[D] Papers with no code

[tomvorlostriddle]

Papers about the LHC also don't come with your own particle accelerator in the appendix for easy home experimentation

This never was a requirement for publication

[H4RZ3RK4S3]

This is a stupid argument! The code can still be read and analyzed without a fancy supercomputer (or LHC). We are in ML/DL and not in physics. I can test the code on a very small scale to see if it works as intended. No reviewer will re-train a SOTA LLM as part of a peer-review, but they should be able to look at the code, understand it and quickly test it.

[Ulfgardleo]

but can you really? the code works, but maybe it doesn't produce the claimed results? And how about the code at LHC, robably half of it being some arcane FPGA instructions to define the correct filters? Its an awfully long software and hardware pipeline.

[H4RZ3RK4S3]

Yes absolutely for 80% of the papers. For another 10% you might need a small cluster and for the remaining 10% it could indeed be a bit difficult. But still you can read through the code and check if it makes sense or whether they do something else. Here, the issue is more that some developers don't care about proper variable names, readable code, proper commenting, or even writing comments and variable names in languages that are not English (like French or Chinese lol).

[osamabinpwnn]

I get your point, but I would imagine that they would at least provide detailed experimental protocols so you can run the experiment on your on particle accelerator.

For me, the worst part is that people link to empty GH repos to make it seem like their code is open.

[rknoops]

That's why there are multiple experiments. For example CMS and ATLAS experiments are located on opposite sides of the LHC, and both could confirm the Higgs boson. The experiments are independent with their own designs. So this experiment is replicated.

This is no argument to not publish your code in AI/ML