mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Quantifying Reproducibility in NLP and ML

arXiv 2109.01211 ↗First posted 2 Sep 2021cs.CLcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Reproducibility has become an intensely debated topic in NLP and ML over recent years, but no commonly accepted way of assessing reproducibility, let alone quantifying it, has so far emerged. The assumption has been that wider scientific reproducibility terminology and definitions are not applicable to NLP/ML, with the result that many different terms and definitions have been proposed, some diametrically opposed. In this paper, we test this assumption, by taking the standard terminology and definitions from metrology and applying them directly to NLP/ML. We find that we are able to straightforwardly derive a practical framework for assessing reproducibility which has the desirable property of yielding a quantified degree of reproducibility that is comparable across different reproduction studies.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 4 of its 30 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Sep 2021.

Builds on

4 of 30 references.

References · 4

  1. 2021A Systematic Review of Reproducibility Research in Natural Language Processingcited by 34
  2. 2021The Human Evaluation Datasheet 1.0: A Template for Recording Details of Human Evaluation Experiments in NLPcited by 19
  3. 2018Experiments with Universal CEFR Classificationcited by 17
  4. 2017Sustainable computational science: the ReScience initiativecited by 10

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2022: 1.

1 paper.