Abstract
A recent trend in mathematical modelling is to publish the computer code together with the research findings. Here we explore the formal question, whether and in which sense a computer implementation is distinct from the mathematical model. We argue that, despite the convenience of implemented models, a set of implicit assumptions is perpetuated with the implementation to the extent that even in widely used models the causal link between the (formal) mathematical model and the set of results is no longer certain. Moreover, code publication is often seen as an important contributor to reproducible research, we suggest that in some cases the opposite may be true. A new perspective on this topic stems from the accelerating trend that in some branches of research only implemented models are used, e.g., in artificial intelligence (AI). With the advent of quantum computers, we argue that completely novel challenges arise in the distinction between models and implementations.
Reference22 articles.
1. Jelizarow M, Guillemot V, Tenenhaus A, et al. Over-optimism in bioinformatics research. Bioinformatics 2010;26:437.
2. Milkowski M, Hensel WM, Hohol M. Replicability or reproducibility? on the replication crisis in computational neuroscience and sharing only relevant detail. J Comput Neurosci 2018;45:163.
3. Tiwari K, Kananathan S, Roberts MG, et al. Reproducibility in systems biology modelling. Mol Syst Biol 2021;17:e9982.
4. Stodden V, Guo P, Ma Z. Toward reproducible computational research: an empirical analysis of data and code policy adoption by journal. PloS One 2013;8:e67111.
5. McKiernan EC, Bourne PE, Brown CT, et al. How open science helps researchers succeed. Elife 2016;5:e16800.