[REVIEW]: Interoperating Deep Learning models with ONNX.jl

whedon commented 4 years ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@ayush-1506<!--end-author-handle-- (Ayush Shridhar) Repository: https://github.com/FluxML/ONNX.jl Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v0.1.1 Editor: Reviewers: @ekinakyurek, @NiklasGustafsson Archive:

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/1ff3f39290336c431d800f78b9fd3653"><img src="https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/1ff3f39290336c431d800f78b9fd3653/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/1ff3f39290336c431d800f78b9fd3653/status.svg)](https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/1ff3f39290336c431d800f78b9fd3653)

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

@ekinakyurek & @NiklasGustafsson, 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 @vchuravy 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 @ekinakyurek

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 (@ayush-1506) 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 @NiklasGustafsson

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 (@ayush-1506) 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?

whedon commented 4 years ago

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @ekinakyurek, @NiklasGustafsson it looks like you're currently assigned to review this paper :tada:.

:warning: JOSS reduced service mode :warning:

Due to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, JOSS is currently operating in a "reduced service mode". You can read more about what that means in our blog post.

:star: Important :star:

If you haven't already, you should seriously consider unsubscribing from GitHub notifications for this (https://github.com/JuliaCon/proceedings-review) repository. As a reviewer, you're probably currently watching this repository which means for GitHub's default behaviour you will receive notifications (emails) for all reviews 😿

To fix this do the following two things:

Set yourself as 'Not watching' https://github.com/JuliaCon/proceedings-review:

watching

You may also like to change your default settings for this watching repositories in your GitHub profile here: https://github.com/settings/notifications

notifications

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@whedon commands

For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 4 years ago

PDF failed to compile for issue #59 with the following error:

Can't find any papers to compile :-(

vchuravy commented 4 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 4 years ago

PDF failed to compile for issue #59 with the following error:

Can't find any papers to compile :-(

vchuravy commented 4 years ago

@ayush-1506 please re-add the paper once you are done with your modifications: https://github.com/FluxML/ONNX.jl/commit/d328243656ab3264b9fd58ce6f5eb0bc3f8b1711

ayush-1506 commented 4 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 4 years ago

PDF failed to compile for issue #59 with the following error:

rm: cannot remove '*.aux': No such file or directory Latexmk: This is Latexmk, John Collins, 17 Jan. 2018, version: 4.55. Rule 'pdflatex': Rules & subrules not known to be previously run: pdflatex Rule 'pdflatex': The following rules & subrules became out-of-date: 'pdflatex'

Run number 1 of rule 'pdflatex'

Running 'pdflatex -recorder "paper.tex"'

Latexmk: List of undefined refs and citations: Citation `CuArrays' on page 1 undefined on input line 32 Citation`DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1810-07951' on page 1 undefined on input line 28 Citation `besard:2017' on page 1 undefined on input line 31 Citation`bezanson2017julia' on page 1 undefined on input line 26 Citation `innes:2018' on page 1 undefined on input line 25 Latexmk: Summary of warnings: Latex failed to resolve 5 citation(s) Rule 'pdflatex': File changes, etc: Changed files, or newly in use since previous run(s): 'paper.aux'

Run number 2 of rule 'pdflatex'

Running 'pdflatex -recorder "paper.tex"'

Latexmk: List of undefined refs and citations: Citation `CuArrays' on page 1 undefined on input line 32 Citation`DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1810-07951' on page 1 undefined on input line 28 Citation `besard:2017' on page 1 undefined on input line 31 Citation`bezanson2017julia' on page 1 undefined on input line 26 Citation `innes:2018' on page 1 undefined on input line 25 Latexmk: Summary of warnings: Latex failed to resolve 5 citation(s) Rule 'pdflatex': File changes, etc: Changed files, or newly in use since previous run(s): 'paper.out'

Run number 3 of rule 'pdflatex'

Running 'pdflatex -recorder "paper.tex"'

Latexmk: List of undefined refs and citations: Citation CuArrays' on page 1 undefined on input line 32 CitationDBLP:journals/corr/abs-1810-07951' on page 1 undefined on input line 28 Citation besard:2017' on page 1 undefined on input line 31 Citationbezanson2017julia' on page 1 undefined on input line 26 Citation `innes:2018' on page 1 undefined on input line 25 Latexmk: Summary of warnings: Latex failed to resolve 5 citation(s) Failure to make 'paper.pdf' Collected error summary (may duplicate other messages): pdflatex: Command for 'pdflatex' gave return code 1 Refer to 'paper.log' for details Looks like we failed to compile the PDF

ayush-1506 commented 4 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 4 years ago

PDF failed to compile for issue #59 with the following error:

rm: cannot remove '*.aux': No such file or directory Latexmk: This is Latexmk, John Collins, 17 Jan. 2018, version: 4.55. Rule 'pdflatex': Rules & subrules not known to be previously run: pdflatex Rule 'pdflatex': The following rules & subrules became out-of-date: 'pdflatex'

Run number 1 of rule 'pdflatex'

Running 'pdflatex -recorder "paper.tex"'

Latexmk: List of undefined refs and citations: Citation `CuArrays' on page 1 undefined on input line 21 Citation`DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1810-07951' on page 1 undefined on input line 17 Citation `besard:2017' on page 1 undefined on input line 20 Citation`bezanson2017julia' on page 1 undefined on input line 15 Citation `innes:2018' on page 1 undefined on input line 14 Latexmk: Summary of warnings: Latex failed to resolve 5 citation(s) Rule 'pdflatex': File changes, etc: Changed files, or newly in use since previous run(s): 'paper.aux'

Run number 2 of rule 'pdflatex'

Running 'pdflatex -recorder "paper.tex"'

Latexmk: List of undefined refs and citations: Citation `CuArrays' on page 1 undefined on input line 21 Citation`DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1810-07951' on page 1 undefined on input line 17 Citation `besard:2017' on page 1 undefined on input line 20 Citation`bezanson2017julia' on page 1 undefined on input line 15 Citation `innes:2018' on page 1 undefined on input line 14 Latexmk: Summary of warnings: Latex failed to resolve 5 citation(s) Rule 'pdflatex': File changes, etc: Changed files, or newly in use since previous run(s): 'paper.out'

Run number 3 of rule 'pdflatex'

Running 'pdflatex -recorder "paper.tex"'

Latexmk: List of undefined refs and citations: Citation CuArrays' on page 1 undefined on input line 21 CitationDBLP:journals/corr/abs-1810-07951' on page 1 undefined on input line 17 Citation besard:2017' on page 1 undefined on input line 20 Citationbezanson2017julia' on page 1 undefined on input line 15 Citation `innes:2018' on page 1 undefined on input line 14 Latexmk: Summary of warnings: Latex failed to resolve 5 citation(s) Failure to make 'paper.pdf' Collected error summary (may duplicate other messages): pdflatex: Command for 'pdflatex' gave return code 1 Refer to 'paper.log' for details Looks like we failed to compile the PDF

ayush-1506 commented 4 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 4 years ago

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

ayush-1506 commented 4 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 4 years ago

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

ayush-1506 commented 4 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 4 years ago

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

vchuravy commented 4 years ago

@whedon help

whedon commented 4 years ago

I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:

@whedon commands

vchuravy commented 4 years ago

@whedon commands

whedon commented 4 years ago

Here are some things you can ask me to do:

# List all of Whedon's capabilities
@whedon commands

# Assign a GitHub user as the sole reviewer of this submission
@whedon assign @username as reviewer

# Add a GitHub user to the reviewers of this submission
@whedon add @username as reviewer

# Re-invite a reviewer (if they can't update checklists)
@whedon re-invite @username as reviewer

# Remove a GitHub user from the reviewers of this submission
@whedon remove @username as reviewer

# List of editor GitHub usernames
@whedon list editors

# List of reviewers together with programming language preferences and domain expertise
@whedon list reviewers

# Change editorial assignment
@whedon assign @username as editor

# Set the software archive DOI at the top of the issue e.g.
@whedon set 10.0000/zenodo.00000 as archive

# Set the software version at the top of the issue e.g.
@whedon set v1.0.1 as version

# Open the review issue
@whedon start review

EDITORIAL TASKS

# All commands can be run on a non-default branch, to do this pass a custom 
# branch name by following the command with `from branch custom-branch-name`.
# For example:

# Compile the paper
@whedon generate pdf

# Compile the paper from alternative branch
@whedon generate pdf from branch custom-branch-name

# Remind an author or reviewer to return to a review after a
# certain period of time (supported units days and weeks)
@whedon remind @reviewer in 2 weeks

# Ask Whedon to do a dry run of accepting the paper and depositing with Crossref
@whedon accept

# Ask Whedon to check the references for missing DOIs
@whedon check references

# Ask Whedon to check repository statistics for the submitted software
@whedon check repository

EiC TASKS

# Invite an editor to edit a submission (sending them an email)
@whedon invite @editor as editor

# Reject a paper
@whedon reject

# Withdraw a paper
@whedon withdraw

# Ask Whedon to actually accept the paper and deposit with Crossref
@whedon accept deposit=true

vchuravy commented 4 years ago

@whedon check references

whedon commented 4 years ago

Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

- 10.21105/joss.00602 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.1137/141000671 may be missing for title: Julia: A fresh approach to numerical computing
- https://doi.org/10.1109/tpds.2018.2872064 may be missing for title: Effective Extensible Programming: Unleashing Julia on GPUs

INVALID DOIs

- None

vchuravy commented 4 years ago

@ayush-1506 can you fix the missing DOIs? Also you should include references to projects/papers/work out-side the Julia ecosystem that inspired your work.

ekinakyurek commented 4 years ago

Hi @ayush-1506, I've three comments -If more space allowed, I would like to see details of ModelProto and GraphProto. -A discussion of supported/unsupported ops for future work would be nice. -There are zigzags in Fig1.

ayush-1506 commented 4 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 4 years ago

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

ayush-1506 commented 4 years ago

@whedon check references

whedon commented 4 years ago

Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

- 10.21105/joss.00602 is OK
- 10.1137/141000671 is OK
- 10.1109/tpds.2018.2872064 is OK
- 10.1145/2939672.2939731 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- https://doi.org/10.1109/cvpr.2016.90 may be missing for title: Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition
- https://doi.org/10.1109/cvpr.2015.7298594 may be missing for title: Going Deeper with Convolutions
- https://doi.org/10.1109/cvpr.2019.00453 may be missing for title: A Style-Based Generator Architecture for Generative Adversarial Networks

INVALID DOIs

- None

ayush-1506 commented 4 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 4 years ago

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

ayush-1506 commented 4 years ago

@whedon check references

whedon commented 4 years ago

Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

- 10.21105/joss.00602 is OK
- 10.1137/141000671 is OK
- 10.1109/tpds.2018.2872064 is OK
- 10.1145/2939672.2939731 is OK
- 10.1109/cvpr.2016.90 is OK
- 10.1109/cvpr.2015.7298594 is OK
- 10.1109/cvpr.2019.00453 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

ayush-1506 commented 4 years ago

@whedon generate pdf

whedon commented 4 years ago

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

ayush-1506 commented 4 years ago

@ekinakyurek Thanks for the review. I've fixed these details.

vchuravy commented 4 years ago

@whedon accept

whedon commented 4 years ago

No archive DOI set. Exiting...

ayush-1506 commented 4 years ago

@vchuravy what's the reason behind this message?

ayush-1506 commented 4 years ago

Added to zenodo: https://zenodo.org/record/3994216

vchuravy commented 4 years ago

@whedon set archive http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3994216

whedon commented 4 years ago

I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:

@whedon commands

vchuravy commented 4 years ago

@whedon commands

whedon commented 4 years ago

Here are some things you can ask me to do:

# List all of Whedon's capabilities
@whedon commands

# Assign a GitHub user as the sole reviewer of this submission
@whedon assign @username as reviewer

# Add a GitHub user to the reviewers of this submission
@whedon add @username as reviewer

# Re-invite a reviewer (if they can't update checklists)
@whedon re-invite @username as reviewer

# Remove a GitHub user from the reviewers of this submission
@whedon remove @username as reviewer

# List of editor GitHub usernames
@whedon list editors

# List of reviewers together with programming language preferences and domain expertise
@whedon list reviewers

# Change editorial assignment
@whedon assign @username as editor

# Set the software archive DOI at the top of the issue e.g.
@whedon set 10.0000/zenodo.00000 as archive

# Set the software version at the top of the issue e.g.
@whedon set v1.0.1 as version

# Open the review issue
@whedon start review

EDITORIAL TASKS

# All commands can be run on a non-default branch, to do this pass a custom 
# branch name by following the command with `from branch custom-branch-name`.
# For example:

# Compile the paper
@whedon generate pdf

# Compile the paper from alternative branch
@whedon generate pdf from branch custom-branch-name

# Remind an author or reviewer to return to a review after a
# certain period of time (supported units days and weeks)
@whedon remind @reviewer in 2 weeks

# Ask Whedon to do a dry run of accepting the paper and depositing with Crossref
@whedon accept

# Ask Whedon to check the references for missing DOIs
@whedon check references

# Ask Whedon to check repository statistics for the submitted software
@whedon check repository

EiC TASKS

# Invite an editor to edit a submission (sending them an email)
@whedon invite @editor as editor

# Reject a paper
@whedon reject

# Withdraw a paper
@whedon withdraw

# Ask Whedon to actually accept the paper and deposit with Crossref
@whedon accept deposit=true

vchuravy commented 4 years ago

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.3994216 as archive

whedon commented 4 years ago

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.3994216 is the archive.

vchuravy commented 4 years ago

@whedon set v0.1.1 as version

whedon commented 4 years ago

OK. v0.1.1 is the version.

vchuravy commented 4 years ago

@whedon accept

whedon commented 4 years ago

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

whedon commented 4 years ago

:wave: @JuliaCon/jcon-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof :point_right: https://github.com/JuliaCon/proceedings-papers/pull/32

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/JuliaCon/proceedings-papers/pull/32, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.

@whedon accept deposit=true

whedon commented 4 years ago

Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

- 10.21105/joss.00602 is OK
- 10.1137/141000671 is OK
- 10.1109/tpds.2018.2872064 is OK
- 10.1145/2939672.2939731 is OK
- 10.1109/cvpr.2016.90 is OK
- 10.1109/cvpr.2015.7298594 is OK
- 10.1109/cvpr.2019.00453 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

JuliaCon / proceedings-review