EMNLP Reproducibility

Use this before submission and again before camera-ready. At EMNLP, reproducibility is not a virtue signal appended to the paper — it is enforced at the gate: the Responsible NLP checklist is filed with every ARR submission, ARR has desk-rejected for incorrect, incomplete, or misleading answers since December 2024, and EMNLP 2025 published the completed checklist as an appendix of the paper itself. Assume your answers become part of the public record.

Checklist as a contract

Answer each section against the frozen PDF, then repair mismatches in whichever direction is honest:

A "yes" the PDF cannot support is now a desk-reject vector — the only checklist strategy is making the paper actually deserve its answers.

The moving-target problem: LLM-era pinning

The reproducibility hazard specific to modern NLP is that the measured object changes under you. Pin everything that can drift:

# repro-pin.yaml — one block per reported experiment
model: <exact identifier, e.g. open-weights checkpoint hash or API model string>
queried: 2026-04-18 .. 2026-05-02        # API results are dated observations
decoding: {temperature: 0.0, top_p: 1.0, max_tokens: 512, stop: ["\n\n"]}
prompt_file: prompts/nli_zero_shot_v3.txt # verbatim, versioned
data: {name: ..., version: ..., split: test, license: CC-BY-4.0}
seeds: [13, 42, 271, 828, 1729]
hardware: 4x A100-80GB, ~11 GPU-hours total
metric_impl: sacrebleu 2.4.0 / evaluate 0.4.2  # scores differ across implementations

Two entries deserve emphasis. Query dates: an API model result without dates is a claim about a system that no longer exists. Metric implementation: BLEU, ROUGE, and even F1 vary across implementations and preprocessing; name the package and version or the number is not comparable to anyone else's.

Data provenance and annotation records

• Every corpus: source, version, license, and whether its terms permit your use and redistribution — the checklist asks, and "found on the internet" fails.
• Every annotation effort: guidelines (released verbatim), annotator recruitment and compensation, agreement statistics, and adjudication procedure. These double as method details — agreement is evidence about the construct, not HR paperwork.
• Preprocessing is part of the dataset: tokenization, filtering, deduplication, and class balancing decisions all change results; script them, don't prose them.

Release honesty levels

State the level you actually achieve rather than aspirationally overpromising:

1. Rerunnable — one script per table, pinned environment, seeds fixed; a stranger reproduces the numbers modulo hardware nondeterminism.
2. Rebuildable — code and data released with documented manual steps.
3. Documented — closed data or models prevent release, but the paper specifies enough (prompts, configs, dates, metrics) for a faithful reimplementation.

Level 3 with honest reasons outperforms a broken claim of level 1 in review: NLP reviewers do try to run things, and a repository that fails on pip install converts a reproducibility strength into a credibility wound.

Compute and cost reporting

The checklist's computational-experiments section expects infrastructure and budget answers, and the field increasingly reads them as science rather than logistics:

• Report total compute for the reported experiments and, separately, the rough multiplier for the search that found them — a method needing 40 exploratory runs to hit its configuration is different work to reproduce than one needing 4.
• For API experiments, report call counts and token volumes; "we evaluated GPT-x on the benchmark" hides a cost that determines who can replicate you.
• Name the hardware class and wall-clock, not just GPU-hours; memory limits gate reproduction more often than FLOPs.
• If a result exists because a large training run cannot be repeated (one seed on the big model, five on the small), say so where the result is reported, not only in the checklist.

Cheap habits that pay at review time

• Emit result tables from logged runs programmatically; hand-transcribed numbers drift from their logs and reviewers who ask for logs notice.
• Keep a RESULTS.md mapping every number in the paper to a run ID.
• Store the exact prompt for every reported LLM number at generation time — prompts reconstructed later are fiction with good intentions.
• When randomness is genuinely irreducible (API nondeterminism), quantify it: repeat a subset of calls and report observed dispersion.

Vignette: the number that could not be regenerated

A submission reports 71.4 F1 for its main configuration. During the response window a reviewer asks for the per-language breakdown; the rerun produces 70.6. The cause is archaeological: the 71.4 came from a notebook using a since-edited prompt file, on a dataset version replaced in April. Nothing was dishonest — and nothing was pinned. The paper now faces a window where every number is suspect. The prevention costs one habit: no result enters the draft except from a logged run with a pinned config, and the log ID rides along in a comment next to the table. Papers built this way answer breakdown requests in an hour and gain credibility from the speed itself.

Output format

[Checklist audit] <section -> supported / mismatch -> fix>
[Pinning status] <models, dates, decoding, prompts, metrics: pinned or drifting>
[Provenance record] <corpus/annotation items missing license or agreement data>
[Release level] rerunnable / rebuildable / documented — as stated vs actual
[Repair queue] <ordered, cheapest-first>