Despite considerable recent attention to problems with reproducibility of scientific research, there is a striking lack of agreement about the definition of the term. That is a problem, because the lack of a consensus definition makes it difficult to compare studies of reproducibility, and thus to have even a broad overview of the state of the issue in natural language processing. This paper proposes an ontology of reproducibility in that field. Its goal is to enhance both future research and communication about the topic, and retrospective meta-analyses. We show that three dimensions of reproducibility, corresponding to three kinds of claims in natural language processing papers, can account for a variety of types of research reports. These dimensions are reproducibility of a conclusion, of a finding, and of a value. Three biomedical natural language processing papers by the authors of this paper are analyzed with respect to these dimensions.
@InProceedings{COHEN18.952, author = {K. Bretonnel Cohen and Jingbo Xia and Pierre Zweigenbaum and Tiffany Callahan and Orin Hargraves and Foster Goss and Nancy Ide and Aurélie Névéol and Cyril Grouin and Lawrence E. Hunter}, title = "{Three Dimensions of Reproducibility in Natural Language Processing}", booktitle = {Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018)}, year = {2018}, month = {May 7-12, 2018}, address = {Miyazaki, Japan}, editor = {Nicoletta Calzolari (Conference chair) and Khalid Choukri and Christopher Cieri and Thierry Declerck and Sara Goggi and Koiti Hasida and Hitoshi Isahara and Bente Maegaard and Joseph Mariani and Hélène Mazo and Asuncion Moreno and Jan Odijk and Stelios Piperidis and Takenobu Tokunaga}, publisher = {European Language Resources Association (ELRA)}, isbn = {979-10-95546-00-9}, language = {english} }
Summary of the paper