[SciPy-User] peer review of scientific software
Tue Jun 4 06:51:13 CDT 2013
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 7:27 AM, <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 4:07 AM, Suzen, Mehmet <email@example.com> wrote:
>> On 28 May 2013 20:23, Calvin Morrison <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> Pissed-off Scientific Programmer,
>>> Calvin Morrison
>> Those recent papers and discussions all talk about good practises. I
>> was thinking
>> today in the bus, why there are not many literature on scientific
>> software development
>> methodologies. One explicit paper I found was from 80s called
>> A Development Methodology for Scientific Software
>> Cort, G. et. al.
>> It is pretty classic approach for today's standard, There is also a book about
>> generic style and good practice, its a pretty good book (might be
>> mentioned in this list before):
>> Writing Scientific Software: A Guide to Good Style
>> Suely Oliveira and David E. Stewart
>> but I don't see any reference to modern development methodologies specifically
>> address to scientific software. For example: extensions of test driven
>> which would suit better than classic
>> specification-design-coding-testing. Test cases
>> would be directly related to what we would like to achieve in the
>> first place. For example
>> a generic density of something etc. I haven't heard anyone developing
>> scientific software
>> in this way...yet.
> I think functional (not unit) testing is pretty much the standard in
> the area of developing statistical algorithms even if nobody calls it
> that way. And I don't know of any references to software development
> for it.
> When writing a library function for existing algorithms, then it is
> standard to test it against existing results. Many (or most) software
> packages, or articles that describe the software, show that they
> reproduce existing results as test cases.
> (And that's the way we work for statsmodels.)
> For new algorithms, it is standard to publish Monte Carlo studies that
> show that the new algorithm is "better" in at least some cases or
> directions than the existing algorithms (or statistical estimators and
> tests), and often they use published case studies or applied results
> to show how the conclusion would differ or be unchanged
> (Just for illustration: the workflow of some friends of mine that are
> theoretical econometricians.
> First write the paper with the heavy theory and proofs, then start to
> write the MonteCarlo, the first version doesn't deliver the results
> that can be expected based on the theory, look for bugs and fix those,
> rerun MonteCarlo, iterate, then find different test cases, simulated
> data generating processes, and show where it works and where it
> doesn't, and check the theoretical explanation/intuition why it
> doesn't work in some cases. Submit only cases that work, and write a
> footnote for the other cases.
Sorry I forgot one step
After the submission, one referee of the paper doesn't like some parts
or wants additional simulations. Iterate until publication or
rejection. If rejection, then submit to another journal, and iterate.
By the time the article is finally published, other researchers
already started to use the algorithm and possibly the code.
Sounds partially like functional test driven developement to me.
> And after, that there are many published articles that present
> MonteCarlo studies to show that an algorithm does not work properly if
> some assumptions are violated, and that something else is better.
> (This doesn't mean that they produce a "pretty" piece of software, but
> it shows that it works as advertised.)
> I don't think I ever heard of unit or functional testing for applied
> research, that is testing the workflow and not the computational
>> SciPy-User mailing list
More information about the SciPy-User