[REVIEW]: CompressedBeliefMDPs.jl: A Julia Package for Solving Large POMDPs with Belief Compression

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @FlyingWorkshop (Logan Bhamidipaty)
Repository: https://github.com/JuliaPOMDP/CompressedBeliefMDPs.jl
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v1.1.1
Editor: @bmcfee
Reviewers: @AlCap23
Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/967acf3a5b70351313a995c12e03849b"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/967acf3a5b70351313a995c12e03849b/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/967acf3a5b70351313a995c12e03849b/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/967acf3a5b70351313a995c12e03849b)

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

@AlCap23, 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 @bmcfee 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 @AlCap23

[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 1.90  T=0.03 s (1453.1 files/s, 130849.6 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julia                           22            307            332           1294
Markdown                         8            156              0            437
TeX                              1             35              0            390
TOML                             3             72              1            308
YAML                             5              1              8            171
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            39            571            341           2600
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   105	Logan Mondal Bhamidipaty
    32	Logan Bhamidipaty
     9	CompatHelper Julia
     5	dependabot[bot]
     1	Dylan Asmar
     1	Mykel Kochenderfer

[editorialbot]

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1613/jair.1496 is OK
- 10.1016/S0004-3702(98)00023-X is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2304.09352 is OK
- 10.1038/s41598-019-47148-x is OK
- 10.1177/1729881421999587 is OK
- 10.1109/ICCVE45908.2019.8965237 is OK
- 10.1037/h0069792 is OK
- 10.1002/aic.690370209 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1312.6114 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1207.1412 is OK
- 10.1126/science.290.5500.2319 is OK
- 10.1145/361002.361007 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1209.5145 is OK
- 10.15607/RSS.2008.IV.009 is OK
- 10.1613/jair.5328 is OK
- 10.1609/icaps.v28i1.13882 is OK
- 10.1007/11871842_29 is OK
- 10.7551/mitpress/1120.003.0084 is OK
- 10.1287/moor.12.3.441 is OK
- 10.1016/S0004-3702(02)00378-8 is OK
- 10.1037/e471672008-001 is OK
- 10.1037/h0070888 is OK
- 10.1162/089976698300017467 is OK
- 10.1111/1467-9868.00196 is OK
- 10.1016/B978-1-55860-377-6.50040-2 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00602 is OK
- 10.1016/0022-247X(65)90154-X is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: POMDPs.jl: a framework for sequential decision mak...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Point-based value iteration: an anytime algorithm ...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Algorithms for Decision Making
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Monte-Carlo planning in large POMDPs
- No DOI given, and none found for title: AEMS: An anytime online search algorithm for appro...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: E-PCA
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Multidimensional Triangulation and Interpolation f...

❌ MISSING DOIs

- 10.1613/jair.1659 may be a valid DOI for title: Perseus: Randomized point-based value iteration fo...

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1165

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

[editorialbot]

License info:

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

[editorialbot]

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

[FlyingWorkshop]

Hi @bmcfee, @AlCap23, sending another bump! Have you had a chance to find more reviewers or start the review process yet? Let me know if you need anything from me. Happy to help find more reviewers too!

[AlCap23]

Review checklist for @AlCap23

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/JuliaPOMDP/CompressedBeliefMDPs.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 (@FlyingWorkshop) 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?

[AlCap23]

Hey! I'm sorry for being absent so long. I had something to take care of privately and felt under the weather.

This is an excellent paper and software contribution to Julia's POMDP ecosystem.

Regarding the overall scope and target of this contribution, I have little to add, but there are some things:

Minor issues for the publication:

1. The missing DOI of Perseus: Randomized point-based value iteration for POMDPs can be completed using the current joi field in the paper.bib.
2. I like the example overview, which showcases the flexibility and solver-agnostic behavior. However, to make it copy-pasteable, I suggest rewriting one of the examples to use a specific solver. Given that you have many in the Readme, this would be an excellent addition 👍 .

Repository / Source Code:

1. Minor Issue: The Continuous Example in the docs is doubled
2. I don't know if the POMDP ecosystem has explicit contribution guidelines, but linking them explicitly in the documentation would be helpful if this is the case. Once this is double-checked, I'll check the corresponding item in the review list.

I also have a recommendation based on my experience: Use StableRNGs in the tests. While not entirely foolproof, this method saved me a lot of time dealing with consistent testing behavior 😄 .

I still have to check the reference syntax for completeness.

[FlyingWorkshop]

Thank you so much for the review and feedback @AlCap23! I'll work on incorporating it shortly!

[FlyingWorkshop]

Thank you again for the review @AlCap23! I've just pushed updates based on your feedback:

1. Removed the redundant Continuous Example from the docs
2. Linked the contribution guidelines for POMDPs.jl in the documentation.
3. Changed joi to doi in paper.bib
4. We opted not to include a specific solver in the snippet for the following reasons: (a) to avoid introducing unrelated solvers into the paper, (b) to highlight that any solver can be used, and (c) because the signature for constructing an MDP solver can be complex and might overly lengthen the example. However, if you feel strongly about this, I'm happy to discuss this point further.

Let me know if you have any questions about the reference syntax 😄 .

[AlCap23]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[AlCap23]

@editorialbot check references

[editorialbot]

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1613/jair.1496 is OK
- 10.1016/S0004-3702(98)00023-X is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.2304.09352 is OK
- 10.1038/s41598-019-47148-x is OK
- 10.1177/1729881421999587 is OK
- 10.1109/ICCVE45908.2019.8965237 is OK
- 10.1037/h0069792 is OK
- 10.1002/aic.690370209 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1312.6114 is OK
- 10.1613/jair.1659 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1207.1412 is OK
- 10.1126/science.290.5500.2319 is OK
- 10.1145/361002.361007 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1209.5145 is OK
- 10.15607/RSS.2008.IV.009 is OK
- 10.1613/jair.5328 is OK
- 10.1609/icaps.v28i1.13882 is OK
- 10.1007/11871842_29 is OK
- 10.7551/mitpress/1120.003.0084 is OK
- 10.1287/moor.12.3.441 is OK
- 10.1016/S0004-3702(02)00378-8 is OK
- 10.1037/e471672008-001 is OK
- 10.1037/h0070888 is OK
- 10.1162/089976698300017467 is OK
- 10.1111/1467-9868.00196 is OK
- 10.1016/B978-1-55860-377-6.50040-2 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.00602 is OK
- 10.1016/0022-247X(65)90154-X is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: POMDPs.jl: a framework for sequential decision mak...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Point-based value iteration: an anytime algorithm ...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Algorithms for Decision Making
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Monte-Carlo planning in large POMDPs
- No DOI given, and none found for title: AEMS: An anytime online search algorithm for appro...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: E-PCA
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Multidimensional Triangulation and Interpolation f...

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

[AlCap23]

@bmcfee I've finished the review, and I have nothing to add. The tests are running (I double-checked locally using Julia Version 1.10.4 ), and the Documentation is up and running andes, and includes both examples and an API description. The contribution guide references the "parent" ecosystem, and references for more advanced (sub) solvers are given ( Crux.jl as an example for incorporating neural network-based solvers ).

[FlyingWorkshop]

@bmcfee, I noticed on the JOSS website that there has to be two reviewers for a paper to be accepted. Has there been any progress on finding a second reviewer?

As a reminder, I listed some people in the pre-review thread who I think would be good fits to review this project. There is also another list of reviewers I created for a related project that I also submitted to JOSS here. I believe they too are good candidates to review CompressedBeliefMDPS.jl.

[bmcfee]

Thanks @AlCap23 for completing the review!

@FlyingWorkshop I'm still working on getting a confirmation for a second reviewer. Thanks again for the list (and second list) - the first list at least has been on my radar.

[FlyingWorkshop]

Thank you @bmcfee!