rss-reproducibility

name	rss-reproducibility
description	Use when strengthening the reproducibility of an RSS (Robotics: Science and Systems) paper whose evidence lives partly on hardware — platform disclosure ledgers, log-backed trial claims, seeds and configs for the computational half, honest replication tiers, and release plans aligned with the free open-access proceedings culture.

RSS Reproducibility

Make an embodied result checkable. Robotics reproducibility is two different problems wearing one name: the computational half (code, seeds, configs) can be rerun by anyone; the physical half (this robot, this room, this cloth) can only be specified well enough for a peer lab to attempt replication. Treat the halves separately and state which tier each claim sits in.

Replication tiers — declare one per claim

Tier	What a reader can do	Minimum you must provide
Rerunnable	Reproduce the number from the release	Code, seeds, configs, data, one entry command
Re-collectable	Regenerate equivalent data on similar hardware	Full platform ledger + protocol document
Auditable	Verify your numbers follow from your logs	Raw trial logs + analysis scripts
Testimonial	Trust the authors	Nothing — and reviewers price it accordingly

A paper mixing tiers is fine; a paper implying Rerunnable while delivering Testimonial is the credibility failure RSS reviewers punish hardest.

The platform ledger

For the physical half, disclosure is the reproducibility. A peer lab needs:

• Robot make/model and any modifications; end-effector; sensor suite with mounting and calibration procedure; control frequency and stack (firmware through policy).
• Environment specifics that carry load: table friction, lighting, object sourcing (purchasable items beat lab-fabricated ones), workspace dimensions.
• Human procedure: reset steps, intervention rules, operator role — written as instructions, not narrative.
• Timing facts that gate feasibility: wall-clock per trial, total campaign hours, battery/thermal constraints that shaped the protocol.

Log-backed claims

The strongest robotics reproducibility artifact is the raw trial ledger:

trial_0142  cond=gripper_B  obj=towel_3  seed=1142
  result=fail  cause=release_timing  video=clips/0142.mp4
  notes=operator_intervention:none

• One row per attempt, appended at collection time, never edited afterward.
• Analysis scripts consume the ledger and emit every table in the paper — so PDF numbers cannot drift from evidence.
• Ship the ledger (anonymized) in the supplement; it converts "trust us" trial counts into auditable ones.

What to capture during the campaign (not after)

Reproducibility in robotics is mostly a collection-time discipline; these cannot be reconstructed later:

• Per-trial ledger rows (above) appended live, including aborted attempts.
• Camera footage of every trial, named by trial ID — storage is cheaper than a re-run campaign, and it doubles as rss-supplementary raw material.
• Calibration snapshots (camera extrinsics, force-torque zeroing) at session start, so drift between sessions is diagnosable.
• Software state per session: commit hash, config checksum, simulator build.
• Environmental incidentals that later become reviewer questions: object wear, lighting changes, floor surface swaps.
• A daily one-paragraph campaign log; six weeks later it is the only honest answer to "why does condition B have 19 trials instead of 25?"

Computational half: standard, therefore mandatory

• Seeds for every stochastic component (policy training, sampler init, domain randomization) and the variance across them, not one lucky seed.
• Exact dependency manifest, simulator version and physics timestep, GPU/CPU spec, and training wall-clock.
• Config files as the single source of hyperparameters; no numbers living only in the paper text.

Release plan and the venue's open culture

RSS proceedings are free to every reader at roboticsproceedings.org; a paywalled PDF with closed evidence would be off-culture. Plan the release in two states: anonymized supplement at submission (rss-supplementary), public repository + ledger + footage at camera-ready (rss-camera-ready). If something cannot be released (proprietary platform, safety), say what and why in the paper — a stated gap reads as honesty, a silent one as concealment.

Vignette: an honest tier map

A paper couples a learned grasp ranker (trained in simulation) with hardware clutter-clearing trials. Its declared map: the simulation training curves and ranker metrics are Rerunnable (seeds, configs, dataset, one command); the hardware success rates are Auditable (ledger plus analysis scripts shipped) and Re-collectable for labs with a comparable arm (platform ledger and protocol document provided); the wear-dependent behavior of one deformable object is Testimonial, and the paper says so in one sentence. Reviewers can now disagree with the evidence, but not discover its limits by surprise — which is the entire game.

Simulator determinism caveats

• Physics engines are only conditionally deterministic: thread counts, contact solver iterations, and hardware can change trajectories under the same seed. Record engine version, timestep, solver settings — and state whether exact replay or statistical equivalence is the reproduction target.
• GPU nondeterminism in training means "same seed" still needs a variance report across seeds to be meaningful.

Output format

[Tier map] <claim -> Rerunnable/Re-collectable/Auditable/Testimonial>
[Platform ledger] complete / gaps: <list>
[Trial ledger] exists+shipped / exists / absent
[Computational gaps] <seeds/configs/versions/variance>
[Release plan] <submission state -> camera-ready state>
[Honesty debt] <implied tier above delivered tier, if any>