to be ready-to-use by non-experts, bioinformaticians will appreciate its flexibility, modularisation, and simple customisation. The YAMP script, parameters, and documentation are available at https://github.com/alesssia/YAMP.

Enabling the Verification of Computational Results: An Empirical Evaluation of Computational Reproducibility

The ability to independently regenerate published computational claims is widely recognized as a key component of scientific reproducibility. In this article we take a narrow interpretation of this goal, and attempt to regenerate published claims from author-supplied information, including data, code, inputs, and other provided specifications, on a different computational system than that used by the original authors. We are motivated by Claerbout and Donoho's exhortation of the importance of providing complete information for reproducibility of the published claim. We chose the Elsevier journal, the Journal of Computational Physics, which has stated author guidelines that encourage the availability of computational digital artifacts that support scholarly findings. In an IRB approved study at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (IRB #17329) we gathered artifacts from a sample of authors who published in this journal in 2016 and 2017. We then used the ICERM criteria generated at the 2012 ICERM workshop "Reproducibility in Computational and Experimental Mathematics" to evaluate the sufficiency of the information provided in the publications and the ease with which the digital artifacts afforded computational reproducibility. We find that, for the articles for which we obtained computational artifacts, we could not easily regenerate the findings for 67% of them, and we were unable to easily regenerate all the findings for any of the articles. We then evaluated the artifacts we did obtain (55 of 306 articles) and find that the main barriers to computational reproducibility are inadequate documentation of code, data, and workflow information (70.9%), missing code function and setting information, and missing licensing information (75%). We recommend improvements based on these findings, including the deposit of supporting digital artifacts for reproducibility as a condition of publication, and verification of computational findings via re-execution of the code when possible.

Improving Reproducibility of Distributed Computational Experiments

Conference and journal publications increasingly require experiments associated with a submitted article to be repeatable. Authors comply to this requirement by sharing all associated digital artifacts, i.e., code, data, and environment configuration scripts. To ease aggregation of the digital artifacts, several tools have recently emerged that automate the aggregation of digital artifacts by auditing an experiment execution and building a portable container of code, data, and environment. However, current tools only package non-distributed computational experiments. Distributed computational experiments must either be packaged manually or supplemented with sufficient documentation. In this paper, we outline the reproducibility requirements of distributed experiments using a distributed computational science experiment involving use of message-passing interface (MPI), and propose a general method for auditing and repeating distributed experiments. Using Sciunit we show how this method can be implemented. We validate our method with initial experiments showing application re-execution runtime can be improved by 63% with a trade-off of longer run-time on initial audit execution.

Popper Pitfalls

We describe the four publications we have tried to make reproducible and discuss how each paper has changed our workflows, practices, and collaboration policies. The fundamental insight is that paper artifacts must be made reproducible from the start of the project; artifacts are too difficult to make reproducible when the papers are (1) already published and (2) authored by researchers that are not thinking about reproducibility. In this paper, we present the best practices adopted by our research laboratory, which was sculpted by the pitfalls we have identified for the Popper convention. We conclude with a "call-to-arms" for the community focused on enhancing reproducibility initiatives for academic conferences, industry environments, and national laboratories. We hope that our experiences will shape a best practices guide for future reproducible papers.