[REVIEW]: Analytic continuation component of the GreenX library: robust Padé approximants with symmetry constraints

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @moritzleucke (Moritz Leucke)
Repository: https://github.com/nomad-coe/greenX
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss_analyticcontinuation
Version: v1.0
Editor: @HaoZeke
Reviewers: @DarioALeonValido, @mailhexu
Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/a68a70b0d8cf1b04f76b9cd52b20cf4d"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/a68a70b0d8cf1b04f76b9cd52b20cf4d/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/a68a70b0d8cf1b04f76b9cd52b20cf4d/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/a68a70b0d8cf1b04f76b9cd52b20cf4d)

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

@DarioALeonValido & @mailhexu, 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 @HaoZeke 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 @mailhexu

📝 Checklist for @DarioALeonValido

[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 1.98  T=0.57 s (635.7 files/s, 455727.3 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fortran 90                     147          21758          55736         106671
make                            56           2301           1393          35761
SVG                              6              1            129          17170
m4                              10            457              1           2614
C++                             16            467           1313           2032
C/C++ Header                    19            474            610           1393
TeX                              3             43              0           1327
C                               14            252            677           1292
Markdown                        27            382              0           1183
CMake                           22            237            368           1032
Python                          23            350            344            837
Perl                             1            276            368            806
Text                             3             96              0            436
CSS                              1            115             46            164
Bourne Shell                     3             34             48            155
Fortran 77                       4              3            114            105
Nix                              1             18              2             93
YAML                             4             14             10             85
HTML                             3              7              0             53
SCSS                             1              2              0              6
TOML                             1              0              0              3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           365          27287          61159         173218
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

    77	Panadestein
    75	Maryam
    54	moritzleucke
    41	Jan Wilhelm
    38	Dorothea Golze
    28	martirm
    27	mazizi
    24	Francisco Delesma
    21	gonzex
    19	Alex Buccheri
    12	dgolze
     9	Francisco A Delesma
     8	Minye Zhang
     8	trunk
     7	Moritz Leucke
     7	ekinesme
     5	gonze
     4	MoritzLeucke
     2	manoarphy
     1	Arfon Smith
     1	Ramón L. Panadés-Barrueta
     1	fdelesma
     1	gmatteo

[editorialbot]

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1021/acs.jctc.5b00453 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.94.165109 is OK
- 10.1021/acs.jpclett.7b02740.s001 is OK
- 10.1021/acs.jctc.9b01235.s001 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.100.075142 is OK
- 10.1021/acs.jpclett.0c03362.s001 is OK
- 10.1021/acs.jctc.2c00647.s002 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.2389 is OK
- 10.1088/1367-2630/14/5/053020 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cpc.2009.07.007 is OK
- 10.1021/acs.jctc.6b00380.s001 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.95.235123 is OK
- 10.1021/acs.jctc.0c01282.s001 is OK
- 10.1021/acs.jctc.0c00693 is OK
- 10.3389/fchem.2021.736591 is OK
- 10.1016/j.jcp.2009.08.008 is OK
- 10.1063/5.0007045 is OK
- 10.1103/physrev.139.a796 is OK
- 10.3389/fchem.2019.00377 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.74.1827 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.05570 is OK
- 10.1021/acs.jctc.1c00101.s001 is OK
- 10.1021/acs.jctc.3c01230.s001 is OK
- 10.1021/acs.jctc.3c00512.s002 is OK
- 10.1021/acs.jctc.1c00308.s001 is OK
- 10.1063/1.5051250 is OK
- 10.1021/acs.jctc.3c00555 is OK
- 10.1093/imamat/25.3.267 is OK
- 10.1007/bf00655090 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.61.5147 is OK
- 10.3842/umzh.v74i4.7349 is OK
- 10.1145/3594252.3594254 is OK
- 10.1063/5.0160265 is OK
- 10.1016/0168-9274(83)90005-3 is OK
- 10.1017/cbo9780511759550.015 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevB.109.245101 is OK
- 10.1103/physrevb.93.075104 is OK
- 10.1137/0506072 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-540-74690-4_10 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2310.01654 is OK
- 10.1021/acs.chemrev.0c00223 is OK
- 10.1016/S0021-7824(02)01257-6 is OK
- 10.1021/acs.jctc.6b00511.s001 is OK
- 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 is OK
- 10.32614/CRAN.package.Pade is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: GNU MP 6.3 Multiple precision arithmetic library
- No DOI given, and none found for title: The Calculus Of Finite Differences
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Essentials of Padé approximants
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Numerical recipes 3rd edition: The art of scientif...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Pade_approximants
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Pade-py
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Pade: Fourier transform via Pade approximants
- No DOI given, and none found for title: pade
- No DOI given, and none found for title: RobustPade.jl

❌ MISSING DOIs

- 10.2307/2345397 may be a valid DOI for title: Interpolationsrechnung

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

⚠️ Wordcount for paper.md is 1327

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

✅ License found: Apache License 2.0 (Valid open source OSI approved license)

[editorialbot]

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

[mailhexu]

Review checklist for @mailhexu

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/nomad-coe/greenX?
• 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 (@moritzleucke) 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?

[DarioALeonValido]

Review checklist for @DarioALeonValido

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/nomad-coe/greenX?
• 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 (@moritzleucke) 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?