[REVIEW]: Explaining Black-Box Models through Counterfactuals

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@pat-alt@kartikeyrinwa<!--end-reviewers-list-- Archive:

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/f0aaf97980595c2ade2f4d17601bd5e0"><img src="https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/f0aaf97980595c2ade2f4d17601bd5e0/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/f0aaf97980595c2ade2f4d17601bd5e0/status.svg)](https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/f0aaf97980595c2ade2f4d17601bd5e0)

Reviewers and authors:

Please avoid lengthy details of difficulties in the review thread. Instead, please create a new issue in the target repository and link to those issues (especially acceptance-blockers) by leaving comments in the review thread below. (For completists: if the target issue tracker is also on GitHub, linking the review thread in the issue or vice versa will create corresponding breadcrumb trails in the link target.)

Reviewer instructions & questions

@jmaces & @kartikeyrinwa, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @matbesancon know.

✨ Please start on your review when you are able, and be sure to complete your review in the next six weeks, at the very latest ✨

Review checklist for @jmaces

Conflict of interest

[ ] As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JuliaCon conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

[ ] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JuliaCon code of conduct.

General checks

[ ] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
[ ] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[ ] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@pat-alt) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

[ ] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
[ ] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
[ ] Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

[ ] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[ ] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
[ ] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
[ ] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
[ ] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function of the software can be verified?
[ ] Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Paper format

[ ] Authors: Does the paper.tex file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
[ ] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
[ ] References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?
[ ] Page limit: Is the page limit for full papers respected by the submitted document?

Content

[ ] Context: is the scientific context motivating the work correctly presented?
[ ] Methodology: is the approach taken in the work justified, presented with enough details and reference to reproduce it?
[ ] Results: are the results presented and compared to approaches with similar goals?

Review checklist for @kartikeyrinwa

Conflict of interest
[ ] As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JuliaCon conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.