[REVIEW]: mlpack 4: a fast, header-only C++ machine learning library

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @rcurtin (Ryan Curtin)
Repository: https://github.com/mlpack/mlpack
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): mlpack4_joss
Version: 4.0.1
Editor: @osorensen
Reviewers: @sandeep-ps, @zhangjy-ge
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.7587252

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/35ade482a14780ee52bad48fcc5f2be5"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/35ade482a14780ee52bad48fcc5f2be5/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/35ade482a14780ee52bad48fcc5f2be5/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/35ade482a14780ee52bad48fcc5f2be5)

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

@sandeep-ps & @zhangjy-ge, 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 @osorensen 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 @sandeep-ps

📝 Checklist for @zhangjy-ge

[editorialbot]

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]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.88  T=2.49 s (648.4 files/s, 148650.4 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                           files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C/C++ Header                        1194          29525          70231         132436
C++                                  266          17996          24091          65742
Markdown                              48           3033              1          10745
CMake                                 60            734           1257           7159
Python                                 7            350            457           1459
Go                                     5            211            141           1114
YAML                                   8             82            103            531
Julia                                  1             88             55            335
Bourne Shell                           5             58             67            293
Cython                                 7             96            200            284
R                                      4             80             66            228
XML                                    3              0              0            211
TeX                                    1             23              0            189
CSS                                    1             19             11            121
JavaScript                             1              8             20             82
MSBuild script                         1              0              0             52
WiX source                             1              4              2             33
WiX string localization                1              1              0              6
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                                1614          52308          96702         221020
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1283

[editorialbot]

👉📄 Download article proof 📄 View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

[sandeep-ps]

Review checklist for @sandeep-ps

Conflict of interest

• 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

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/mlpack/mlpack?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@rcurtin) 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.
• 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?

[zhangjy-ge]

Review checklist for @zhangjy-ge

Conflict of interest

• 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

• I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

• Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/mlpack/mlpack?
• License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@rcurtin) 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.
• 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?

[zhangjy-ge]

I have finished my initial review. I think overall, mlpack 4 is a well written package that has indicated great potential in the machine learning field, considering its good documentation, user friendliness, and the algorithms it implemented, etc. Thus, I would recommend it for publication after minor revision:

1. even though I understand that in mlpack's website, there are some comparisons between mlpack and other similar packages, it is not mentioned in the manuscript itself. I would suggest the authors to add such descriptions, based on the requirements of "State of the field" and "performance" in the checklist.

[sandeep-ps]

Hi, @osorensen,

Two authors listed in the paper (#5 and #9) are affiliated with the same institution I'm affiliated with. We are from different units and haven't collaborated in the past, and we do not know each other. I request that this conflict be waived. Please let me know if there is a different process for this. Thanks.