I am stuck at an implementation of a scientific paper's algorithm, could I ask help from staff to code a part with me or even my advisor to do so?
Thanks for the clarification.
Academia Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for academics and those enrolled in higher education. It only takes a minute to sign up.Sign up to join this community
I'd like to add to Buffy's answer and some of the comments: It does happen that the difficulty is in the paper rather than the one sitting before it.
I've had a situation where our Master student couldn't figure out how to get an algorithm from a paper working. Neither could I. We decided that they should go on and use a different approach.
I later on met some industry people on a conference who cited the very same paper for one of their products and talked to them about the paper. Turned out, neither had they succeeded with that algorithm...
As Buffy says, yes, do ask your supervisor. They anyways need to know of your difficulties.
Yes you can ask, but whoever you ask, make sure you check with your advisor first so that you understand the requirements. The answer might be "do it yourself" of course.
But more likely is that, while they leave the task to you, they might point you to some resource that will help you do it. One principle that is important in teaching is to give the students sufficient hints so that they learn how to do things themselves, rather than just giving solutions.
In fact, rather than a direct ask for help, tell the advisor that you are stuck at a certain point and ask for advice about how to get unstuck.
In some fields, it can be appropriate to have others do certain coding tasks. I doubt that they let grad students directly code the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, for example. It isn't a place where you want to hear "oops...".
In general, you can ask for whatever help you need. But not asking and getting outside help could be interpreted by an advisor as misconduct.
The question is sufficiently vague that I'm not sure why everyone is assuming that your advisor has set you with a goal to implement something from a paper and no one else can touch it because it's a learning experience for you.
Of course you can ask for help from your group - that's why we work in groups. You should definitely ask your advisor who could help you.
In more experimental fields and depending on the scope of the work, your advisor would want to assign a staff member that is paid off the appropriate grant. But generally speaking, assisting someone else with code is a completely normal task that could fall under a staff person's duties if their manager (your mentor) set them to it.
Assuming you are more-or-less proficient in coding, it is possible (even likely) that the problem is with the paper itself. In that case you will definitely need your supervisor to help figure this out.
This is part of the reason why I constantly disagree with people saying "post the source" for academic papers. There's no guarantee that what they implemented for their research matches the paper they published. If you implement the algorithm from the paper, you'll catch methodological errors like that.
I've personally had this where my company had paid for the rights to a paper published by a very senior person in the field. His work is repeatedly referenced by a lot of other authors. He should have been top notch.
Instead what we found was that of the 9 papers he'd written on his results, and the 5 separate circuits implementing his algorithm, not one of the circuits corresponded to any of the papers. Not one. When we called him to ask about this, it turns out there was an issue at lower frequencies which the changes in the circuits were intended to resolve.
Except that it turns out these changes invalidate the conclusions of the paper. They added a non-linear element which his algorithm could not deal with. And when we looked at his results, it was absolutely there in the data. He'd only managed to conceal it by quoting his numbers for something like 5% accuracy plus a long-term drift over time, when the field would consider 0.1% accuracy as just about adequate and would not tolerate any control loop drift.
It's possible that he was sloppy and didn't look for this. Or it's possible he raced to publication and thought her could solve the flaws in a later paper. Or it's possible he sold it to us knowing it was crap and simply not caring. If you can't reproduce results, don't discount the possibility that this is what you're dealing with. And if that's the case, you really need to work it out.
As a PhD student, I had this problem - the solution turned out to be to call the paper authors for help. One group just sent me their code, which was nice. Another clarified some bits I was doing wrong. I think I remember that one had a typo in the paper, but that might be wishful memory.
However, I would also say I came up in an enviroment where my supervisor definately knew if I was having problems and generaly knew what those problems were because my first action on having a problem was normally to wander into his office and thrash it out on the whiteboard. If you don't have this type of relationship then I suggest you work towards it.