[REVIEW]: PyKronecker: A Python Library for the Efficient Manipulation of Kronecker Products and Related Structures

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @nickelnine37 (Edward Antonian)
Repository: https://github.com/nickelnine37/pykronecker
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: 0.1.2
Editor: @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman
Reviewers: @JulianKarlBauer, @nicoguaro
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.7566803

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/0946dc0f465819544e228a6acb96bf24"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/0946dc0f465819544e228a6acb96bf24/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/0946dc0f465819544e228a6acb96bf24/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/0946dc0f465819544e228a6acb96bf24)

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

@JulianKarlBauer & @nicoguaro, 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 @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman 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 @JulianKarlBauer

📝 Checklist for @nicoguaro

[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=0.05 s (847.2 files/s, 109897.1 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SVG                              1              0             17           1360
Python                          14            624            399           1113
Markdown                        18            438              0            903
TeX                              1             22              0            180
YAML                             4             13              5             82
INI                              1              2              0             21
TOML                             1              2              0              8
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            40           1101            421           3667
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1471

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1109/TNNLS.2017.2727545 is OK
- 10.1016/S0377-0427(00)00393-9 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1016/j.softx.2019.100361 is OK
- 10.21105/jcon.00015 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1502.05767 is OK
- 10.1137/141000671 is OK
- 10.2307/3609497 is OK
- 10.1090/s0025-5718-1973-0395196-6 is OK
- 10.1145/355826.355831 is OK
- 10.1109/TC.1981.6312174 is OK
- 10.1145/225545.225548 is OK
- 10.1145/3291041 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

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

[JulianKarlBauer]

Review checklist for @JulianKarlBauer

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/nickelnine37/pykronecker?
• 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 (@nickelnine37) 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?

[JulianKarlBauer]

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman during the first steps of the review process, I created a merge-request with some small changes instead of raising an issue describing what to change. As this merge-request now has been merged, I am listed as contributor to pykronecker. Formally, does this induce a COI? This question might be a bit pedantic, as such a situation is probably common during the review process. But I am a bit in doubt and therefore ask, following https://github.com/openjournals/joss/blob/main/COI.md .

[JulianKarlBauer]

Review Result JKB

General checks

General checks are passed.

Functionality

Kronecker product of two random matrices of homogeneous dimension have been calculated by pykronecker.KroneckerProduct([np.random.rand(n, n), np.random.rand(n, n)]) with values of n up to 150 in this script.
Equality check with np.kron and pylops.Kronecker pass.

Performance claims of the paper can not be reproduced due to limited hardware performance.
However, perfplot has been used in this script to compare pykronecker with alternative Python libraries mentioned in the paper. pykronecker performs well within these checks.

Documentation

The structure and scope of the documentation are good and appropriate for the size of the package. Installation are given.
Examples are given and cover essential use cases. Tests are automated and pass on multiple Python versions. However, a note on how to run the tests, e.g., placed in directory tests/README.md could be an improvement. This file might point towards this Github-actions file. Currently, contributing instructions are missing.

Software paper

The manuscript is well structured. The formulations are precise and catchy. For readers without direct prior knowledge, a basic understanding is created and the subject matter is well motivated. For example, a reader with knowledge on tensor algebra but without direct prior experience with the Kronkecker product or the Kronecker sum of matrices is picked up on the content. PyKronecker is comprehensibly motivated as an efficient implementation of basic operations with a user-friendly interface. Formal and linguistic requirements are met and the list of references is diverse and appears to be complete.

Improvements / Recommendations

• See merge-requests and issues mentioned above.
• Please extend community guidelines on contributing and bug reporting.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman during the first steps of the review process, I created a merge-request with some small changes instead of raising an issue describing what to change. As this merge-request now has been merged, I am listed as contributor to pykronecker. Formally, does this induce a COI? This question might be a bit pedantic, as such a situation is probably common during the review process. But I am a bit in doubt and therefore ask, following https://github.com/openjournals/joss/blob/main/COI.md .

@JulianKarlBauer this would not be seen as a COI. If however the contribution is large enough to warrant co-authorship then it would be.

[JulianKarlBauer]

...

@JulianKarlBauer this would not be seen as a COI. If however the contribution is large enough to warrant co-authorship then it would be.

Thank you for your assessment. The contributions are minimal, so no COI.

[nickelnine37]

Thanks @JulianKarlBauer for your time reviewing this. I have now added contributing guidelines here nickelnine37/pykronecker#7

[nickelnine37]

I have also now added testing instructions in a tests/README file. nickelnine37/pykronecker#8

[JulianKarlBauer]

Thanks @JulianKarlBauer for your time reviewing this. I have now added contributing guidelines here nickelnine37/pykronecker#7

@nickelnine37 Thanks again for adding the contributing guidelines.
@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman All boxes of my review-checklist are ticked.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@JulianKarlBauer great, thanks for your help!

[nicoguaro]

Review checklist for @nicoguaro

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/nickelnine37/pykronecker?
• 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 (@nickelnine37) 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?

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@JulianKarlBauer, @nicoguaro could you provide an update on review progress? Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks again for your help!

[JulianKarlBauer]

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman Review from my side is finished, I recommend acceptance.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

Thanks @JulianKarlBauer!

[nickelnine37]

I have also completed all the items on your checklist, although I am not sure how to mark them as completed (I thought I did last night, but they are unchecked now I look this morning)

[nickelnine37]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

I'm sorry human, I don't understand that. You can see what commands I support by typing:

@editorialbot commands

[nickelnine37]

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman @danielskatz Please let me know if there are any further steps I should take at this time.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@nickelnine37 no steps on your end. I'll pick this up shortly. Apologies for the delay.

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.7566803 as archive

[editorialbot]

Done! Archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.7566803

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@editorialbot set 0.1.2 as version

[editorialbot]

Done! version is now 0.1.2

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@editorialbot recommend-accept

[editorialbot]

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.1109/TNNLS.2017.2727545 is OK
- 10.1016/S0377-0427(00)00393-9 is OK
- 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 is OK
- 10.1016/j.softx.2019.100361 is OK
- 10.21105/jcon.00015 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1502.05767 is OK
- 10.1137/141000671 is OK
- 10.2307/3609497 is OK
- 10.1090/s0025-5718-1973-0395196-6 is OK
- 10.1145/355826.355831 is OK
- 10.1109/TC.1981.6312174 is OK
- 10.1145/225545.225548 is OK
- 10.1145/3291041 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

👋 @openjournals/csism-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof 👉📄 Download article

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in openjournals/joss-papers#3921, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

[Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman]

@editorialbot accept

[editorialbot]

Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...

[editorialbot]

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

[editorialbot]

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘

[editorialbot]

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

0. Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 Creating pull request for 10.21105.joss.04900 joss-papers#3922
1. Wait a couple of minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04900
2. If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
3. Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

[arfon]

@JulianKarlBauer, @nicoguaro – many thanks for your reviews here and to @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman for editing this submission! JOSS relies upon the volunteer effort of people like you and we simply wouldn't be able to do this without you ✨

@nickelnine37 – your paper is now accepted and published in JOSS ⚡🚀💥

[editorialbot]

🎉🎉🎉 Congratulations on your paper acceptance! 🎉🎉🎉

If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets:

Markdown:
[![DOI](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04900/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04900)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04900">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04900/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.04900/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04900

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

The Journal of Open Source Software is a community-run journal and relies upon volunteer effort. If you'd like to support us please consider doing either one (or both) of the the following:

• Volunteering to review for us sometime in the future. You can add your name to the reviewer list here: https://joss.theoj.org/reviewer-signup.html
• Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss

[nickelnine37]

@Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman @danielskatz @nicoguaro @JulianKarlBauer

Thank you so much for giving up your time to review and process this paper. This has been a great experience.