Open editorialbot opened 1 month ago
Hello humans, 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
Software report:
github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90 T=0.05 s (1133.1 files/s, 146764.4 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language files blank comment code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MATLAB 53 801 2888 2933
Markdown 2 62 0 406
TeX 1 24 0 246
YAML 1 1 4 18
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM: 57 888 2892 3603
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commit count by author:
200 COBRAPROsimulator
1 CO-simulation BatteRy modeling for Accelerated PaRameter Optimization (COBRAPRO)
Paper file info:
π Wordcount for paper.md
is 2632
β
The paper includes a Statement of need
section
License info:
β
License found: MIT License
(Valid open source OSI approved license)
:point_right::page_facing_up: Download article proof :page_facing_up: View article proof on GitHub :page_facing_up: :point_left:
ππΌ @yuefan98 @BradyPlanden @brosaplanella, this is the review thread for the paper. All of our communications will happen here from now on.
As a reviewer, the first step is to create a checklist for your review by entering
@editorialbot generate my checklist
as the top of a new comment in this thread.
These checklists contain the JOSS requirements. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. The first comment in this thread also contains links to the JOSS reviewer guidelines.
The JOSS review is different from most other journals. Our goal is to work with the authors to help them meet our criteria instead of merely passing judgment on the submission. As such, the reviewers are encouraged to submit issues and pull requests on the software repository. When doing so, please mention openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/6803
so that a link is created to this thread (and I can keep an eye on what is happening). Please also feel free to comment and ask questions on this thread.
We aim for reviews to be completed within about 4-6 weeks. Please feel free to ping me (@mbarzegary) if you have any questions/concerns.
@editorialbot check references
@COBRAPROsimulator this is where the review takes place. Please keep an eye out for comments here from the reviewers, as well as any issues opened by them on your software repository. I recommend you aim to respond to these as soon as possible, and you can address them straight away as they come in if you like, to ensure we do not loose track of the reviewers.
@COBRAPROsimulator It seems there is an issue with the ARM version of MATLAB compatibility. Was able to run code successfully with the intel version of MATLAB. I have created an issue on target repo
https://github.com/COBRAPROsimulator/COBRAPRO/issues/1
@COBRAPROsimulator Overall, this is a great work that requires significant effort. I have several comments that I would like to get clarified and some features that I would like to be considered for future release.
Given the code seems to run forever on my side, I want to confirm first that the code is expected to return SOC dependent estimation of physical parameters for the DFN model rather than a single set of parameters that can fit the HPPC data for the whole SOC range.
@yuefan98, thank you very much for reviewing COBRAPRO! Here are the answers to your questions:
Please let me know if there are any further questions or points I can clarify.
@COBRAPROsimulator Thanks for the clarifications!
For 1. I am good with that unless other reviewers have comments on it. For 2. I think that make sense to me. For 4. I was able to validate your HPPC result by reducing it to two particles optimization. I think the estimation provides reasonable reaction rate given the fit to the instantaneous response. After reviewing the simulation in detail, I am a bit worry about the diffusion properties in the optimization. And it seems we generally have a faster solids state diffusion estimation than the actual battery response. Can you comment on the diffusion coefficient estimation? That is assumed to be constant over SOC right? Do you think the estimation can be improve by considered SOC dependence in the future or it is more a feature of model?
Lastly, I am glad that SOC dependence optimization is considered as a future work. I believe that will make this toolbox more useful for the real application.
Lastly, we plan to link our recently accepted paper from the Journal of The Electrochemical Society which explains COBRAPRO's numerical implementation and parameter identification framework in detail.
I think that will be really helpful !
@yuefan98, thank you. Here is my comment to 4:
I hope I answered your question. Please let me know if you have any other questions.
@yuefan98 thanks a lot for finalizing your review. @BradyPlanden how is your review going?
Here's my review. Overall, the package provides a novel solution to the parameterisation of physics-based battery models (in this case the DFN). The code is functional and the article well-written, and meets all the points in the checklist (though note I have some questions regarding the performance and testing, see below). I provide a list of comments to address before publication, split into major and minor comments.
cycle_CC.m
it took around 8 seconds (the PyBaMM time in my machine is similar to that reported by the authors). I understand that the discrepancy is probably due to pre/post-processing and printing to screen, but it would be good to have one example with minimal overhead which can demonstrate the performance claimed in the article.DFN_LSA_Corr_CC.m
) does not render LaTeX.DFN_pso_0_05C.m
also took a long time to me (around 30 minutes) and some errors/warning came up. It would be good to clarify in the documentation that this example might take a while to run.
Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@COBRAPROsimulator<!--end-author-handle-- (Sara Ha) Repository: https://github.com/COBRAPROsimulator/COBRAPRO Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): Version: v1.0.0 Editor: !--editor-->@mbarzegary<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @yuefan98, @BradyPlanden, @brosaplanella Archive: Pending
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
@yuefan98 & @BradyPlanden & @brosaplanella, your review will be checklist based. Each of you will have a separate checklist that you should update when carrying out your review. First of all you need to run this command in a separate comment to create the checklist:
The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @mbarzegary know.
β¨ 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 β¨
Checklists
π Checklist for @brosaplanella
π Checklist for @yuefan98