edit: see http://cs.brown.edu/~sk/Memos/Examining-Reproducibility/
Not deserving of a full post, but nonetheless worth writing about: @ongardie, @aalevy, and a few others on Twitter were surprised by the number of papers that were flagged as "not reproducible" according to the recent study at http://reproducibility.cs.arizona.edu. Digging deeper, it appeared that 1.) "code builds" is the standard for reproducibility in this study and that 2.) many broken builds were the result of missing dependencies on the researchers' systems.
I tried reproducing a few of the authors' "unreproducible" results. It's hard to vet 600+ research code repositories, but, with a little effort (< ~10 minutes each?), I was able to get all of the following to actually build (on Ubuntu 13.10). This doesn't inspire confidence in the reproducibility of the study results.
Peter [email protected]
- ["Quantifying the Mismatch between Emerging Scale-Out Applications and Modern Processors" in TOCS](http://reproducibility.cs.ariz