[PRE REVIEW]: Universal Numbers Library: Multi-format Variable Precision Arithmetic Library

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@Ravenwater<!--end-author-handle-- (E. Theodore L. Omtzigt) Repository: https://github.com/stillwater-sc/universal Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v3.66.1 Editor: !--editor-->@danielskatz<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @mmoelle1, @mlxd Managing EiC: Daniel S. Katz

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/932fdfc2735a85422e4431f27ebfc0d0"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/932fdfc2735a85422e4431f27ebfc0d0/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/932fdfc2735a85422e4431f27ebfc0d0/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/932fdfc2735a85422e4431f27ebfc0d0)

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @Ravenwater. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.

@Ravenwater if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSS and may be suitable for this submission (please start at the bottom of the list).

Editor instructions

The JOSS submission bot @editorialbot is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @editorialbot can do for you type:

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello human, I'm @editorialbot, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks.

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

@editorialbot commands

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

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

Checking the BibTeX entries failed with the following error:

No paper file path

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=1.13 s (1114.8 files/s, 168936.9 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C++                            549          12616          17665          65894
C/C++ Header                   498           8225          13546          63674
Markdown                        49            602              0           3950
C                               12            171            152           1723
CMake                          123            345            422           1603
Bourne Shell                    14             22             40            157
YAML                             6             18             65             79
Dockerfile                       1             14             34             42
JSON                             9              0              0             27
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                          1261          22013          31924         137149
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Failed to discover a Statement of need section in paper

[editorialbot]

:warning: An error happened when generating the pdf. Paper file not found.

[danielskatz]

@Ravenwater - our bot cannot find your paper (see https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/submitting.html#typical-paper-submission-flow) - Can you let me know where the .md file for it is?

[Ravenwater]

@danielskatz weird, it is in the joss subdirectory in the main branch: .../joss/paper.md

We had some issues in the submission process: it did not like a free string "computer arithmetic" in the paper subject and I didn't realize that the UI has a popup that provides the valid selections. As I was trying to figure this out, I copy and pasted the descriptor, and when I pasted it back into the final submission that has the right subject attribute, I missed the "No", in "No conflicts of interest..." I presumed that looked very odd for a submission, hence my note here.

[Ravenwater]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[Ravenwater]

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello @Ravenwater, here are the things you can ask me to do:

# List all available commands
@editorialbot commands

# Get a list of all editors's GitHub handles
@editorialbot list editors

# Check the references of the paper for missing DOIs
@editorialbot check references

# Perform checks on the repository
@editorialbot check repository

# Adds a checklist for the reviewer using this command
@editorialbot generate my checklist

# Set a value for branch
@editorialbot set joss-paper as branch

# Generates the pdf paper
@editorialbot generate pdf

# Generates a LaTeX preprint file
@editorialbot generate preprint

# Get a link to the complete list of reviewers
@editorialbot list reviewers

[Ravenwater]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- None

MISSING DOIs

- 10.23919/date.2019.8715262 may be a valid DOI for title: Deep positron: A deep neural network using the posit number system
- 10.1137/17m1140819 may be a valid DOI for title: Accelerating the solution of linear systems by iterative refinement in three precisions
- 10.1109/mm.2021.3061394 may be a valid DOI for title: NVIDIA A100 tensor core GPU: Performance and innovation
- 10.1007/978-3-031-09779-9_2 may be a valid DOI for title: A Posit8 Decompression Operator for Deep Neural Network Inference
- 10.1109/sc.2018.00050 may be a valid DOI for title: Harnessing GPU tensor cores for fast FP16 arithmetic to speed up mixed-precision iterative refinement solvers
- 10.1145/3148226.3148237 may be a valid DOI for title: Investigating half precision arithmetic to accelerate dense linear system solvers
- 10.1007/978-3-319-93698-7_45 may be a valid DOI for title: The design of fast and energy-efficient linear solvers: On the potential of half-precision arithmetic and iterative refinement techniques
- 10.1137/18m1229511 may be a valid DOI for title: Squeezing a matrix into half precision, with an application to solving linear systems
- 10.1007/978-3-031-09779-9_7 may be a valid DOI for title: Universal: Reliable, Reproducible, and Energy-Efficient Numerics

INVALID DOIs

- None

[Ravenwater]

@editorialbot list reviewers

[editorialbot]

Here's the current list of reviewers: https://bit.ly/joss-reviewers

[danielskatz]

ok, I'm not sure what happened. Please go ahead and add the DOIs to the references that are missing them - see the bib example of the sample paper in the JOSS docs if you need an example. Then use the command @editorialbot check references to check again, and the command @editorialbot generate pdf when the references are right to make a new PDF. editorialbot commands need to be the first entry in a new comment.

[danielskatz]

@Ravenwater - it looks like that joss directory was just added 13 hours ago, which was after the initial submission and the initial failures of the JOSS system (14 hours ago).

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot check repository

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=0.86 s (1463.5 files/s, 221663.5 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C++                            549          12619          17667          65906
C/C++ Header                   498           8231          13555          63728
Markdown                        51            699              0           4094
C                               12            171            152           1723
CMake                          123            345            422           1603
Bourne Shell                    14             22             40            157
TeX                              1             28             11            115
YAML                             7             21             69             97
Dockerfile                       1             14             34             42
JSON                             9              0              0             27
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                          1265          22150          31950         137492
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1165

[jamesquinlan]

@Ravenwater - I added the doi's to the list generated by editorialbot.

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @danielskatz is now the editor

[danielskatz]

I'll also be the editor for this submission - please suggest potential reviewers by mentioning them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). In addition, this list of people have already agreed to review for JOSS and may be suitable for this submission (please start at the bottom of the list).

[jamesquinlan]

@danielskatz FYI, waiting for @Ravenwater to push the new BibTeX file with doi to the main repo. As for reviewers, jordigh and wrathmatics from top of the list seem like a match. @Ravenwater, any suggested reviewers?

[danielskatz]

Since we need at least 2 reviewers, suggestions on a larger group would be welcome. They don't have to come from the list, and could include users of the software (though not contributors or collaborators)

[Ravenwater]

users of the software:

will wray will@lemurianlabs.com matthias moeller m.moller@tudelft.nl sebastian schoeps sebastian.schoeps@tu-darmstadt.de felix wolf mail.felix.wolf@gmail.com

[danielskatz]

👋 @jordigh and @wrathmatics - Would one or both of you be able to review this JOSS submission?

[jamesquinlan]

@danielskatz - it looks like I misspelled wrathematics (forgot the "e"). #5 in the list.

[danielskatz]

👋 @wrathematics - Would you be able to review this JOSS submission?

[Ravenwater]

pragyansmita 1 review, computer science dvalters <-- 8 reviews, hpc, geoscience sgrieve <-- 5 reviews, geoscience mlxd <-- accelerator numerics <-- very good match for Universal jmbr <-- 2 reviews, computational statistical mechanics, dynamical systems leios <-- 2 reviews, GPU computing, algorithms carlosjoseRG 0 reviews, robotics CELavecchia 0 reviews, robotics traversaro 1 review, robotics martinmodrak 3 reviews, bioinformatics, but broad programming language exposure dlagrava 4 reviews, numerical methods <-- good match for Universal Volkerschmid 0 reviews, Bayesian statistics, MCMC AnthonyOfSeattle 0 reviews, mass spectrometry, proteomics, distributed systems mmore500 0 reviews, hpc, simulation, genetic algorithms hvonwah 0 reviews, FEM <-- good match given that FEM and BEM are early adopters of Universal versatran01 0 reviews, robotics, SLAM vipinagrawal25 0 reviews, fluid dynamics, elasticity sandeep-ps 1 review, computer vision, data analysis

[Ravenwater]

updated bibtex with James DOI edits:

@editorialbot check references

[danielskatz]

editorialbot commands need to be the first entry in a new comment.

[jamesquinlan]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.23919/date.2019.8715262 is OK
- 10.1137/17m1140819 is OK
- 10.1109/mm.2021.3061394 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-031-09779-9_2 is OK
- 10.1109/sc.2018.00050 is OK
- 10.1145/3148226.3148237 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-93698-7_45 is OK
- 10.1137/18m1229511 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-031-09779-9_7 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[Ravenwater]

@danielskatz the JOSS process is awesome!!! tooling, collaboration, and automation are all well done and are a joy to work with.

[Ravenwater]

@danielskatz I know what went wrong the first time around: we have a Github actions CI system that takes about an hour to run the regression suite. I submitted the JOSS via a branch waiting for the CI to complete and be green before merging to main. I submitted the JOSS paper before the CI was done and the branch was merged. My bad.

[danielskatz]

Thanks to @mmoelle1 for agreeing to be a reviewer. I'll add him now, but the review won't actually start until we find at least one more willing reviewer

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot add @mmoelle1 as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@mmoelle1 added to the reviewers list!

[danielskatz]

👋 @dvalters & @sgrieve & @mlxd - Would one of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS?

[mlxd]

Hi @danielskatz I am happy to provide a review, assuming a 2-3 week review timeline is fine. If any others can get in faster, feel free to favour them instead.

[jamesquinlan]

@danielskatz FYI, @Ravenwater listed mmoelle1 as a software user, but I noticed they are also listed as a contributor.

[danielskatz]

@jamesquinlan - thanks for pointing this out.

[danielskatz]

👋 @mmoelle1 - As a contributor to the software, you would normally have a COI, and in many cases, you might be listed as an author of the software/paper. Can you say anything about this case?

[danielskatz]

@mlxd - your timing seems fine - I'll add you now, and hopefully we can start soon

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot add @mlxd as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@mlxd added to the reviewers list!

[mmoelle1]

I am not an author of the software. I have started using the software some years ago and communicated actively with Theo about missing features, etc. That said, there might be a small COI as I know Theo quite well. If you can find a better reviewer please remove me from the process. Otherwise, I will be as objective as I can.

On 12 Jan 2023, at 14:01, Daniel S. Katz @.***> wrote:

👋 @mmoelle1https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/mmoelle1__;!!PAKc-5URQlI!7yLH0FOl57Xp0_xugnohfQZrdvUptS7sKDY9AEg_nJX8uzJ1ZXsJK0acOS5TzwzUYGsfVyzD5D40qxpvuGrqUzq3d0w$ - As a contributor to the software, you would normally have a COI, and in many cases, you might be listed as an author of the software/paper. Can you say anything about this case?

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5058*issuecomment-1380305188__;Iw!!PAKc-5URQlI!7yLH0FOl57Xp0_xugnohfQZrdvUptS7sKDY9AEg_nJX8uzJ1ZXsJK0acOS5TzwzUYGsfVyzD5D40qxpvuGrq8rJ-9s0$, or unsubscribehttps://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAPGPI2SAGLLM3ON6STT4UTWR76BFANCNFSM6AAAAAATV7J6JI__;!!PAKc-5URQlI!7yLH0FOl57Xp0_xugnohfQZrdvUptS7sKDY9AEg_nJX8uzJ1ZXsJK0acOS5TzwzUYGsfVyzD5D40qxpvuGrqdmnlpp8$. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

[danielskatz]

👋 @mmoelle1 - I see a bunch of contributions from you: https://github.com/stillwater-sc/universal/commits/main?author=mmoelle1 mostly in 2018 and then a couple of minor bug fixes in 2021 and 2022.

You don't consider yourself a contributor to the software or someone who should be listed as an author of it? I'm asking in part because of the COI issue but also because this is one of the review criteria - see https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_checklist.html#general-checks