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]: Adaptive Hierarchical Regular Binning of Data Point Features #178

Open
editorialbot opened this issue Jan 21, 2025 · 8 comments
Open
Assignees

Comments

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator

editorialbot commented Jan 21, 2025

Submitting author: @pitsianis (Nikos Pitsianis)
Repository: https://github.com/pitsianis/AdaptiveHierarchicalRegularBinning.jl
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): paper
Version: -
Editor: @matbesancon
Reviewers: @zhang-bo-lilly
Archive: Pending

Status

status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/070d9bfd234d3ae7f2a4aaa21d25eba0"><img src="https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/070d9bfd234d3ae7f2a4aaa21d25eba0/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/070d9bfd234d3ae7f2a4aaa21d25eba0/status.svg)](https://proceedings.juliacon.org/papers/070d9bfd234d3ae7f2a4aaa21d25eba0)

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

@zhang-bo-lilly, 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 @matbesancon 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 @zhang-bo-lilly

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

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 source files, type:

@editorialbot generate pdf

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.98  T=0.02 s (498.0 files/s, 276287.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TeX                              6            412            413           3529
Ruby                             1              8              4             45
YAML                             1              0              0             27
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                             8            420            417           3601
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

     3	Dimitris Floros

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Paper file info:

🚨 Wordcount for paper.tex is 5277

🔴 Failed to discover a Statement of need section in paper

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

License info:

🔴 Failed to discover a valid open source license

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1038/324446a0 is OK
- 10.1145/1734663.1734671 is OK
- 10.1145/361002.361007 is OK
- 10.1145/200836.200853 is OK
- 10.1109/IPDPS.2012.45 is OK
- 10.14778/2824032.2824050 is OK
- 10.1109/34.946985 is OK
- 10.1109/ROBOT.1984.1087218 is OK
- 10.1109/HPEC55821.2022.9926359 is OK
- 10.1145/355744.355745 is OK
- 10.1007/s10514-012-9321-0 is OK
- 10.1109/JRA.1987.1087068 is OK
- 10.1109/TCSVT.2014.2308642 is OK
- 10.1145/3577193.3593738 is OK
- 10.1145/3323165.3323198 is OK
- 10.1126/science.290.5500.2323 is OK
- 10.1109/HUMANOIDS47582.2021.9555790 is OK
- 10.1109/34.868688 is OK
- 10.1109/HPEC.2012.6408667 is OK
- 10.1145/277830.277903 is OK
- 10.1137/S0036144500370835 is OK
- 10.1109/ICCV.2017.230 is OK
- 10.1126/science.290.5500.2319 is OK
- 10.1126/science.abl4896 is OK
- 10.1260/1748-3018.7.3.301 is OK
- 10.1145/125826.126164 is OK
- 10.1038/ncomms14049 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Introduction to Algorithms
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Multi-Level Data Translocation for Faster Processi...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: A Fast Algorithm for Particle Simulations
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Stochastic Neighbor Embedding
- No DOI given, and none found for title: All-Near-Neighbor Search Among High-Dimensional Da...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: The Art of Computer Programming
- No DOI given, and none found for title: UMAP: Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projectio...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: A Computer Oriented Geodetic Data Base and a New T...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Sgtsnepi: Swift Neighbor Embedding of Sparse Stoch...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Fast Construction of Near-Neighbor Graphs with the...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: SpatialIndexing.Jl
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Visualizing Data Using T-SNE
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Accelerating T-SNE Using Tree-Based Algorithms

❌ MISSING DOIs

- 10.1145/93605.98741 may be a valid DOI for title: The R*-Tree: An Efficient and Robust Access Method...
- 10.1137/0909044 may be a valid DOI for title: A Fast Adaptive Multipole Algorithm for Particle S...
- 10.1007/978-3-319-10705-9_60 may be a valid DOI for title: FMMTL: FMM Template Library A Generalized Framewor...
- 10.1007/978-3-319-25087-8_7 may be a valid DOI for title: Faster Dual-Tree Traversal for Nearest Neighbor Se...
- 10.1007/978-3-642-82150-9_14 may be a valid DOI for title: Octrees: A Data Structure for Solid-Object Modelin...
- 10.1007/springerreference_62807 may be a valid DOI for title: R-Trees: A Dynamic Index Structure for Spatial Sea...

❌ INVALID DOIs

- 10.1145/313559.313772 is INVALID

@editorialbot
Copy link
Collaborator Author

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

@zhang-bo-lilly
Copy link

zhang-bo-lilly commented Jan 21, 2025

Review checklist for @zhang-bo-lilly

Conflict of interest

  • I confirm that I have read the JuliaCon conflict of interest policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JCon for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

General checks

  • Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/pitsianis/AdaptiveHierarchicalRegularBinning.jl?
  • 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 (@pitsianis) 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 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

Paper format

  • Authors: Does the paper.pdf file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
  • A statement of need: Does the paper clearly explain the problem it addresses, its importance to the broader community, the intended audience, and how it connects to existing work in the field?
  • References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

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?

@zhang-bo-lilly
Copy link

Suggestions based on the above checklist.

  • Functionality documentation: suggest adding an example similar to snippet 3.2 to explain how to provide ctxtype and gtctype.
  • Community guidelines: suggest adding a CONTRIBUTING document to the repo.
  • References: suggest fixing the DOI that is invalid.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants