June 10, 2019
The apparent contradiction in the title is a word- play on the different meanings attributed to the word reproducible across different scientific fields. What we imply is that unreproducible findings can be built upon reproducible methods. With- out denying the importance of facilitating the re- production of methods, we deem important to reassert that reproduction of findings is a funda- mental step of the scientific inquiry. We argue that the commendable quest towards easy deter- ministic reproducibility of methods and numerical results should not have us forget the even more im- portant necessity of ensuring the reproducibility of empirical findings and conclusions by properly accounting for essential sources of variations. We provide experiments to exemplify the brittleness of current common practice in the evaluation of models in the field of deep learning, showing that even if the results could be reproduced, a slightly different experiment would not support the find- ings. We hope to help clarify the distinction be- tween exploratory and empirical research in the field of deep learning and believe more energy should be devoted to proper empirical research in our community. This work is an attempt to promote the use of more rigorous and diversified methodologies. It is not an attempt to impose a new methodology and it is not a critique on the nature of exploratory research.
Publisher
ICML
Research Topics
July 17, 2026
Zilin Xiao, Qi Ma, Jason Chen, Xintao Chen, Avinash Atreya, Hanjie Chen, Vicente Ordonez
July 17, 2026
July 13, 2026
Xiaodong Wang, Xuanyi Zhao, Pedro Rodriguez, Devendra Singh Sachan, Barlas Oguz, Seungwhan Moon, Shang-Wen Li, Gargi Ghosh, Xin Dong, Wen-Tau Yih
July 13, 2026
July 03, 2026
Sonia Joseph, Quentin Garrido, Randall Balestriero, Matthew Kowal, Thomas Fel, Shahab Bakhtiari, Blake Richards, Mike Rabbat
July 03, 2026
June 05, 2026
Zeyu Yang, Qi Ma, Jason Chen, Anshumali Shrivastava
June 05, 2026

Our approach
Latest news
Foundational models