The direct numerical simulations (DNS) for this paper were conducted using Basilisk (http://basilisk.fr/). As Basilisk is a free software program written in C, it can be readily installed on any Linux machine, and it should be straightforward to then run the driver code to re-produce the DNS from this paper. Given this, the numerical solutions presented in this paper are a result of many high-fidelity simulations, which each took approximately 24 CPU hours running between 4 to 8 cores. Hence the difficulty in reproducing the results should mainly be in the amount of computational resources it would take, so HPC resources will be required. The DNS in this paper were used to validate the presented analytical solutions, as well as extend the results to a longer timescale. Reproducing these numerical results will build confidence in these results, ensuring that they are independent of the system architecture they were produced on.
This paper presents a fine example of high-throughput computational materials screening studies, mainly focusing on the carbon nanoclusters of different sizes. In the paper, a set of diverse empirical and machine-learned interatomic potentials, which are commonly used to simulate carbonaceous materials, is benchmarked against the higher-level density functional theory (DFT) data, using a range of diverse structural features as the comparison criteria. Trying to reproduce the data presented here (even if you only consider a subset of the interaction potentials) will help you devise an understanding as to how you could approach a high-throughput structure prediction problem. Even though we concentrate here on isolated/finite nanoclusters, AIRSS (and other similar approaches like USPEX, CALYPSO, GMIN, etc.,) can also be used to predict crystal structures of different class of materials with applications in energy storage, catalysis, hydrogen storage, and so on.
We do care about reproducibility. In case we receive any feedback, we would be really happy to improve our Github repository and/or submitted manuscript so as to make the reproduction easier!
We do care about reproducibility. In case we receive any feedback, we would be really happy to improve our Github repository so as to make the reproduction easier!
Systematically improvable machine learning potentials could have a significant impact on the range of properties that can be modelled, but the toolchain associated with using them presents a barrier to entry for new users. Attempting to reproduce some of our results will help us improve the accessibility of the approach.
Popular descriptors for machine learning potentials such as the Behler-Parinello atom centred symmetry functions (ACSF) or the Smooth Overlap of Interatomic Potentials (SOAP) are widely used but so far not much attention has been paid to optimising how many descriptor components need to be included to give good results.
DFT calculations are in principle reproducible between different codes, but differences can arise due to poor choice of convergence tolerances, inappropriate use of pseudopotentials and other numerical considerations. An independent validation of the key quantities needed to compute electrical conductivity would be valuable. In this case we have published our input files for calculating the four quantities needed to parametrise the transport simulations from which we compute the electrical conductivity. These are specifically electronic band structure, phonon dispersions, electron-phonon coupling constants and third derivatives of the force constants. Each in turn in more sensitive to convergence tolerances than the last, and it is the final quantity on which the conclusions of the paper critically depend. Reference output data is provided for comparison at the data URL below. We note that the pristine CNT results (dark red line) in figure 3 are an independent reproduction of earlier work and so we are confident the Boltzmann transport simulations are reproducible. The calculated inputs to these from DFT (in the case of Be encapsulation) have not been independently reproduced to our knowledge.
The negative surface enthalpies in figure 5 are surprising. At least one group has attempted to reproduce these using a different code and obtained positive enthalpies. This was attributed to the inability of that code to independently relax the three simulation cell vectors resulting in an unphysical water density. This demonstrates how sensitive these results can be to the particular implementation of simulation algorithms in different codes. Similarly the force field used is now very popular. Its functional form and full set of parameters can be found in the literature. However differences in how different simulation codes implement truncation, electrostatics etc can lead to significant difference in results such as these. It would be a valuable exercise to establish if exactly the same force field as that used here can be reproduced from only its specification in the literature. The interfacial energies of interest should be reproducible with simulations on modest numbers of processors (a few dozen) with run times for each being 1-2 days. Each surface is an independent calculation and so these can be run concurrently during the ReproHack.
The results of this paper have been used in multiple subsequent studies as a benchmark against which other methods of performing the same calculation have been tested. Other groups have challenged the results as suffering from finite size effects, in particular the calculations on mixtures of cubic and hexagonal ice. Should there be time during in the event, participants could check this by performing calculations on larger unit cells. Each individual calculation should converge adequately within 96 hours making it amenable to a HPC ReproHack. Given modern HPC hardware many such calculations could be run concurrently on a single HPC node.
Most of the material is available through Jupyter notebooks in GitHub, and it should be easy to reproduce with the help of Binder. With the notebooks, you could experiment with different parameters to the ones analyzed in the paper. It also contains a large dataset of physical parameters of galaxies analysed in this work. We expect this work to be easily reproducible in the steps described in the repository.
Because: - Two fellow PhDs working on different topics have been able to reproduce some figures by following the README instructions and I hope this extends to other people - I've tried to incorporate as many of the best practices as possible to make my code and data open and accessible - I've tried to make sure that my data is exactly reproducible with the specified random seed strategy - the paper suggests a method that should be useful to other researchers in my field, which is not useful unless my results are reproducible
I suggested a few papers last year. I’m hoping that we’ve improved our reproducibility with this one, this year. We’ve done our best to package it up both in Docker and as an R package. I’d be curious to know what the best way to reproduce it is found to be. Working through vignettes or spinning up a Docker instance. Which is the preferred method?
The original data took quite a while to produce for a previous paper, but for this paper, all tables and figures should be exactly reproducible by simply running the jupyter notebook.
It uses the drake R package that should make reproducibility of R projects much easier (just run make.R and you're done). However, it does depend on very specific package versions, which are provided by the accompanying docker image.
This paper is reproduced weekly in a docker container on continuous integration, but it is also set up to work via local installs as well. It would be interesting to see if it's reproducible with a human operator who knows nothing of the project or toolchain.