Replicated, Reproduced and functional? about artifact-evaluation HOT 8 OPEN

Are there any cases where "Results Replicated" was actually awarded?
I think reproduction is possible during the review process (but may be time consuming).
However, replication would require reviewers to execute an analysis, for example, using a new dataset. I don't think that is possible during artifact evaluation.

from artifact-evaluation.

I'm not sure. I think that a related question is: what exactly are the minimum criteria for meeting the reproduced or functional bars?

from artifact-evaluation.

I saw that happening once. If the paper was available as a pre-print, it could be already replicated.
But maybe we need ways to apply for that badge even later on.

from artifact-evaluation.

I just had an email from Tim Menzies about the ICSE2020 track and which made me think about the Replication / Reproduction Badges. Good replications and reproductions need a lot of work and we as a community should support the effort, for example, by R&R tracks. If such tracks become more widespread, then awarding the badges become straight forward: the authors of a replicated paper receive the badge when the replicating paper appeared (in an R&R track).

from artifact-evaluation.

@jkrinke What about the model where: Author A writes an ICSE2020 paper. Author A publishes an artifact that allows for replication of this paper. Artifact evaluation committee independently replicates the paper result using the provided artifact, awards a badge?

from artifact-evaluation.

A proper replication is too much work for an assigned replicator. A good replication will often lead to a paper on its own and it is the replication that should be honoured, not the replicated work. A committee will only be able to do the most simple work - does the provided artefact run? But that is not the point of a replication, as the provided artefact may not be what the paper describes. Thus, a proper replication would have to re-implement the approach by the description given in the paper. I believe the act or replication is of a great value to the community and we usually learn something else during the replication. See, for example, the programming language dispute at the moment.

I had my fair share of artefacts that were not what the paper promised, but figuring that out usually took weeks of investigation.

from artifact-evaluation.

@jkrinke In my interpretation, you are describing a reproduction (re-implementing the approach), based on ACM's definitions:

Replicated: Available + main results of the paper have been obtained in a subsequent study by a person or team other than the authors, using, in part, artifacts provided by the author.

Reproduced: Available + the main results of the paper have been independently obtained in a subsequent study by a person or team other than the authors, without the use of author-supplied artifacts.

How would you distinguish between a replication and a reproduction?

from artifact-evaluation.

True, I was under the impression that Claerbout's terminology is used.

I have now read the ACM's definition and it requires a peer-reviewed publication reporting on the replication or reproduction.

from artifact-evaluation.