Demo claim: practice run, not real research.
A paper's code with a hardcoded laptop path still reproduces
A demo, not real research. The script reads data from a path on the author's laptop. The Lab fixes only that path, shows the diff, and the unchanged analysis reproduces the result.
We test one thing: does this code and data give this number? That's not the same as the science being right. The forecast price never changes the verdict.
See the proof
Counts as holding up
A paper's code with a hardcoded laptop path still reproduces
- Paper says
- 0.93
- Counts if
- 0.91 to 0.95
- Lab got
- 0.93
This result is final
Paper said 0.93. We got 0.93.
The code and data produced the same result. That doesn't prove the study's method is right.
This slip is the Lab's .
✓ Verified on NEAR. See the contract's history
- People forecast
- Forecasting ends
- The Lab retraces it
- Verdict posted, open to challenge
- Winners collect
What we didn't check
- Whether the sample was fair or large enough.
- Whether test data leaked into training or tuning.
- Whether the result holds on new data.
- Whether the study's method was the right one for its question.
Reading how the odds moved…
The evidence
See the full receiptHow much evidence is behind this?
Each step is a tougher test. Only the first one decides who wins the market.
- 1. ✓
The Lab's retrace of the code and data named in the claim
The Lab retraced the code and data and got a number inside the claim's range. YES wins.
- 2. –
Stress test: does the number depend on luck?
Fetching the extra runs…
- 3. –
Rebuilt from the description (experimental)
Fetching the AI's rebuild…
Coming next: a data-leakage check, for the same rows in training and test data, and a maths check on the statistics a paper reports. Neither has run on this claim.
Even all three steps can't prove the science is true. They show how well this result stands up to checking.
Verified
Your browser just re-checked these itself, so you don't have to trust this site.
Checking…
What the Lab retraces
- Source
- A demo, not real research
RERUN demo fixture, MIT - Code, at this exact version
- https://rerun.invalid/demo/repairable.git
commit d1f86938a1b89aab8b29421e8c6bf0c9ea54c6e4 - Commands
- python3.11
$ pip install -r requirements.txt
$ python reproduce.py - Where the result is read
- results.json using jsonpath $.accuracy
- Data files
- data/trials.csv
fingerprint be35dcd48bdcc0222a5c4d5ef769adb4a58e77c1914af80d8aa457ad742f9b7d - Limits
- 2 CPU, 2 GB, 3 minutes
- 7307d651f5e782ddb931062bca81ec13b420e9015fd094c8f637f1147b164cf9
Show the claim exactly as stored on the blockchain
{"artifact":{"commit":"d1f86938a1b89aab8b29421e8c6bf0c9ea54c6e4","data":[{"path":"data/trials.csv","sha256":"be35dcd48bdcc0222a5c4d5ef769adb4a58e77c1914af80d8aa457ad742f9b7d","url":"https://rerun.invalid/demo/data/trials.csv"}],"entrypoint":"python reproduce.py","output":{"extractor":{"expr":"$.accuracy","type":"jsonpath"},"path":"results.json"},"repo_url":"https://rerun.invalid/demo/repairable.git","runtime":"python3.11","setup":["pip install -r requirements.txt"]},"metric":{"comparison":"within_tolerance","name":"accuracy","reported_value":"0.93","tolerance":{"type":"abs","value":"0.02"}},"private_data":null,"resources":{"cpu":2,"max_minutes":3,"mem_gb":2},"source":{"authors":"RERUN demo fixture","license":"MIT","type":"report","url":"https://rerun.invalid/demo/repairable"},"statement":"DEMO FIXTURE, not real research. The script reads data from a path on the author's laptop. The Lab fixes only that path, shows the diff, and the unchanged analysis reproduces the result.","title":"[DEMO] A paper's code with a hardcoded laptop path still reproduces","version":1}Community notes
Notes are people's own words, kept on the blockchain. They never change a verdict, and the Lab's AI never reads them. Posting costs a little NEAR for storage, and what isn't used comes back.