
Mitigation Strategies to Improve Reproducibility of Poverty Estimations From Remote Sensing Images Using Deep Learning
Author(s) -
Machicao J.,
Ben Abbes A.,
Meneguzzi L.,
Corrêa P. L. P.,
Specht A.,
David R.,
Subsol G.,
Vellenich D.,
Devillers R.,
Stall S.,
Mouquet N.,
Chaumont M.,
BertiEquille L.,
Mouillot D.
Publication year - 2022
Publication title -
earth and space science
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.843
H-Index - 23
ISSN - 2333-5084
DOI - 10.1029/2022ea002379
Subject(s) - reproducibility , computer science , set (abstract data type) , data science , checklist , deep learning , test (biology) , workflow , artificial intelligence , statistics , psychology , mathematics , cognitive psychology , database , programming language , paleontology , biology
The challenges of Reproducibility and Replicability (R & R) in computer science experiments have become a focus of attention in the last decade, as efforts to adhere to good research practices have increased. However, experiments using Deep Learning (DL) remain difficult to reproduce due to the complexity of the techniques used. Challenges such as estimating poverty indicators (e.g., wealth index levels) from remote sensing imagery, requiring the use of huge volumes of data across different geographic locations, would be impossible without the use of DL technology. To test the reproducibility of DL experiments, we report a review of the reproducibility of three DL experiments which analyze visual indicators from satellite and street imagery. For each experiment, we identify the challenges found in the data sets, methods and workflows used. As a result of this assessment we propose a checklist incorporating relevant FAIR principles to screen an experiment for its reproducibility. Based on the lessons learned from this study, we recommend a set of actions aimed to improve the reproducibility of such experiments and reduce the likelihood of wasted effort. We believe that the target audience is broad, from researchers seeking to reproduce an experiment, authors reporting an experiment, or reviewers seeking to assess the work of others.