[REVIEW]: madupite: A High-Performance Distributed Solver for Large-Scale Markov Decision Processes

editorialbot commented 1 week ago

Submitting author: !--author-handle-->@gmatilde@logological<!--end-editor-- Reviewers: @lukeolson, @victorapm, @bhttchr6 Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b7796be0782d9feb0bf5fb3bc37bc7e4"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b7796be0782d9feb0bf5fb3bc37bc7e4/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b7796be0782d9feb0bf5fb3bc37bc7e4/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b7796be0782d9feb0bf5fb3bc37bc7e4)

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

@lukeolson & @victorapm & @bhttchr6, 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:

@editorialbot generate my checklist

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

Checklists

📝 Checklist for @lukeolson

📝 Checklist for @victorapm

editorialbot commented 1 week 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

editorialbot commented 1 week ago

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1016/j.ifacol.2023.10.316 is OK
- 10.1109/TAC.2023.3270060 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.11844058 is OK
- 10.1111/ecog.00888 is OK
- 10.1287/inte.15.6.73 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-319-47766-4_6 is OK
- 10.1016/j.ifacol.2016.07.012 is OK
- 10.2172/2205494 is OK
- 10.1007/978-1-4612-1986-6_8 is OK
- 10.1016/j.parco.2021.102831 is OK
- 10.1007/s10107-014-0783-z is OK
- 10.1109/LCSYS.2022.3181213 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Inexact Policy Iteration Methods for Large-Scale M...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Markov decision processes with applications to fin...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Handbook of Markov Decision Processes: Methods and...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: PETSc Web page
- No DOI given, and none found for title: nanobind: tiny and efficient C++/Python bindings
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Dynamic Programming and Optimal Control, Vol. II
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Dynamic Programming
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot commented 1 week ago

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.05 s (1126.0 files/s, 298721.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SVG                              2              0             39           9447
C++                             11            300            113           1417
Python                          14            300            125            898
C/C++ Header                     8            157            123            554
Jupyter Notebook                 3              0            657            379
reStructuredText                 8            305            397            216
TeX                              1              0              0            184
CMake                            1             26             18            122
YAML                             4             10             13            122
Markdown                         3             40              0            116
DOS Batch                        1              8              1             26
TOML                             1              3              0             23
make                             1              4              7              9
Bourne Shell                     3              6             11              7
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            61           1159           1504          13520
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   148  Robin Sieber
   125  Robin
    79  Philip Pawlowsky
    64  Vaclav Hapla
    47  gmatilde
     6  vhapla
     5  ppawlowsky
     4  philippawlowsky
     2  Matilde Gargiani

editorialbot commented 1 week ago

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1253

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

editorialbot commented 1 week ago

License info:

✅ License found: MIT License (Valid open source OSI approved license)

editorialbot commented 1 week ago

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

lukeolson commented 2 days ago

Review checklist for @lukeolson

Conflict of interest

[x] I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

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

General checks

[x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/madupite/madupite?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[ ] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@gmatilde) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
[ ] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
[ ] Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
[ ] Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
[x] Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

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 functionality 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

Software paper

[ ] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
[ ] A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
[ ] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
[ ] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
[ ] References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

logological commented 7 hours ago

@bhttchr6 This is a gentle reminder to please start your review by creating your reviewer checklist. Instructions are at the top of this issue. Thanks!

victorapm commented 7 hours ago

Review checklist for @victorapm

Conflict of interest

[x] I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

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

General checks

[x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/madupite/madupite?
[x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
[x] Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@gmatilde) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
[x] Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
[ ] Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
[ ] Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
[x] Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

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

[x] 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 functionality of the software can be verified?
[x] 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

Software paper

[x] Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
[x] A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
[x] State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
[x] Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
[x] References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

victorapm commented 7 hours ago

~~Hi @gmatilde, could you clarify how you contributed to this software? Thank you!~~

Hi @gmatilde, I reviewed the git log and can see now your contributions. It seems that GitHub didn't index them under Insights > Contributors because they came from an unregistered account. You might consider using a registered account for commits in the future to ensure full credit. Thanks!

openjournals / joss-reviews