Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (2)
Document Type
- Article (1)
- Working Paper (1)
Language
- English (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (2)
Keywords
- Computational grid (1)
- Parallel job execution time estimation (1)
- User submission pattern (1)
- conomics (1)
- open science (1)
- political science (1)
- replication (1)
- reproduction (1)
- research transparency (1)
Scheduling performance in computational grid can potentially benefit a lot from accurate execution time estimation for parallel jobs. Most existing approaches for the parallel job execution time estimation, however, require ample past job traces and the explicit correlations between the job execution time and the outer layout parameters such as the consumed processor numbers, the user-estimated execution time and the job ID, which are hard to obtain or reveal. This paper presents and evaluates a novel execution time estimation approach for parallel jobs, the user-behavior clustering for execution time estimation, which can give more accurate execution time estimation for parallel jobs through exploring the job similarity and revealing the user submission patterns. Experiment results show that compared to the state-of-art algorithms, our approach can improve the accuracy of the job execution time estimation up to 5.6 %, meanwhile the time that our approach spends on calculation can be reduced up to 3.8 %.
This study pushes our understanding of research reliability by reproducing and replicating claims from 110 papers in leading economic and political science journals. The analysis involves computational reproducibility checks and robustness assessments. It reveals several patterns. First, we uncover a high rate of fully computationally reproducible results (over 85%). Second, excluding minor issues like missing packages or broken pathways, we uncover coding errors for about 25% of studies, with some studies containing multiple errors. Third, we test the robustness of the results to 5,511 re-analyses. We find a robustness reproducibility of about 70%. Robustness reproducibility rates are relatively higher for re-analyses that introduce new data and lower for re-analyses that change the sample or the definition of the dependent variable. Fourth, 52% of re-analysis effect size estimates are smaller than the original published estimates and the average statistical significance of a re-analysis is 77% of the original. Lastly, we rely on six teams of researchers working independently to answer eight additional research questions on the determinants of robustness reproducibility. Most teams find a negative relationship between replicators' experience and reproducibility, while finding no relationship between reproducibility and the provision of intermediate or even raw data combined with the necessary cleaning codes.