Closed whedon closed 3 years ago
Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @henrik227, @alex-konovalov 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/openjournals/joss-reviews) 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:
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
Reference check summary:
OK DOIs
- 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37 is OK
- 10.1145/2833157.2833162 is OK
MISSING DOIs
- https://doi.org/10.1098/rstl.1819.0023 may be missing for title: XXI. A new method of solving numerical equations of all orders, by continuous approximation
- https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315120195-1 may be missing for title: Introduction to numerical analysis
- https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01177-2_5 may be missing for title: Fast Interpolation and Fourier Transform in High-Dimensional Spaces
- https://doi.org/10.1145/980175.980179 may be missing for title: Greedy algorithms for optimizing multivariate Horner schemes
- https://doi.org/10.1007/s006070070002 may be missing for title: On the multivariate Horner scheme II: running error analysis
- https://doi.org/10.15807/jorsj.51.29 may be missing for title: Efficient evaluation of polynomials and their partial derivatives in homotopy continuation methods
- https://doi.org/10.1090/s0025-5718-1990-0993925-1 may be missing for title: Evaluation of multivariate polynomials and their derivatives
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2013.05.008 may be missing for title: Improving multivariate Horner schemes with Monte Carlo tree search
- https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15582-6_55 may be missing for title: Efficient evaluation of large polynomials
INVALID DOIs
- None
@whedon generate pdf
@whedon set v2.1.0 as version
I'm sorry @MrMinimal64, I'm afraid I can't do that. That's something only editors are allowed to do.
@dpsanders please bump the sofware version to v2.1.0 (latest release). Some useful API changes/clarifications have been included: https://github.com/MrMinimal64/multivar_horner/blob/master/CHANGELOG.rst#210-2020-06-15
@MrMinimal64 I don't think we need to do anything about the versioning until the review is complete.
I am concerned that multivar_horner does not qualify as a `substantial scholarly effort' as described in the review criteria, for the following reasons:
However, I do believe that multivar_horner is useful for anyone who needs to evaluate large multivariate polynomials.
Initially, I thought that the search-based approach mention in the `further reading' section could be a major contribution of multivar_horner. However, according to the documentation, this approach does not seem to have any practical benefits (yet?).
hello @henrik227 and @dpsanders,
@henrik227, I do respect your opinion, but I would like to briefly argue against it in the following.
The project is not very large (see the statistics here).
How large a project needs to be in order to fulfil the JOSS review criteria is open for discussion. What can be said definitively however, is that many projects with a similar or even smaller footprint are being considered: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/2428#issuecomment-653255875 https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/2438#issuecomment-653794412
It seems to be a rather straight-forward implementation of an existing algorithm (described in Ceberio & Kreinovich, 2004).
First of all I would like to point out that multivar_horner
contains many computational aspects not included in the solely theoretical outline of the algorithm in (Ceberio & Kreinovich, 2004).
The mathematical considerations only comprise the factorisation process.
How a found Horner factorisation can be represented and evaluated in a computationally efficient way is not within the scope of the literature.
Whether or not an implementation is “straight-forward”, in the end always remains highly subjective and even if it was, I think it could very well still qualify as “substantial scholarly effort”.
multivar_horner
can be considered as a substantial scholarly effort due to the following reasons:
As an open source package helpful for a large part of the scientific community multivar_horner
is a valid candidate for being published in the JOSS.
[1] Floater, Michael S., and Kai Hormann. "Barycentric rational interpolation with no poles and high rates of approximation." Numerische Mathematik 107.2 (2007): 315-331. [2] Cools, Ronald. "Constructing cubature formulae: the science behind the art." Acta numerica 6 (1997): 1-54. [3] Temlyakov, Vladimir N. "Cubature formulas, discrepancy, and nonlinear approximation." Journal of Complexity 19.3 (2003): 352-391. [4] Cools, Ronald. "Advances in multidimensional integration." Journal of computational and applied mathematics 149.1 (2002): 1-12.
To clarify: I do not question that the package is useful. However, I cannot say for sure that this package "represent[s] not less than three months of work for an individual", and from the review criteria it is not clear to me how the usefulness of the software is weighed against the effort that went into it. I am well aware that it is difficult to objectively quantify the development effort of software.
I do not have a strong opinion on this; I just want to make sure that the package meets the standards of JOSS. If @dpsanders and @alex-konovalov consider the package a "substantial scholarly effort", I am ok with that.
@henrik227 Thanks for expressing your concern.
I am waiting for @alex-konovalov's input, and for a further opinion which I hope to get next week.
@whedon add saschatimme as reviewer
OK, saschatimme is now a reviewer
@whedon add @saschatimme as reviewer
OK, @saschatimme is now a reviewer
@whedon generate pdf
The current paper version now contains some additional aspects:
Maple
as a software already supporting multivariate Horner factorisationsMathematica
offering 1D Horner factorisationsmultivar_horner
factorisation process is coefficient agnostic)@saschatimme, @alex-konovalov, what is the status of the review?
@whedon generate pdf
@whedon generate pdf
Hello @dpsanders, @saschatimme, @alex-konovalov, @henrik227, This review already started 2 month ago. What is the current status and the timeline for the next steps? With kind regards, Jannik Michelfeit
👋 @MrMinimal64, apologies for my absence.
👋 @henrik227, @alex-konovalov, @saschatimme: How are your reviews of this submission coming along? Hopefully we can have a first round of comments finished, say, by the end of August? Thanks!
@dpsanders I was waiting on a decision regarding whether this project is considered a "substantial scholarly effort". Wouldn't it make sense to decide on that first?
@henrik227 That's a fair point. In my opinion this submission does meet the criteria for a "substantial scholarly effort" and should be reviewed.
@whedon generate pdf
@whedon generate pdf
I tried to incorporate all the objections made by the reviewers in the latest version of the paper.
@whedon generate pdf
👋 @alex-konovalov: Will you be able to complete your review of this paper soon?
👋 @saschatimme and @henrik227: Many thanks for your very useful feedback in the issues on the repo! Are you happy with the current version?
@whedon generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
👋 @saschatimme and @henrik227: Many thanks for your very useful feedback in the issues on the repo! Are you happy with the current version?
I still disagree with how operations are counted in this package, but I think it's ok since it's explained both in the paper and the documentation.
I am in the same boat as @henrik227 that I disagree with the way operations are counted in the package. The article states
multivar_horner implements a multivariate Horner scheme using the greedy heuristic presented in (Ceberio & Kreinovich, 2004).
However, looking into (Ceberio & Kreinovich, 2004) the way operations are counted there is actually how @henrik227 and I suggest they are supposed to be counted (to compute x^3
takes 2 operations) and not as the author implemented it and describes it in the article where x^3
only requires single operation.
@whedon generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
The operations are now being counted as you suggest (solely the number of multiplications). The optimal search heuristic now minimises the new operation count and finds "optimal" factorisations in this sense. I also evaluate the relative numerical error in the benchmarks. The paper as well as the documentation have been updated accordingly.
@whedon generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
I updated the placement of the figures (now the paper has a length of 8 pages again)
@whedon generate pdf
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
Submitting author: @MrMinimal64 (Jannik Michelfeit) Repository: https://github.com/MrMinimal64/multivar_horner Version: 2.1.1 Editor: @dpsanders Reviewers: @henrik227, @saschatimme Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.4062422
: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.
Status
Status badge code:
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
@henrik227, @alex-konovalov and @saschatimme, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:
The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @dpsanders know.
✨ Please try and complete your review in the next six weeks ✨
Review checklist for @henrik227
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper
Review checklist for @saschatimme
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
General checks
Functionality
Documentation
Software paper