# Investigating Reproducibility at Interspeech Conferences: A Longitudinal and Comparative Perspective

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.10033 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.10033/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 5 of its 20 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 7 Jun 2023.

## Builds on (most cited first, 5 of 5)

- [Fine-Tuning Pretrained Language Models: Weight Initializations, Data Orders, and Early Stopping](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2002.06305/) (2020)
- [Improving Reproducibility in Machine Learning Research (A Report from the NeurIPS 2019 Reproducibility Program)](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2003.12206/) (2020)
- [A Systematic Review of Reproducibility Research in Natural Language Processing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.07929/) (2021)
- [Missing Information, Unresponsive Authors, Experimental Flaws: The Impossibility of Assessing the Reproducibility of Previous Human Evaluations in NLP](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.01633/) (2023)
- [Quantified Reproducibility Assessment of NLP Results](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.05961/) (2022)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Reproducibility is a key aspect for scientific advancement across disciplines, and reducing barriers for open science is a focus area for the theme of Interspeech 2023. Availability of source code is one of the indicators that facilitates reproducibility. However, less is known about the rates of reproducibility at Interspeech conferences in comparison to other conferences in the field. In order to fill this gap, we have surveyed 27,717 papers at seven conferences across speech and language processing disciplines. We find that despite having a close number of accepted papers to the other conferences, Interspeech has up to 40% less source code availability. In addition to reporting the difficulties we have encountered during our research, we also provide recommendations and possible directions to increase reproducibility for further studies.