diff --git a/config/_default/config.yaml b/config/_default/config.yaml index 0de6d64..41975aa 100644 --- a/config/_default/config.yaml +++ b/config/_default/config.yaml @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@ baseURL: 'https://example.com/' # Website URL cascade: - _target: path: /blog/** + pager: true editable: true show_breadcrumb: true diff --git a/content/awards/_index.md b/content/awards/_index.md deleted file mode 100644 index e926cf8..0000000 --- a/content/awards/_index.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,21 +0,0 @@ ---- -# Title, summary, and page position. -linktitle: Awards -weight: 30 -icon: trophy-svgrepo-com -icon_pack: fas - -# Page metadata. -title: Awards -date: '2018-09-09T00:00:00Z' -type: book # Do not modify. ---- - -This year, awards will be: - -- The top 5 “Outstanding Papers” will each receive _Reward_. -- The top 15 “Outstanding Reviewers” will each receive _Reward_. - -Awards will be decided by an Awards committee consisting of members of the MLRC Organizing Committee. Awards are expected to be finalized within 2 months following the announcement of paper acceptance (currently MM DDth, YYYY). - -For eligibility requirements & additional terms please visit [page]() \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/content/blog/_index.md b/content/blog/_index.md index 4e298dc..9de8d38 100644 --- a/content/blog/_index.md +++ b/content/blog/_index.md @@ -1,5 +1,4 @@ --- -# Title, summary, and page position. linktitle: Blog weight: 1 icon: task-square-svgrepo-com @@ -7,8 +6,15 @@ icon_pack: fas # Page metadata. title: Blog -date: '2018-09-09T00:00:00Z' +date: "2018-09-09T00:00:00Z" type: book # Do not modify. -toc: true +toc: false +content: + offset: 0 + order: desc + filters: + folders: + - blog + archive: + enable: false --- - diff --git a/content/blog/announcing_mlrc2023.md b/content/blog/announcing_mlrc2023.md deleted file mode 100644 index 15c9a90..0000000 --- a/content/blog/announcing_mlrc2023.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,13 +0,0 @@ ---- -title: Announcing MLRC 2023 -linktitle: Announcing MLRC 2023 -toc: true -type: book -date: '2019-05-05T00:00:00+01:00' -draft: true - -# Prev/next pager order (if `docs_section_pager` enabled in `params.toml`) -weight: 2 ---- - -Announcing MLRC 2023 \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/content/blog/announcing_mlrc2023/index.md b/content/blog/announcing_mlrc2023/index.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..4b2be45 --- /dev/null +++ b/content/blog/announcing_mlrc2023/index.md @@ -0,0 +1,258 @@ +--- +title: Announcing MLRC 2023 +linktitle: Announcing MLRC 2023 +toc: true +type: book +date: "2019-05-05T00:00:00+01:00" +draft: false + +# Prev/next pager order (if `docs_section_pager` enabled in `params.toml`) +weight: 1 +--- + +Every year since 2018, we have conducted the Machine Learning Reproducibility +Challenge (see previous years +[v1](https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~jpineau/ICLR2018-ReproducibilityChallenge.html), +[v2](https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~jpineau/ICLR2019-ReproducibilityChallenge.html), +[v3](https://reproducibility-challenge.github.io/neurips2019/), +[v4](https://reproducibility-challenge.github.io/neurips2019/), +[v5](https://paperswithcode.com/rc2021), +[v6](https://paperswithcode.com/rc2022)), which invites the ML community to +examine the reproducibility of existing, recently published papers in top +conferences. As we gear up to announce the seventh iteration of the challenge, +MLRC 2023, we would like to share our learnings from previous years and how we +plan to incorporate these lessons into the upcoming challenge. + +## Retrospectives + +Over the years, the ML Reproducibility Challenge has been largely aimed at +students beginning their journey in ML research as part of their ML coursework. +This provided an accessible entry point to ML research, allowing early career +researchers to participate and learn a full paper publication lifecycle - from +designing the research question to investigating the limits of a scientific +hypothesis to final publication acceptance. One of the success stories of this +approach was from the University of Amsterdam, which designed a course around +the challenge +([FACT AI](https://studiegids.uva.nl/xmlpages/page/2022-2023-en/search-course/course/99121)), +and consistently produced high quality reproducibility reports in the final +proceedings of the challenge. While the challenge is a valuable resource to ML +course instructors and early career ML researchers, we are eager for the +challenge to grow in scope and impact. More specifically, we want to encourage +ML researchers to contribute novel research that will improve scientific +practice and understanding in the field. We thus identified several shortcomings +of the current model following our retrospection of the submitted and accepted +papers in the challenge. + +While the challenge is a valuable resource to ML course instructors and early +career ML researchers, we are eager for the challenge to grow in scope and +impact. More specifically, we want to encourage ML researchers to contribute +novel research that will improve scientific practice and understanding in the +field. We thus identified several shortcomings of the current model following +our retrospection of the submitted and accepted papers in the challenge. + +### Reproducibility is not a binary outcome + +The term “reproducibility” unfortunately comes with a baggage - whenever we talk +about a paper to be reproducible, the expectation is this binary property - yes +or no. However, the reality is way more nuanced: a paper presents multiple +hypotheses (claims) of varying importance to the central claim - which some of +them can be directly reproducible, others might not be; some of the claims may +even be limited in terms “generalisability” (cite Pineau et al 2020). +Consequently, we consistently found the quality of the reports submitted to the +challenge fall into either of these two categories: a) making a sweeping claim +about reproducibility, or b) diving deep and constructing a holistic view of +reproducibility, replicability and generalisability of the claims presented in +the original paper. Not surprisingly, the latter cohort is always highly rated +by the reviewers and ends up more often in the accepted pool. From the +[2020 iteration](https://paperswithcode.com/rc2020/registration), we introduced +a Reproducibility Summary template to encourage participants to focus on the +central claims of the paper, and to mainly focus on this generalisability +aspect - results beyond the original paper. We found that introducing this +template helps the authors to focus more on these questions, thereby improving +their submission. + +### Reproducibility is not about whether author’s code gives the same results + +Thanks to the continued effort made by the ML community in terms of Checklists +and mandatory code submission policies, we now see >90% of papers accompanied by +their source code. This is a very promising progress regarding reproducibility +of the research in our field - the presence of code alleviates many questions +and issues regarding the implementation, thereby facilitating exact +reproducibility. Inadvertently, this also resulted in many MLRC submissions +where authors only run the provided code and compare the numbers. While these +contributions measure replicability, they are not strong research contributions +which add valuable insights to the field. Instead, strong submissions tend to +leverage the authors code to make exhaustive ablations, hyperparameter search +and explore generalisability results on different data/models. + +### Redundant reproductions of the same resource-friendly papers + +For several years, we find that authors tend to pick papers which are more +resource-friendly - i.e. papers which can run on a single commodity GPU. This is +likely a side-effect of the challenge being targeted primarily towards early +career researchers. While reproducibility study on such resource-light papers is +not a problem per se, it does often result in multiple reproduction reports on +the same paper. We hypothesize that this is probably due to courses assigning +multiple groups to work on a single paper, in order to better manage logistics. +As we did not have any deduplication criteria, we explicitly inform our +reviewers to not penalize multiple reproducibility reports on the same paper. We +aimed to reduce this by introducing a pre-registration phase early on +([2019](https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~jpineau/ICLR2019-ReproducibilityChallenge.html), +[2020](https://paperswithcode.com/rc2020/registration)), however that turned out +to be logistically challenging leading us to discontinue it. In our opinion, +cherry-picking the same paper reduces the breadth of papers being reproduced in +the challenge, invites duplication in work and overall lessens the scientific +contribution to the community. + +### Low signal reviews due to inexperienced reviewers + +Reviewing for the ML Reproducibility Challenge is unique - it requires the +reviewer to first read and understand the original paper(s) and then perform a +critical judgment of the reproducibility report. Hence, workload wise, reviewing +for this challenge requires twice the amount of time per paper than a standard +ML conference. We therefore typically try to evenly reduce the reviewing +workload, with a maximum of two papers per reviewer. Over the last several +iterations, barring from the top reviewers, we observed a concerning trend of +low signal reviews. We hypothesize this mainly due to the different format and +higher workload. To remedy this, we have introduced comprehensive reviewer +guidelines, and also awarded top reviewer awards to further incentivize high +quality reviews. We are grateful to our reviewers for their consistent support, +and we have observed a steady number of reviewers who consistently provide high +quality, useful reviews and hence feature in the top reviewers list on multiple +occasions. + +### Low incentives to publish a reproducibility report + +From the inception of the challenge, we have partnered with ReScience as our +journal publication medium. [ReScience](https://rescience.github.io/) is a peer +reviewed, open journal focusing on reproducibility reports across many different +fields of computational science, making it a unique venue. ReScience journal +editorial process is open and live on [Github](https://github.com/ReScience), +making it very convenient to access. However, we have observed that the +popularity of ReScience in the Machine Learning community is still low, limiting +the incentives of publication at the challenge. Furthermore, we found ReScience +journal entries are not yet +[properly indexed](https://github.com/ReScience/rescience.github.io/issues/113) +by Google Scholar, although the editors are working hard to fix that. Another +issue was since MLRC is not a workshop at any major conference, the original +format did not have any option to present papers to the community, hurting the +incentives even further. Since 2022, we have partnered with +[NeurIPS](https://blog.neurips.cc/2022/08/15/journal-showcase/) to allow poster +presentations of accepted papers at the Journal to Conference Track, which +significantly increases the incentive and prestige of publishing papers at MLRC. +We have also partnered with +[Kaggle](https://www.kaggle.com/reproducibility-challenge-2022) in our last +iteration to provide accepted papers compute credits to further incentivize +submission and high quality research. Authors of top papers were granted a +significant amount of compute credits by Kaggle to further pursue their +research. + +## On the road ahead + +We want to continue improving the challenge on the following aspects: broadening +the target audience, broadening the scope and improving incentives, to make the +challenge more exciting to the community and encourage reproducible research. + +We are thus happy to announce the formal partnership with +[Transactions of Machine Learning Research (TMLR)](https://jmlr.org/tmlr/) +journal. TMLR is a new journal in the ML community, which is under the umbrella +of Journal of Machine Learning Research (JMLR), and has been fast growing in +significance and reputation within the field. Unlike JMLR, TMLR caters to +shorter format manuscripts similar to conference proceedings, and employs a fast +and open reviewing cycle, ensuring high quality submissions. Therefore, in the +upcoming iteration (MLRC 2023), papers will be published at TMLR instead of +ReScience. + +### Broadening the target audience + +While the MLRC will still be useful for the early-career researchers in ML +courses, we want to expand and encourage submissions from the broader community, +including academia and industry. Since TMLR publication accounts for +significantly high prestige and reception in the ML community, we hope this +change would attract a broad range of researchers to contribute to the +advancement of our understanding of reproducibility. + +### Increasing the bar of submissions + +As we look forward, the focus of a reproducibility paper should be much more +than mere reproduction - it should ideally investigate the generalisability of +the original claims. Results and investigations beyond what the authors proposed +are therefore encouraged, which adds to the novelty of the contribution. We +discourage simple replication work - while they are useful, they do not provide +enough value to the community. Submissions having multi-paper, topic-based +focused contributions are preferred over single paper reproductions. Novel work +on tools to investigate and enable reproducible research are also welcome to the +submission. We also recommend you to read TMLR’s +[submission guidelines and +editorial policies](https://jmlr.org/tmlr/editorial-policies.html) which also +applies equally to MLRC submissions. + +### Implementing a comprehensive and open reviewing cycle + +As we partner with TMLR, we also leverage their open, comprehensive reviewing +mechanism. Papers submitted to MLRC would first undergo TMLR’s reviewing +process. TMLR employs rich and diverse reviewers from the ML community, along +with expert Action Editors. Reviews will be viewed publicly on +[OpenReview](https://openreview.net/group?id=TMLR), and TMLR comes with a quick +reviewing turnaround which includes author rebuttals - a highly requested +feature in our previous iterations. + +### Improving incentives to participate in the challenge + +Publication of MLRC papers at TMLR will improve the reception and dissemination +of the work in the broader ML community. Accepted papers at TMLR are announced +in mailing lists and social media on +[a regular basis](https://jmlr.org/tmlr/contact.html). Papers accepted at TMLR +are indexed in Google Scholar using the existing OpenReview mechanism, allowing +easy citations and tracking cited counts. We also hope to continue our existing +partnership with NeurIPS to present accepted papers in the Journal to Conference +Showcase Track, allowing further dissemination and opportunity to gain feedback +from the ML community. (If you are attending NeurIPS 2023 in person, checkout +the Journal to Conference Track poster session for MLRC 2022 accepted papers!) + +### Providing a new home for MLRC web + +We are happy to announce our new and permanent online home, +[reproml.org](http://reproml.org). Announcements, information and blog posts +about MLRC 2023 and all subsequent iterations will be hosted in this dedicated +space. We are grateful to PapersWithCode for providing online hosting for our +past three iterations! + +## MLRC 2023 Call for Papers + +Finally, we are happy to formally announce MLRC 2023, which will go live +starting on **October 23rd**! We invite contributions from academics, +practitioners and industry researchers of the ML community to submit novel and +insightful reproducibility studies. + +We recommend you choose any paper(s) published in the 2023 calendar year from +the top conferences and journals (NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR, ACL, EMNLP, ECCV, CVPR, +TMLR, JMLR, TACL) to run your reproducibility study on. + +In order for your paper to be submitted and presented at MLRC 2023, it first +needs to be **accepted and published** at TMLR. While TMLR aims to follow a +2-months timeline to complete the review process of its regular submissions, +this timeline is not guaranteed. If you haven’t already, we therefore recommend +submitting your original paper to TMLR by **February 16th, 2024**, that is a +little over 3 months in advance of the MLRC publication announcement date. + +- Challenge goes live: October 23, 2023 +- Deadline to share your intent to submit a TMLR paper to MLRC: February 16th, + 2024 **Form: https://forms.gle/JJ28rLwBSxMriyE89**. This form requires that + you provide a link to your TMLR submission. Once it gets accepted (if it isn’t + already), you should then update the same form with your paper camera ready + details. +- Your accepted TMLR paper will finally undergo a light AC review to verify MLRC + compatibility. +- We aim to announce the accepted papers by May 31st, 2024, pending decisions of + all papers. + +## Closing Thoughts + +As we begin a new era of reproducibility research in Machine Learning, we hope +our continued quest for high quality reproducibility studies will inspire the +community to not only investigate the claims of existing papers, but add novel +research insights and contributions to the literature, accelerating the progress +of science. We hope these steps towards improving the incentives of investing in +reproducibility research enables the community to produce higher quality +scientific contributions. diff --git a/content/challange_resources/_index.md b/content/challenge_resources/_index.md similarity index 100% rename from content/challange_resources/_index.md rename to content/challenge_resources/_index.md