#maneage — Public Fediverse posts

@civodul #Maneage is still under the radar :P.

https://matrix.to/#/#maneage_community:matrix.org

@civodul #Maneage is still under the radar :P.

https://matrix.to/#/#maneage_community:matrix.org

@civodul #Maneage is still under the radar :P.

https://matrix.to/#/#maneage_community:matrix.org

@civodul #Maneage is still under the radar :P.

https://matrix.to/#/#maneage_community:matrix.org

@civodul #Maneage is still under the radar :P.

https://matrix.to/#/#maneage_community:matrix.org

#Reproducibility in numerical #GalaxyFormation with #Maneage [1] - ongoing lab course [2]. A 5-yr old reproducible paper (Roukema+Peper2021) [3] was not as trivially reproducible as hoped, but now seems OK in 2026 with commit 024d1f21 [4] maneage #AstroRelatedPython updates [5].

@cosmology @makhlaghi

[1] https://maneage.org

[2] https://cosmo.torun.pl/Cosmo/GalaxyFormationCourse

[3] https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.505.1223P = https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.03742 = https://zenodo.org/records/4699702

[4] https://codeberg.org/boud/elaphrocentre/commit/17c7d9033abda74fe5e8bf029119565b8a0be2ce

[5] https://savannah.nongnu.org/task/index.php?16740

#Reproducibility in numerical #GalaxyFormation with #Maneage [1] - ongoing lab course [2]. A 5-yr old reproducible paper (Roukema+Peper2021) [3] was not as trivially reproducible as hoped, but now seems OK in 2026 with commit 024d1f21 [4] maneage #AstroRelatedPython updates [5].

@cosmology @makhlaghi

[1] https://maneage.org

[2] https://cosmo.torun.pl/Cosmo/GalaxyFormationCourse

[3] https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.505.1223P = https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.03742 = https://zenodo.org/records/4699702

[4] https://codeberg.org/boud/elaphrocentre/commit/17c7d9033abda74fe5e8bf029119565b8a0be2ce

[5] https://savannah.nongnu.org/task/index.php?16740

#Reproducibility in numerical #GalaxyFormation with #Maneage [1] - ongoing lab course [2]. A 5-yr old reproducible paper (Roukema+Peper2021) [3] was not as trivially reproducible as hoped, but now seems OK in 2026 with commit 024d1f21 [4] maneage #AstroRelatedPython updates [5].

@cosmology @makhlaghi

[1] https://maneage.org

[2] https://cosmo.torun.pl/Cosmo/GalaxyFormationCourse

[3] https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.505.1223P = https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.03742 = https://zenodo.org/records/4699702

[4] https://codeberg.org/boud/elaphrocentre/commit/17c7d9033abda74fe5e8bf029119565b8a0be2ce

[5] https://savannah.nongnu.org/task/index.php?16740

#Reproducibility in numerical #GalaxyFormation with #Maneage [1] - ongoing lab course [2]. A 5-yr old reproducible paper (Roukema+Peper2021) [3] was not as trivially reproducible as hoped, but now seems OK in 2026 with commit 024d1f21 [4] maneage #AstroRelatedPython updates [5].

@cosmology @makhlaghi

[1] https://maneage.org

[2] https://cosmo.torun.pl/Cosmo/GalaxyFormationCourse

[3] https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.505.1223P = https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.03742 = https://zenodo.org/records/4699702

[4] https://codeberg.org/boud/elaphrocentre/commit/17c7d9033abda74fe5e8bf029119565b8a0be2ce

[5] https://savannah.nongnu.org/task/index.php?16740

#Reproducibility in numerical #GalaxyFormation with #Maneage [1] - ongoing lab course [2]. A 5-yr old reproducible paper (Roukema+Peper2021) [3] was not as trivially reproducible as hoped, but now seems OK in 2026 with commit 024d1f21 [4] maneage #AstroRelatedPython updates [5].

@cosmology @makhlaghi

[1] https://maneage.org

[2] https://cosmo.torun.pl/Cosmo/GalaxyFormationCourse

[3] https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.505.1223P = https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.03742 = https://zenodo.org/records/4699702

[4] https://codeberg.org/boud/elaphrocentre/commit/17c7d9033abda74fe5e8bf029119565b8a0be2ce

[5] https://savannah.nongnu.org/task/index.php?16740

The #Maneage #reproducibility system for scientific research papers that starts from a minimal POSIX-like host OS does not yet build [1] the #GNUCLibrary = #GLibC . We have a draft implementation building glibc *after* #GCC [2]; and an alternative proposal arguing that building glibc *first* and gcc second would be more long-term sustainable [[1] comment18].

Should GLibC be built first? Why (or why not)?

[1] https://savannah.nongnu.org/task/?15390
[2] https://gitlab.com/maneage/project-dev/-/blob/glibc/reproduce/software/make/core-gnu.mk#L718

The #Maneage #reproducibility system for scientific research papers that starts from a minimal POSIX-like host OS does not yet build [1] the #GNUCLibrary = #GLibC . We have a draft implementation building glibc *after* #GCC [2]; and an alternative proposal arguing that building glibc *first* and gcc second would be more long-term sustainable [[1] comment18].

Should GLibC be built first? Why (or why not)?

[1] https://savannah.nongnu.org/task/?15390
[2] https://gitlab.com/maneage/project-dev/-/blob/glibc/reproduce/software/make/core-gnu.mk#L718

The #Maneage #reproducibility system for scientific research papers that starts from a minimal POSIX-like host OS does not yet build [1] the #GNUCLibrary = #GLibC . We have a draft implementation building glibc *after* #GCC [2]; and an alternative proposal arguing that building glibc *first* and gcc second would be more long-term sustainable [[1] comment18].

Should GLibC be built first? Why (or why not)?

[1] https://savannah.nongnu.org/task/?15390
[2] https://gitlab.com/maneage/project-dev/-/blob/glibc/reproduce/software/make/core-gnu.mk#L718

The #Maneage #reproducibility system for scientific research papers that starts from a minimal POSIX-like host OS does not yet build [1] the #GNUCLibrary = #GLibC . We have a draft implementation building glibc *after* #GCC [2]; and an alternative proposal arguing that building glibc *first* and gcc second would be more long-term sustainable [[1] comment18].

Should GLibC be built first? Why (or why not)?

[1] https://savannah.nongnu.org/task/?15390
[2] https://gitlab.com/maneage/project-dev/-/blob/glibc/reproduce/software/make/core-gnu.mk#L718

The #Maneage #reproducibility system for scientific research papers that starts from a minimal POSIX-like host OS does not yet build [1] the #GNUCLibrary = #GLibC . We have a draft implementation building glibc *after* #GCC [2]; and an alternative proposal arguing that building glibc *first* and gcc second would be more long-term sustainable [[1] comment18].

Should GLibC be built first? Why (or why not)?

[1] https://savannah.nongnu.org/task/?15390
[2] https://gitlab.com/maneage/project-dev/-/blob/glibc/reproduce/software/make/core-gnu.mk#L718

Is a peer-reviewed #Maneage paper [1] (software + full results) reproducible from scratch?

Same author+machine; OS Debian stable updated 2021...2025.

Reproduction to final pdf by merge to current maneage 'software/' +minor hacks +disable a few verifications [2].

Result: final pdf has small but scientifically negligible diffs [3]; (due to python/numpy int or float changes?).

#Reproducibility

[1] https://peerj.com/articles/11856
[2] https://codeberg.org/boud/subpoisson/src/branch/202503_reproduce_merge_maneage commit f554c7e9
[3] https://codeberg.org/boud/subpoisson/commit/f554c7e9d5fc224d01b9db1126427afe7fb37784

Is a peer-reviewed #Maneage paper [1] (software + full results) reproducible from scratch?

Same author+machine; OS Debian stable updated 2021...2025.

Reproduction to final pdf by merge to current maneage 'software/' +minor hacks +disable a few verifications [2].

Result: final pdf has small but scientifically negligible diffs [3]; (due to python/numpy int or float changes?).

#Reproducibility

[1] https://peerj.com/articles/11856
[2] https://codeberg.org/boud/subpoisson/src/branch/202503_reproduce_merge_maneage commit f554c7e9
[3] https://codeberg.org/boud/subpoisson/commit/f554c7e9d5fc224d01b9db1126427afe7fb37784

Is a peer-reviewed #Maneage paper [1] (software + full results) reproducible from scratch?

Same author+machine; OS Debian stable updated 2021...2025.

Reproduction to final pdf by merge to current maneage 'software/' +minor hacks +disable a few verifications [2].

Result: final pdf has small but scientifically negligible diffs [3]; (due to python/numpy int or float changes?).

#Reproducibility

[1] https://peerj.com/articles/11856
[2] https://codeberg.org/boud/subpoisson/src/branch/202503_reproduce_merge_maneage commit f554c7e9
[3] https://codeberg.org/boud/subpoisson/commit/f554c7e9d5fc224d01b9db1126427afe7fb37784

Is a peer-reviewed #Maneage paper [1] (software + full results) reproducible from scratch?

Same author+machine; OS Debian stable updated 2021...2025.

Reproduction to final pdf by merge to current maneage 'software/' +minor hacks +disable a few verifications [2].

Result: final pdf has small but scientifically negligible diffs [3]; (due to python/numpy int or float changes?).

#Reproducibility

[1] https://peerj.com/articles/11856
[2] https://codeberg.org/boud/subpoisson/src/branch/202503_reproduce_merge_maneage commit f554c7e9
[3] https://codeberg.org/boud/subpoisson/commit/f554c7e9d5fc224d01b9db1126427afe7fb37784

Is a peer-reviewed #Maneage paper [1] (software + full results) reproducible from scratch?

Same author+machine; OS Debian stable updated 2021...2025.

Reproduction to final pdf by merge to current maneage 'software/' +minor hacks +disable a few verifications [2].

Result: final pdf has small but scientifically negligible diffs [3]; (due to python/numpy int or float changes?).

#Reproducibility

[1] https://peerj.com/articles/11856
[2] https://codeberg.org/boud/subpoisson/src/branch/202503_reproduce_merge_maneage commit f554c7e9
[3] https://codeberg.org/boud/subpoisson/commit/f554c7e9d5fc224d01b9db1126427afe7fb37784

@leibnizopenscience

The paper seems to have missed a powerful workflow language: #Make [1], with #GNUMake [2] being the canonical example. It's stable and nearly half a century old. Learn and use it now and your scientific grandchildren will be able to reproduce your workflow in 2075 [3]. #Maneage [3][4] uses Make for *both* reproducible software + reproducible workflows.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Make_%28software%29

[2] https://gnu.org/software/make

[3] https://maneage.org

[4] https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2021.3072860

@leibnizopenscience

The paper seems to have missed a powerful workflow language: #Make [1], with #GNUMake [2] being the canonical example. It's stable and nearly half a century old. Learn and use it now and your scientific grandchildren will be able to reproduce your workflow in 2075 [3]. #Maneage [3][4] uses Make for *both* reproducible software + reproducible workflows.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Make_%28software%29

[2] https://gnu.org/software/make

[3] https://maneage.org

[4] https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2021.3072860

@leibnizopenscience

The paper seems to have missed a powerful workflow language: #Make [1], with #GNUMake [2] being the canonical example. It's stable and nearly half a century old. Learn and use it now and your scientific grandchildren will be able to reproduce your workflow in 2075 [3]. #Maneage [3][4] uses Make for *both* reproducible software + reproducible workflows.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Make_%28software%29

[2] https://gnu.org/software/make

[3] https://maneage.org

[4] https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2021.3072860

@leibnizopenscience

The paper seems to have missed a powerful workflow language: #Make [1], with #GNUMake [2] being the canonical example. It's stable and nearly half a century old. Learn and use it now and your scientific grandchildren will be able to reproduce your workflow in 2075 [3]. #Maneage [3][4] uses Make for *both* reproducible software + reproducible workflows.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Make_%28software%29

[2] https://gnu.org/software/make

[3] https://maneage.org

[4] https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2021.3072860

@leibnizopenscience

The paper seems to have missed a powerful workflow language: #Make [1], with #GNUMake [2] being the canonical example. It's stable and nearly half a century old. Learn and use it now and your scientific grandchildren will be able to reproduce your workflow in 2075 [3]. #Maneage [3][4] uses Make for *both* reproducible software + reproducible workflows.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Make_%28software%29

[2] https://gnu.org/software/make

[3] https://maneage.org

[4] https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2021.3072860

An official PhD course in #ReproducibleResearchPapers will start next week [1]. Unofficial participation is welcome in the #ManeageCommunity room [2] (curated homeservers [3]), where much of the practical sessions will take place (days/times TBD). The focus is on #ReproducibleAstronomy, but #Maneage is (in principle) usable in any field of science.

@academicchatter #OpenScience #Reproducibility #Astronomy

[1] https://usosweb.umk.pl/kontroler.php?_action=katalog2%2Fprzedmioty%2FpokazPrzedmiot&kod=7404-REPASTR&lang=en

[2] https://matrix.to/#/#maneage_community:matrix.org

[3] https://servers.joinmatrix.org

An official PhD course in #ReproducibleResearchPapers will start next week [1]. Unofficial participation is welcome in the #ManeageCommunity room [2] (curated homeservers [3]), where much of the practical sessions will take place (days/times TBD). The focus is on #ReproducibleAstronomy, but #Maneage is (in principle) usable in any field of science.

@academicchatter #OpenScience #Reproducibility #Astronomy

[1] https://usosweb.umk.pl/kontroler.php?_action=katalog2%2Fprzedmioty%2FpokazPrzedmiot&kod=7404-REPASTR&lang=en

[2] https://matrix.to/#/#maneage_community:matrix.org

[3] https://servers.joinmatrix.org

An official PhD course in #ReproducibleResearchPapers will start next week [1]. Unofficial participation is welcome in the #ManeageCommunity room [2] (curated homeservers [3]), where much of the practical sessions will take place (days/times TBD). The focus is on #ReproducibleAstronomy, but #Maneage is (in principle) usable in any field of science.

@academicchatter #OpenScience #Reproducibility #Astronomy

[1] https://usosweb.umk.pl/kontroler.php?_action=katalog2%2Fprzedmioty%2FpokazPrzedmiot&kod=7404-REPASTR&lang=en

[2] https://matrix.to/#/#maneage_community:matrix.org

[3] https://servers.joinmatrix.org

An official PhD course in #ReproducibleResearchPapers will start next week [1]. Unofficial participation is welcome in the #ManeageCommunity room [2] (curated homeservers [3]), where much of the practical sessions will take place (days/times TBD). The focus is on #ReproducibleAstronomy, but #Maneage is (in principle) usable in any field of science.

@academicchatter #OpenScience #Reproducibility #Astronomy

[1] https://usosweb.umk.pl/kontroler.php?_action=katalog2%2Fprzedmioty%2FpokazPrzedmiot&kod=7404-REPASTR&lang=en

[2] https://matrix.to/#/#maneage_community:matrix.org

[3] https://servers.joinmatrix.org

An official PhD course in #ReproducibleResearchPapers will start next week [1]. Unofficial participation is welcome in the #ManeageCommunity room [2] (curated homeservers [3]), where much of the practical sessions will take place (days/times TBD). The focus is on #ReproducibleAstronomy, but #Maneage is (in principle) usable in any field of science.

@academicchatter #OpenScience #Reproducibility #Astronomy

[1] https://usosweb.umk.pl/kontroler.php?_action=katalog2%2Fprzedmioty%2FpokazPrzedmiot&kod=7404-REPASTR&lang=en

[2] https://matrix.to/#/#maneage_community:matrix.org

[3] https://servers.joinmatrix.org

@Pol

FOSS is criterion 8 of the eight #Maneage criteria for long-term archivable reproducibility [1][2].

Proprietary software is not reproducible because it "typically cannot be distributed, inspected, or modified by others. [It is], thus, reliant on a single supplier (even without payments) and prone to proprietary obsolescence. [f]"

@zimoun

[1] https://maneage.org

[2] https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2021.3072860 = https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.03018 = https://zenodo.org/records/6533902

[f] https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/proprietary-obsolescence.html

@Pol

FOSS is criterion 8 of the eight #Maneage criteria for long-term archivable reproducibility [1][2].

Proprietary software is not reproducible because it "typically cannot be distributed, inspected, or modified by others. [It is], thus, reliant on a single supplier (even without payments) and prone to proprietary obsolescence. [f]"

@zimoun

[1] https://maneage.org

[2] https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2021.3072860 = https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.03018 = https://zenodo.org/records/6533902

[f] https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/proprietary-obsolescence.html

@Pol

FOSS is criterion 8 of the eight #Maneage criteria for long-term archivable reproducibility [1][2].

Proprietary software is not reproducible because it "typically cannot be distributed, inspected, or modified by others. [It is], thus, reliant on a single supplier (even without payments) and prone to proprietary obsolescence. [f]"

@zimoun

[1] https://maneage.org

[2] https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2021.3072860 = https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.03018 = https://zenodo.org/records/6533902

[f] https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/proprietary-obsolescence.html

@Pol

FOSS is criterion 8 of the eight #Maneage criteria for long-term archivable reproducibility [1][2].

Proprietary software is not reproducible because it "typically cannot be distributed, inspected, or modified by others. [It is], thus, reliant on a single supplier (even without payments) and prone to proprietary obsolescence. [f]"

@zimoun

[1] https://maneage.org

[2] https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2021.3072860 = https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.03018 = https://zenodo.org/records/6533902

[f] https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/proprietary-obsolescence.html

@Pol

FOSS is criterion 8 of the eight #Maneage criteria for long-term archivable reproducibility [1][2].

Proprietary software is not reproducible because it "typically cannot be distributed, inspected, or modified by others. [It is], thus, reliant on a single supplier (even without payments) and prone to proprietary obsolescence. [f]"

@zimoun

[1] https://maneage.org

[2] https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2021.3072860 = https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.03018 = https://zenodo.org/records/6533902

[f] https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/proprietary-obsolescence.html

Can #cosmology research papers satisfy all 8 #Maneage reproducibility criteria?

At least 3 cosmology papers have been published using the #Maneage shell/make template.

All welcome in my online+f2f seminar (BBB) [1] tomorrow (CET) at 10:15 UTC = 11:15 CET Monday 11 March 2024.

* pdf [2]
* Matrix [3]

#OpenScience #Reproducibility
@cosmology

[1] https://astro.umk.pl/en/institute/general-seminar - https://vc.umk.pl/b/mar-byg-8yu-z15

[2] https://cosmo.torun.pl/~boud/Roukema20240311IANCU.pdf

[3] https://matrix.to/#/#maneage_community:matrix.org

Can #cosmology research papers satisfy all 8 #Maneage reproducibility criteria?

At least 3 cosmology papers have been published using the #Maneage shell/make template.

All welcome in my online+f2f seminar (BBB) [1] tomorrow (CET) at 10:15 UTC = 11:15 CET Monday 11 March 2024.

* pdf [2]
* Matrix [3]

#OpenScience #Reproducibility
@cosmology

[1] https://astro.umk.pl/en/institute/general-seminar - https://vc.umk.pl/b/mar-byg-8yu-z15

[2] https://cosmo.torun.pl/~boud/Roukema20240311IANCU.pdf

[3] https://matrix.to/#/#maneage_community:matrix.org

Can #cosmology research papers satisfy all 8 #Maneage reproducibility criteria?

At least 3 cosmology papers have been published using the #Maneage shell/make template.

All welcome in my online+f2f seminar (BBB) [1] tomorrow (CET) at 10:15 UTC = 11:15 CET Monday 11 March 2024.

* pdf [2]
* Matrix [3]

#OpenScience #Reproducibility
@cosmology

[1] https://astro.umk.pl/en/institute/general-seminar - https://vc.umk.pl/b/mar-byg-8yu-z15

[2] https://cosmo.torun.pl/~boud/Roukema20240311IANCU.pdf

[3] https://matrix.to/#/#maneage_community:matrix.org

Can #cosmology research papers satisfy all 8 #Maneage reproducibility criteria?

At least 3 cosmology papers have been published using the #Maneage shell/make template.

All welcome in my online+f2f seminar (BBB) [1] tomorrow (CET) at 10:15 UTC = 11:15 CET Monday 11 March 2024.

* pdf [2]
* Matrix [3]

#OpenScience #Reproducibility
@cosmology

[1] https://astro.umk.pl/en/institute/general-seminar - https://vc.umk.pl/b/mar-byg-8yu-z15

[2] https://cosmo.torun.pl/~boud/Roukema20240311IANCU.pdf

[3] https://matrix.to/#/#maneage_community:matrix.org

Can #cosmology research papers satisfy all 8 #Maneage reproducibility criteria?

At least 3 cosmology papers have been published using the #Maneage shell/make template.

All welcome in my online+f2f seminar (BBB) [1] tomorrow (CET) at 10:15 UTC = 11:15 CET Monday 11 March 2024.

* pdf [2]
* Matrix [3]

#OpenScience #Reproducibility
@cosmology

[1] https://astro.umk.pl/en/institute/general-seminar - https://vc.umk.pl/b/mar-byg-8yu-z15

[2] https://cosmo.torun.pl/~boud/Roukema20240311IANCU.pdf

[3] https://matrix.to/#/#maneage_community:matrix.org

@ethanwhite @tpoisot

In #Maneage [1], level 4+ is different:

* in analysis/ we use 'make' for the higher-level workflow, encouraging bash scripts for details;

* in software/ we use 'make' to build all the software with sha512sum checks on the downloads, starting from a minimal unix-like system;

* the makefiles initialize.mk and paper.mk are the workflow for the paper

Fully reproduce:
./project configure
./project make

Example: [2]

[1] https://maneage.org
[2] https://zenodo.org/record/7792910

@ethanwhite @tpoisot

In #Maneage [1], level 4+ is different:

* in analysis/ we use 'make' for the higher-level workflow, encouraging bash scripts for details;

* in software/ we use 'make' to build all the software with sha512sum checks on the downloads, starting from a minimal unix-like system;

* the makefiles initialize.mk and paper.mk are the workflow for the paper

Fully reproduce:
./project configure
./project make

Example: [2]

[1] https://maneage.org
[2] https://zenodo.org/record/7792910

@ethanwhite @tpoisot

In #Maneage [1], level 4+ is different:

* in analysis/ we use 'make' for the higher-level workflow, encouraging bash scripts for details;

* in software/ we use 'make' to build all the software with sha512sum checks on the downloads, starting from a minimal unix-like system;

* the makefiles initialize.mk and paper.mk are the workflow for the paper

Fully reproduce:
./project configure
./project make

Example: [2]

[1] https://maneage.org
[2] https://zenodo.org/record/7792910

@ethanwhite @tpoisot

In #Maneage [1], level 4+ is different:

* in analysis/ we use 'make' for the higher-level workflow, encouraging bash scripts for details;

* in software/ we use 'make' to build all the software with sha512sum checks on the downloads, starting from a minimal unix-like system;

* the makefiles initialize.mk and paper.mk are the workflow for the paper

Fully reproduce:
./project configure
./project make

Example: [2]

[1] https://maneage.org
[2] https://zenodo.org/record/7792910

@ethanwhite @tpoisot

In #Maneage [1], level 4+ is different:

* in analysis/ we use 'make' for the higher-level workflow, encouraging bash scripts for details;

* in software/ we use 'make' to build all the software with sha512sum checks on the downloads, starting from a minimal unix-like system;

* the makefiles initialize.mk and paper.mk are the workflow for the paper

Fully reproduce:
./project configure
./project make

Example: [2]

[1] https://maneage.org
[2] https://zenodo.org/record/7792910

@civodul @khinsen

We use #CosmicVoids in [1][2], which in N-body sims are traced by low num-densities of particles => high noise. Full #Maneage controls + fixed seed rng's. We still have intramachine + (higher) intermachine randomness. Statistical upper limits to results OK. But still untraced sources of randomness.

Any clues for remaining randomness [2]?

#Reproducibility #ArXiv_2304_00591 #OpenScience

[1] Frozen record: https://zenodo.org/record/7792910

[2] Live git: https://codeberg.org/mpeper/lensing

@civodul @khinsen

We use #CosmicVoids in [1][2], which in N-body sims are traced by low num-densities of particles => high noise. Full #Maneage controls + fixed seed rng's. We still have intramachine + (higher) intermachine randomness. Statistical upper limits to results OK. But still untraced sources of randomness.

Any clues for remaining randomness [2]?

#Reproducibility #ArXiv_2304_00591 #OpenScience

[1] Frozen record: https://zenodo.org/record/7792910

[2] Live git: https://codeberg.org/mpeper/lensing

@civodul @khinsen

We use #CosmicVoids in [1][2], which in N-body sims are traced by low num-densities of particles => high noise. Full #Maneage controls + fixed seed rng's. We still have intramachine + (higher) intermachine randomness. Statistical upper limits to results OK. But still untraced sources of randomness.

Any clues for remaining randomness [2]?

#Reproducibility #ArXiv_2304_00591 #OpenScience

[1] Frozen record: https://zenodo.org/record/7792910

[2] Live git: https://codeberg.org/mpeper/lensing

@civodul @khinsen

We use #CosmicVoids in [1][2], which in N-body sims are traced by low num-densities of particles => high noise. Full #Maneage controls + fixed seed rng's. We still have intramachine + (higher) intermachine randomness. Statistical upper limits to results OK. But still untraced sources of randomness.

Any clues for remaining randomness [2]?

#Reproducibility #ArXiv_2304_00591 #OpenScience

[1] Frozen record: https://zenodo.org/record/7792910

[2] Live git: https://codeberg.org/mpeper/lensing

@civodul @khinsen

We use #CosmicVoids in [1][2], which in N-body sims are traced by low num-densities of particles => high noise. Full #Maneage controls + fixed seed rng's. We still have intramachine + (higher) intermachine randomness. Statistical upper limits to results OK. But still untraced sources of randomness.

Any clues for remaining randomness [2]?

#Reproducibility #ArXiv_2304_00591 #OpenScience

[1] Frozen record: https://zenodo.org/record/7792910

[2] Live git: https://codeberg.org/mpeper/lensing