{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023809523809523808, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.140449438202247, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Case for Reproducibility in MIR: Replication of 'A Highly Robust Audio Fingerprinting System'

This article makes a case for reproducibility in MIR research. Claims made in many MIR publications are hard to verify due to the fact that (i) often only a textual description is made available and code remains unpublished - leaving many implementation issues uncovered; (ii) copyrights on music limit the sharing datasets; and (iii) incentives to put effort into reproducible research -- publishing and documenting code and specifics on data -- is lacking. 
 
In this article the problems around reproducibility are illustrated by replicating a MIR work. The system and evaluation described in 'A Highly Robust Audio Fingerprinting System' is replicated as closely as possible. The replication is done with several goals in mind: to describe difficulties in replicating the work and subsequently reflect on guidelines around reproducible research. Added contributions are the verification of the reported work, a publicly available implementation and an evaluation method that is reproducible.