Re-running benchmarks of LRCos produces differences of 1 or 2 correct answers out of the 50 questions in some individual BATS tests, so that the benchmark accuracy varies by up to 4 per cent on the same data, which is a concern for the reproduciblity of experiments. The differences tend to average out across different test categories, so the overall percentage difference is smaller, though still problematic.
It seems plausible that the randomization used in the LogisticRegression from sklearn.linear_model could cause this problem. But seeding the random number generator with np.random.seed(1), random.seed(1), or calling LogisticRegression with random_state=1 does not help.
Re-running benchmarks of LRCos produces differences of 1 or 2 correct answers out of the 50 questions in some individual BATS tests, so that the benchmark accuracy varies by up to 4 per cent on the same data, which is a concern for the reproduciblity of experiments. The differences tend to average out across different test categories, so the overall percentage difference is smaller, though still problematic.
It seems plausible that the randomization used in the LogisticRegression from sklearn.linear_model could cause this problem. But seeding the random number generator with np.random.seed(1), random.seed(1), or calling LogisticRegression with random_state=1 does not help.