mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

More Rigorous Software Engineering Would Improve Reproducibility in Machine Learning Research

arXiv 2502.00902 ↗First posted 2 Feb 2025cs.SE cs.LGcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

While experimental reproduction remains a pillar of the scientific method, we observe that the software best practices supporting the reproduction of machine learning ( ML ) research are often undervalued or overlooked, leading both to poor reproducibility and damage to trust in the ML community. We quantify these concerns by surveying the usage of software best practices in software repositories associated with publications at major ML conferences and journals such as NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR, TMLR, and MLOSS within the last decade. We report the results of this survey that identify areas where software best practices are lacking and areas with potential for growth in the ML community. Finally, we discuss the implications and present concrete recommendations on how we, as a community, can improve reproducibility in ML research.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 4 of its 32 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Feb 2025.

Builds on

4 of 32 references.

References · 4

  1. 2020Improving Reproducibility in Machine Learning Research (A Report from the NeurIPS 2019 Reproducibility Program)cited by 318
  2. 2019A Step Toward Quantifying Independently Reproducible Machine Learning Researchcited by 77
  3. 2020Research Reproducibility as a Survival Analysiscited by 14
  4. 2022Does the Market of Citations Reward Reproducible Work?cited by 7

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.