Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[REVIEW]: GlobalSearchRegression.jl: Building bridges between Machine Learning and Econometrics in Fat-Data scenarios #53

Open
whedon opened this issue Sep 23, 2019 · 14 comments
Assignees
Labels

Comments

@whedon
Copy link
Collaborator

@whedon whedon commented Sep 23, 2019

Submitting author: @dpanigo (Demian Tupac PANIGO)
Repository: https://github.com/ParallelGSReg/JuliaCon2019
Editor: @vchuravy
Reviewer: @Nosferican, @andreasnoack
Archive: Pending

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://submissions.juliacon.org/papers/c0275ab1c7935bae88e42948366bb943"><img src="https://submissions.juliacon.org/papers/c0275ab1c7935bae88e42948366bb943/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://submissions.juliacon.org/papers/c0275ab1c7935bae88e42948366bb943/status.svg)](https://submissions.juliacon.org/papers/c0275ab1c7935bae88e42948366bb943)

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

@Nosferican & @andreasnoack , please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

  1. Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
  2. Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/JuliaCon/proceedings-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://proceedings.juliacon.org/guide/reviewers. Any questions/concerns please let @vchuravy know.

Please try and complete your review in the next two weeks

Review checklist for @Nosferican

Conflict of interest

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 (@dpanigo) 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 @andreasnoack

Conflict of interest

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 (@dpanigo) 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

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Sep 23, 2019

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

⭐️ Important ⭐️

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:

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

watching

  1. 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

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Sep 23, 2019

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Sep 23, 2019

@Nosferican

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

@Nosferican Nosferican commented Sep 30, 2019

@whedon commands

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Sep 30, 2019

Here are some things you can ask me to do:

# List Whedon's capabilities
@whedon commands

# List of editor GitHub usernames
@whedon list editors

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

EDITORIAL TASKS

# Compile the paper
@whedon generate pdf

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

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

@Nosferican

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

@Nosferican Nosferican commented Sep 30, 2019

@whedon check references

@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Sep 30, 2019

Attempting to check references...
@whedon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@whedon whedon commented Sep 30, 2019


OK DOIs

- 10.5281/zenodo.2669713 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None
@Nosferican

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

@Nosferican Nosferican commented Sep 30, 2019

On the paper,

  • Authorship
    • I believe the name in the authors for the paper would be Demian Panigo rather than Panigo Demian as every other author has given name and then surname.
    • I see that the commit data shows direct contributions to the software for every author except Pablo Gluzmann and Esteban Mocskos. Did these authors contributed made major contributions to the software (even if not direct commits to the related codebase)?
  • For the methodology the reproducible appendices are broken/missing.

On the software

  • Repository is a paper standalone, but directs to relevant repositories. This should be good, if so I can check the box.
  • Repository has an MIT "Expat" license. Consider using OSI-standard text for machine detectable license.
  • Repositories still carry legacy REQUIRE files, but support is for Julia v1. REQUIRE should be purge in order to use only the Project.toml
  • CI script for Travis and code coverage can be updated. The code coverage is not displayed in the README.
  • Community guidelines are not present.
  • Documentation seems incomplete (e.g., placeholders).
  • Not entirely sure how categorical variables or rank deficient is being handled.
  • I had a few issues using the software and ran into what I believe to be bugs. Should I open issues with minimal reproducible examples at the main repository?
@Nosferican Nosferican referenced this issue Sep 30, 2019
7 of 7 tasks complete
@Nosferican

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

@Nosferican Nosferican commented Oct 24, 2019

I believe all my comments have been addressed.

  • I will check the performance/benchmark aspect to check that box (on me).
  • For the community guidelines, as GitHub public repository, there is some implied support/contributing guideline / seek support, but would be nice to have something on it... For example, issue templates / CONTRIBUTING.md, etc. (response solicited)
@dpanigo

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@dpanigo dpanigo commented Oct 26, 2019

@vchuravy

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@vchuravy vchuravy commented Nov 11, 2019

@andreasnoack gentle reminder, would be good if you could have a look as well.

@andreasnoack

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@andreasnoack andreasnoack commented Nov 11, 2019

Sorry. This fell off my radar. I'll get it done.

@dpanigo

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@dpanigo dpanigo commented Nov 12, 2019

@andreasnoack , @Nosferican:
We are pleased to inform you that a fully functional GUI interface for GlobalSearchRegression.jl is already available at https://github.com/ParallelGSReg/GlobalSearchRegressionGUI.jl. Documentation is under development but usage is quite simple:

  • Installation: pkg> add GlobalSearchRegressionGUI;

  • Loading: julia> using GlobalSearchRegresionGUI;

  • Launching: julia> gui()

P.S.: Note that the addprocs(#) command (after "using Distributed") must be defined before loading GlobalSearchRegressionGUI. Otherwise, parallel capabilities will not be available.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
5 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.