Paper detail

On the State and Importance of Reproducible Experimental Research in Parallel Computing

Computer science is also an experimental science. This is particularly the case for parallel computing, which is in a total state of flux, and where experiments are necessary to substantiate, complement, and challenge theoretical modeling and analysis. Here, experimental work is as important as are advances in theory, that are indeed often driven by the experimental findings. In parallel computing, scientific contributions presented in research articles are therefore often based on experimental data, with a substantial part devoted to presenting and discussing the experimental findings. As in all of experimental science, experiments must be presented in a way that makes reproduction by other researchers possible, in principle. Despite appearance to the contrary, we contend that reproducibility plays a small role, and is typically not achieved. As can be found, articles often do not have a sufficiently detailed description of their experiments, and do not make available the software used to obtain the claimed results. As a consequence, parallel computational results are most often impossible to reproduce, often questionable, and therefore of little or no scientific value. We believe that the description of how to reproduce findings should play an important part in every serious, experiment-based parallel computing research article. We aim to initiate a discussion of the reproducibility issue in parallel computing, and elaborate on the importance of reproducible research for (1) better and sounder technical/scientific papers, (2) a sounder and more efficient review process and (3) more effective collective work. This paper expresses our current view on the subject and should be read as a position statement for discussion and future work. We do not consider the related (but no less important) issue of the quality of the experimental design.

preprint2013arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.