[PRE REVIEW]: InvertibleNetworks.jl: A Julia package for scalable normalizing flows

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @rafaelorozco (Rafael Orozco)
Repository: https://github.com/slimgroup/InvertibleNetworks.jl
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): paper-joss
Version: v2.2.6
Editor: @drvinceknight
Reviewers: @aurorarossi, @Nando-Hegemann
Managing EiC: Daniel S. Katz

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b1e8bc48e52694bcc9e4fb87634fc39f"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b1e8bc48e52694bcc9e4fb87634fc39f/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b1e8bc48e52694bcc9e4fb87634fc39f/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/b1e8bc48e52694bcc9e4fb87634fc39f)

Author instructions

Thanks for submitting your paper to JOSS @rafaelorozco. Currently, there isn't a JOSS editor assigned to your paper.

@rafaelorozco if you have any suggestions for potential reviewers then please mention them here in this thread (without tagging them with an @). You can search the list of people that have already agreed to review and may be suitable for this submission.

Editor instructions

The JOSS submission bot @editorialbot is here to help you find and assign reviewers and start the main review. To find out what @editorialbot can do for you type:

@editorialbot commands

[editorialbot]

Hello human, 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=0.11 s (1103.6 files/s, 212698.2 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julia                          102           3043           1677           9630
SVG                              2              0            150           7699
Markdown                         6            168              0            427
TeX                              1             29              0            253
YAML                             7             24              7            143
TOML                             2              5              0             32
Lisp                             1              8              0             25
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           121           3277           1834          18209
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


gitinspector failed to run statistical information for the repository

[editorialbot]

Wordcount for paper.md is 1097

[editorialbot]

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

[editorialbot]

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

OK DOIs

- 10.5281/zenodo.10100624 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.4296287 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.23952/jano.4.2022.2.05 may be a valid DOI for title: Point-TO-SET DISTANCE FUNCTIONS FOR OUTPUT-CONSTRAINED NEURAL NETWORKS.
- 10.1109/tnnls.2020.3042395 may be a valid DOI for title: BayesFlow: Learning complex stochastic models with invertible neural networks
- 10.1007/bf01456927 may be a valid DOI for title: Zur theorie der orthogonalen funktionensysteme
- 10.1609/aaai.v35i9.16997 may be a valid DOI for title: HINT: Hierarchical invertible neural transport for density estimation and Bayesian inference
- 10.21105/joss.05361 may be a valid DOI for title: normflows: A PyTorch Package for Normalizing Flows
- 10.1190/segam2020-3428150.1 may be a valid DOI for title: Parameterizing uncertainty by deep invertible networks: An application to reservoir characterization
- 10.1190/tle42070474.1 may be a valid DOI for title: Learned multiphysics inversion with differentiable programming and machine learning
- 10.1190/geo2022-0472.1 may be a valid DOI for title: Reliable amortized variational inference with physics-based latent distribution correction
- 10.1186/s40323-023-00252-0 may be a valid DOI for title: Solving multiphysics-based inverse problems with learned surrogates and constraints
- 10.1117/12.2651691 may be a valid DOI for title: Adjoint operators enable fast and amortized machine learning based Bayesian uncertainty quantification
- 10.1109/tci.2023.3248949 may be a valid DOI for title: Conditional injective flows for Bayesian imaging

INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

MultilayerGraphs.jl: Multilayer Network Science in Julia
Submitting author: @pitmonticone
Handling editor: @diehlpk (Active)
Reviewers: @TomKellyGenetics, @bgailleton
Similarity score: 0.8156

Flux: Elegant machine learning with Julia
Submitting author: @MikeInnes
Handling editor: @Kevin-Mattheus-Moerman (Active)
Reviewers: @ysimillides
Similarity score: 0.8111

GeophysicalFlows.jl: Solvers for geophysical fluid dynamics problems in periodic domains on CPUs & GPUs
Submitting author: @navidcy
Handling editor: @pdebuyl (Active)
Reviewers: @ranocha, @eviatarbach
Similarity score: 0.8062

flowMC: Normalizing flow enhanced sampling package for probabilistic inference in JAX
Submitting author: @kazewong
Handling editor: @rkurchin (Active)
Reviewers: @matt-graham, @Daniel-Dodd
Similarity score: 0.8009

Oceananigans.jl: Fast and friendly geophysical fluid dynamics on GPUs
Submitting author: @ali-ramadhan
Handling editor: @kthyng (Active)
Reviewers: @funsim, @mancellin
Similarity score: 0.8002

⚠️ Note to editors: If these papers look like they might be a good match, click through to the review issue for that paper and invite one or more of the authors before considering asking the reviewers of these papers to review again for JOSS.

[danielskatz]

👋 @rafaelorozco - Thanks for your submission to JOSS. I'll now look for an editor.

While I do so, you could work on the possibly missing DOIs that editorialbot suggests, but note that some may be incorrect. Please feel free to make changes to your .bib file, then use the command @editorialbot check references to check again, and the command @editorialbot generate pdf when the references are right to make a new PDF. editorialbot commands need to be the first entry in a new comment.

[danielskatz]

👋 @drvinceknight - do you think you could edit this JOSS submission?

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot invited @drvinceknight as editor

[editorialbot]

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

@editorialbot commands

[danielskatz]

@editorialbot invite @drvinceknight as editor

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[rafaelorozco]

Hello @danielskatz thank you for the triage help!

I will work on the DOI warnings. I would like to suggest Nando Hegemann as a reviewer. Their github handle seems to be Nando-Hegemann or Nando-Farchmin

Thank you!

[drvinceknight]

@editorialbot assign me as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @drvinceknight is now the editor

[danielskatz]

@drvinceknight - what's happened here? This seems to have gotten stuck.

[mloubout]

Can I ask what's the status of the review? There haven't been updates in 2 months.

[drvinceknight]

@mloubout I apologise for the lengthy delay. My bad. I'll get things going now.

If you haven't already would you be able to take a look at the list of people to see if you can suggest any referees.

[rafaelorozco]

@drvinceknight

Thank you for the help! I would like to suggest Nando Hegemann as a reviewer. Their github handle seems to be Nando-Hegemann or Nando-Farchmin

[drvinceknight]

👋 @Nando-Hegemann & @SunnyXu, would any of you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

[SunnyXu]

@drvinceknight Thanks for considering me as a reviewer, but I won't be available until April 16. Please consider other reviewers. Have a good one.

[drvinceknight]

Thank you for getting back to me @SunnyXu.

[drvinceknight]

@jakelangham would you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

[jakelangham]

@drvinceknight Looks very interesting, but it's too far outside my domain of expertise for me to give a fair review, sorry.

[drvinceknight]

I understand, thanks for getting back to me @jakelangham :)

[drvinceknight]

@aurorarossi would you be willing to review this submission for JOSS? We carry out our checklist-driven reviews here in GitHub issues and follow these guidelines: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/review_criteria.html

[aurorarossi]

@drvinceknight Yes, I am available to review this submission.

[drvinceknight]

Thank you!

[drvinceknight]

@editorialbot add @aurorarossi as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@aurorarossi added to the reviewers list!

[Nando-Hegemann]

@drvinceknight sorry for the late reply. I have no experience with Julia but other than that I'd be available to review the submission.

[drvinceknight]

Thank you @Nando-Hegemann, as @aurorarossi has experience with Julia I think your expertise in the field would add value to the review. If at some point it looks like another reviewer with Julia experience is necessary I will find one.

[drvinceknight]

@editorialbot add @Nando-Hegemann as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@Nando-Hegemann added to the reviewers list!

[drvinceknight]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #6554.