Authors
Mateusz Hohol
Jagiellonian University
Marcin Miłkowski
Polish Academy of Sciences
Abstract
Replicability and reproducibility of computational models has been somewhat understudied by “the replication movement.” In this paper, we draw on methodological studies into the replicability of psychological experiments and on the mechanistic account of explanation to analyze the functions of model replications and model reproductions in computational neuroscience. We contend that model replicability, or independent researchers' ability to obtain the same output using original code and data, and model reproducibility, or independent researchers' ability to recreate a model without original code, serve different functions and fail for different reasons. This means that measures designed to improve model replicability may not enhance (and, in some cases, may actually damage) model reproducibility. We claim that although both are undesirable, low model reproducibility poses more of a threat to long-term scientific progress than low model replicability. In our opinion, low model reproducibility stems mostly from authors' omitting to provide crucial information in scientific papers and we stress that sharing all computer code and data is not a solution. Reports of computational studies should remain selective and include all and only relevant bits of code.
Keywords Replication studies  Computational modeling  Methodology of computational neuroscience  Direct and conceptual replication
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.Thomas S. Kuhn - 1962 - Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Thinking About Mechanisms.Peter K. Machamer, Lindley Darden & Carl F. Craver - 2000 - Philosophy of Science 67 (1):1-25.

View all 14 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Replicability of Experiment.John D. Norton - 2015 - Theoria: Revista de Teoría, Historia y Fundamentos de la Ciencia 30 (2):229.
An a Priori Solution to the Replication Crisis.David Trafimow - 2018 - Philosophical Psychology 31 (8):1188-1214.
The Semantic Challenge to Computational Neuroscience.Rick Grush - 2001 - In Peter K. Machamer, Peter McLaughlin & Rick Grush (eds.), Theory and Method in the Neurosciences. University of Pittsburgh Press. pp. 155--172.
Experimental Reproducibility and the Experimenters' Regress.Hans Radder - 1992 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1992:63 - 73.
Explanation in Computational Neuroscience: Causal and Non-Causal.M. Chirimuuta - 2018 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 69 (3):849-880.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2019-01-05

Total views
264 ( #30,251 of 2,385,996 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
75 ( #8,203 of 2,385,996 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes