Jump to content

Konrad Hinsen: Difference between revisions

1 byte added ,  00:47, 12 November 2022
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
Line 9: Line 9:
|Fediverse=https://scholar.social/@khinsen
|Fediverse=https://scholar.social/@khinsen
|Github=khinsen
|Github=khinsen
}}
}}  
{{Workshop Submission
{{Workshop Submission
|Interest=Ever since I started doing computational biophysics research 25 years ago, I have been unhappy with the state of the art in dealing with complex computational models. Then and still now, they are represented in two unconnected forms: a narrative providing the scientific background and a summary, and an optimized (and hence unreadable) piece of simulation software the embeds the model. The narrative is usually subject to peer review, but review has to remain superficial in the absence of the complete model. The software source code usually undergoes no independent evaluation because that's far too much effort to ask from a reviewer. For the potential user of the model, there is a version they can run but not understand, and a summary that they can understand but not compare to what they are running. Given the increasing importance of computational models in many fields of science, that's a problem. Scientific models ought to take center stage in scientific debate, but this is currently not possible.
|Interest=Ever since I started doing computational biophysics research 25 years ago, I have been unhappy with the state of the art in dealing with complex computational models. Then and still now, they are represented in two unconnected forms: a narrative providing the scientific background and a summary, and an optimized (and hence unreadable) piece of simulation software the embeds the model. The narrative is usually subject to peer review, but review has to remain superficial in the absence of the complete model. The software source code usually undergoes no independent evaluation because that's far too much effort to ask from a reviewer. For the potential user of the model, there is a version they can run but not understand, and a summary that they can understand but not compare to what they are running. Given the increasing importance of computational models in many fields of science, that's a problem. Scientific models ought to take center stage in scientific debate, but this is currently not possible.