From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: zimoun Subject: Re: Feedback from JRES in Dijon Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 16:52:47 +0100 Message-ID: References: <8D474474-AF4C-4B03-9D38-3BB089BEE4EB@lepiller.eu> <87tv6ec048.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <14A62244-3626-4146-B40E-BC5CED4B78D3@lepiller.eu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:47476) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ictR7-0007n0-3u for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Dec 2019 10:53:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ictR5-0006Vn-Pm for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Dec 2019 10:53:00 -0500 Received: from mail-qv1-xf2f.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::f2f]:46945) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ictR5-0006TB-Gl for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Dec 2019 10:52:59 -0500 Received: by mail-qv1-xf2f.google.com with SMTP id t9so1429140qvh.13 for ; Thu, 05 Dec 2019 07:52:59 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Konrad Hinsen Cc: Guix Devel Hi, On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 at 16:45, Konrad Hinsen wrote: > > So they are doing physical simulation (fluid dynamics), so they don't > > (can't) get the same result when running the same experiment > > twice. They wart replicability, that is, even if the results are > > different, they are close enough to each other that you have to draw > > the same scientific conclusion, independent of your compiler or other > > package inputs. > > That's a common point of view in the numerical simulation community. > What the people defending it don't realize is that both reproducibility > and replicability matter, but in different situations and for different > reasons. Reproducibility matters for verification ("was the computation > done correctly?"), replicability matters for validation ("was the > computation the right one for the scientific question?"). If I might, one the best presentation [1] -- that I am aware of -- on this. Sorry in French. [1] https://webcast.in2p3.fr/video/les-enjeux-et-defis-de-la-recherche-reproductible https://aramis.resinfo.org/wiki/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=pleniaires:aramis_keynote_enjeux-et-defis-recherche-reproductible_konrad_hinsen.pdf Maybe we could convert it to an entry for the HPC blog. What do you think? Cheers, simon