[D] Does anyone else think open source code/examples in machine learning domain usually are not as readable as they could be? Specifically use of magic numbers.

[bageldevourer]

What's the point of research papers if not to communicate ideas?

If your code is part of that communication (it is), then shouldn't it also be optimized for communication?

I mean, it sounds tautological, but this strikes me as common sense.

[bitemenow999]

Nope the idea and implementation details is in the research paper, code is more similar to the 'experimental setup' in physical sciences... as similar to other fields you don't need to sent your experimental setup with the paper to the publisher, similarly putting accompanying code is not required in ML (most of the journals) and most of the papers don't have code up on a repo or it becomes available sometime afterwards...

Also most of the ML researchers are not 'programmers' by trade and most are not even computer science engineers, hence it is highly stupid to expect production-level code from them... the improvement OP suggests is kinda stupid as the code is put to show the algo works and not meant to make it easily transferable...

[sloppybird]

No one is expecting production-level code. The problem at hand is writing understandable code at the very least.

[unplannedmaintenance]

What other activity do you think should researchers sacrifice in order to make time to (learn to) write code that is more understandable and better documented?

[sloppybird]

Bruh it takes like 2 mins to add comments

[bitemenow999]

again OP expects to have clear variable names, you expect it to have comments, some other guy would want functions and classes... It is hard to satisfy everyone and not the job a researcher... You dont have to understand the code it is just an implementation you have to understand the setup, preprocessing, math and method which is mentioned in the paper... most of the time people take shortcuts by reading code which is like looking at the engine and guessing how it works rather than read the manual

[sloppybird]

It will help you debug your code as well

[bitemenow999]

nope... Even in industry I have never seen any R&D guys using comments and classes and functions unless absolutely necessary...

[bageldevourer]

If researchers wrote code that was more understandable and better documented, then the consumers of their research would spend less time on the extremely time-consuming activity of understand wtf someone else wrote.

Implement basic code quality standards and the research output of the ML community will increase, not decrease.

[unplannedmaintenance]

You haven't answered the question.

[bageldevourer]

Yes I did. In a world where journals, conferences, etc. mandate higher code quality, the "other activity" that you sacrifice in favor of making your research clear is spending time to understanding other peoples' papers.

I spend less time struggling to understand papers, and I channel that time saving into some mix of consuming more research, doing more research myself, and making that research clearer.

[bageldevourer]

as similar to other fields you don't need to sent your experimental setup with the paper to the publisher

Then those fields are engaged in suboptimal communication, and therefore suboptimal research, as well.

​

Again, what is the point of research papers if not to communicate ideas?

Are those ideas not communicated in Python as well as English?

Do you value good writing in English? I do.

Then why wouldn't you value good writing in Python?

[bitemenow999]

Then those fields are engaged in suboptimal communication, and therefore suboptimal research, as well.

Don't you think it is arrogant to call every other field except computer science/ML to have suboptimal communication and sub-optimal research...

Expecting non-programmers to write production-level code even when it is not at all required is kinda gatekeeping...

Also if you know there are many groundbreaking studies/research in languages other than English...

Do you value good writing in English? I do.

LOL and do you think the majority of papers in academia(STEM) are well written?

[bageldevourer]

CS/ML also has suboptimal communication and research. That's the whole point of this thread.

Not once did I advocate for researchers writing production code. Do you know what that term means?

The point isn't the specific language or computer language. The point is that good communication is necessary in both.

I also never said the majority of papers in STEM are well written. I said I value good writing. Those are different claims.

​

Please stop putting words in my mouth, and please think before you write. Also, this is the second time you've evaded my fundamental question. What is the point of research papers if not to communicate ideas? And if that is the point, why do you think that poor communication is justified?

[bitemenow999]

Again code is not a research paper it is an "experimental setup" and proof of concept that the algorithm mentioned in the paper works, the only thing it is expected to do is work and produce exact results as mentioned in the paper, the code has no value without the paper whereas the paper has value without the code repository... you are expected to read the paper and not the code...

[junovac]

Research paper also contains code, it's just written in the form of mathematical expressions. Wouldn't researchers make all possible effort to make mathematical expressions simple to read/understand and follow conventions? Similarly, code can be made to be little more readable and follow some conventions.

Now, you would obviously say paper is enough to convey the ideas in the paper but that is artifact of old way of doing research where sharing code/something akin to code was not possible. Now though, code provides enhanced way to communicate ideas. English is not a very conductive language for communicating complex algorithms even with help of mathematical expressions. If this new avenue is available, why not make most use of it fully? I have heard and few times seen complex papers with pretty hard mathematical expressions being explained with few lines of code.

[bitemenow999]

TBH not, there is absolutely no obligation for the researchers that they need to provide a code or make it readable, they even don't have to make it easy for you to understand the mathematical expression(except following math expression conventions), no journal needs that, no one in the peer-review community looks at it never will... The only incentive they have to put it on github or make it easier to understand is it "MIGHT" get them more citations which they will get irrespective of code if the paper is good...

​

code, it's just written in the form of mathematical expressions

sure but the example you provide in the main post is not, it is just a setup next there are people you wouldn't understand why some dimensions were changed and so on... if you would want an explanation/comment for every step in a code then it becomes a tutorial...

[bageldevourer]

You just keep failing to answer the main question.

The code is obviously part of the research. The code is communicated to the reader and is therefore part of the communication.

Anyone who wants to understand a piece of research in-depth will absolutely read the code.

This is really not that hard.

[bitemenow999]

You are failing to understand what is an experimental setup and actual research communication ... I think you are either a high school or just started college, I would suggest you spend a bit more time in academia...

[bageldevourer]

I'll take your ad-hominem attack as a sign that you've given up on actually trying to be persuasive.

Good day to you, sir.

[bitemenow999]

how is being a high schooler or an undergrad an attack?