<zimoun>ouch! It is really to reproduce a paper. So many details are missing. On one hand, it is good because it means question each steps. On the other hand, it is exhausting and difficult; is the difference because we missed something? Or is it because the authors “hide” something? Or both.
<civodul>zimoun: that's an insightful experience, isn't it?
<civodul>maybe you can submit the result to ReScience? (whether you were successful or not)
<zimoun>it was my initial idea but I do not know if we are going to some fruitful conclusions; it is always complicated when you are not able to reproduce and in the same time you are not able to clearly explain why or where it fails.
<zimoun>Well, the experience is not really insightful for me because all the blockers are already identified. ;-) For my colleagues, it is really! :-)
<zimoun>They are discovering how hard are many “trivial” details (bah that’s easy, just an engineering problem).