[PRE REVIEW]: QuantumACES.jl: Design noise characterisation experiments for quantum computers

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @evanhockings (Evan T. Hockings)
Repository: https://github.com/evanhockings/QuantumACES.jl
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch):
Version: v0.1.1
Editor: @phibeck
Reviewers: @obliviateandsurrender, @meandmytram, @pkairys
Managing EiC: Kyle Niemeyer

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/685c96388439611a9efa78dd9521648c"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/685c96388439611a9efa78dd9521648c/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/685c96388439611a9efa78dd9521648c/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/685c96388439611a9efa78dd9521648c)

Author instructions

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

@evanhockings 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]

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1103/PhysRevA.70.052328 is OK
- 10.1137/141000671 is OK
- 10.22331/q-2021-07-06-497 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.190501 is OK
- 10.1038/nature03350 is OK
- 10.22331/q-2021-10-05-557 is OK
- 10.4230/LIPIcs.TQC.2022.4 is OK
- 10.1109/SFCS.1996.548464 is OK
- 10.1038/s41467-023-38247-5 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevA.94.052325 is OK
- 10.1090/psapm/068 is OK
- 10.7907/rzr7-dt72 is OK
- 10.1103/RevModPhys.87.307 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3945249 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.594712 is OK
- 10.5281/zenodo.3455848 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: The Error Reconstruction and Compiled Calibration ...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Scalable Noise Characterisation of Syndrome Extrac...

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.08 s (669.6 files/s, 147276.1 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julia                           21            462           1958           7304
Markdown                        19            219              0            786
TeX                              1             17              0            236
YAML                             5              1              7            150
TOML                             5              3              0             74
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            51            702           1965           8550
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

    37	evanhockings
     4	Evan Hockings
     1	Dilum Aluthge
     1	dependabot[bot]

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 556

✅ 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 📄 👈

[editorialbot]

Five most similar historical JOSS papers:

QXTools: A Julia framework for distributed quantum circuit simulation
Submitting author: @nmoran
Handling editor: @jarvist (Retired)
Reviewers: @goerz, @obliviateandsurrender
Similarity score: 0.7289

Qiskit Experiments: A Python package to characterize and calibrate quantum computers
Submitting author: @eggerdj
Handling editor: @danielskatz (Active)
Reviewers: @nunezco2, @goerz, @TejasAvinashShetty
Similarity score: 0.7238

Qiskit Dynamics: A Python package for simulating the time dynamics of quantum systems
Submitting author: @DanPuzzuoli
Handling editor: @danielskatz (Active)
Reviewers: @babreu-ncsa, @goerz, @hodgestar
Similarity score: 0.7183

QDistRnd: A GAP package for computing the distance of quantum error-correcting codes
Submitting author: @LeonidPryadko
Handling editor: @danielskatz (Active)
Reviewers: @oscarhiggott, @pan-pavel
Similarity score: 0.7080

qujax: Simulating quantum circuits with JAX
Submitting author: @SamDuffield
Handling editor: @lucydot (Active)
Reviewers: @jmiszczak, @amitkumarj441, @meandmytram
Similarity score: 0.6932

⚠️ 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.

[kyleniemeyer]

Hi @evanhockings, we will use this issue to assign an editor and find reviewers; any suggestions for the latter would be welcome (but please do not invite/tag them directly yourself).

Unfortunately, our editors in this area already have full assignment loads, so I have to place this in our backlog until someone becomes available.

[kyleniemeyer]

@editorialbot invite @phibeck as editor

Hi @phibeck, does this fall in your wheelhouse to edit?

[editorialbot]

Invitation to edit this submission sent!

[phibeck]

Hi @kyleniemeyer yes, I can edit this one

[phibeck]

@editorialbot assign @phibeck as editor

[editorialbot]

Assigned! @phibeck is now the editor

[phibeck]

Hi @evanhockings, thanks for your submission. I'll be looking for reviewers next. If you have a moment it would be helpful if you could identify a few potential reviewers from this list https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/reviewers (without tagging them with an @), thanks.

[evanhockings]

Hi @phibeck! I checked the list, filtering for Julia and quantum computing-adjacent people, and ended up with the following shortlist:

• Hugo Strand
• Peter-Jan Derks
• Utkarsh
• Zhen Huang
• Jinguo Liu
• Aleksandr Berezutskii

[EDIT] Oh, and I was also wondering—I'm going to be making substantial improvements to the package, including a bunch of feature additions, in the relatively near term. This work is associated with some ongoing research so I don't want to make it public until the paper on that is out. Would I be able to update this paper to describe major additions after it's published (pending appropriate review) or is that not something you support?

[phibeck]

Hi @evanhockings, thanks for the suggestions. Regarding your question, in principle that's within the spirit of JOSS, i.e. recognizing that software is dynamic and that new features will be added to the repo after publication. I am not sure we can update the paper after publication, but that's why we only require a summary of the high-level functionality and a statement of need, assuming these will not become outdated. You can always add documentation to describe the new features in the repo directly.
What you could do is include a statement in the manuscript or the repo about intended developments, for example. If the changes are substantial enough, you may resubmit and get a second review + publication, but it wouldn't be an update to the original paper but a new one. I will ask the editors and get back to you.

Edit: I heard back: "No, the paper is the paper once published, unlike the repo which can keep changing. If you make significant changes to the software, you could submit a new paper, but this would likely be at the next major release, in perhaps a year or more. If you have things you want to get into the paper, you should wait until they are in the repo before submitting the work, just as you would for most other papers. We can mark your paper as paused until then, if that's helpful."

[phibeck]

👋 @nmoran, @obliviateandsurrender & @peter-janderks, 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

[obliviateandsurrender]

Hey @phibeck! Sorry for the late response, I had been on vacation. Let me know if this still requires a review, I could take a look in the coming weeks.

[evanhockings]

Ah okay @phibeck, well the changes should be ready in the next two or three weeks, which is probably how long you'll need to find enough reviewers! I'll try and get them done and released in a timely manner so as not to delay things.

[phibeck]

Hey @phibeck! Sorry for the late response, I had been on vacation. Let me know if this still requires a review, I could take a look in the coming weeks.

Hi @obliviateandsurrender thanks, that would be great!

[phibeck]

@editorialbot add @obliviateandsurrender as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@obliviateandsurrender added to the reviewers list!

[phibeck]

Ah okay @phibeck, well the changes should be ready in the next two or three weeks, which is probably how long you'll need to find enough reviewers! I'll try and get them done and released in a timely manner so as not to delay things.

Okay great, that sounds good. Thanks for the update.

[phibeck]

👋 @meandmytram, @pkairys, 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

[meandmytram]

Hey @phibeck, thanks for contacting me, I'd be down to review the submission!

[phibeck]

Wonderful, thank you @meandmytram!

[phibeck]

@editorialbot add @meandmytram as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@meandmytram added to the reviewers list!

[phibeck]

@evanhockings in principle we'd be ready to start the review with two reviewers. It probably makes sense to hold it off until you release the changes you intend to make if it's within a reasonable time frame, unless the changes are orthogonal enough that the reviewers can get started already. Please let me know what you think.

[evanhockings]

@phibeck Let's hold off—I should be able to release the changes in the next two weeks, and I definitely will before end of month.

[phibeck]

@evanhockings sounds good, thanks.

@obliviateandsurrender and @meandmytram please note that we will start the review process later in January to include the next release of the package. I'll inform you when we get started. Thanks again for agreeing to review!

[pkairys]

@phibeck I'm also happy to review!

[phibeck]

Thank you @pkairys! Please note the delayed start of the review in about two to three weeks, depending on the release date. Thanks again!

[phibeck]

@editorialbot add @pkairys as reviewer

[editorialbot]

@pkairys added to the reviewers list!

[phibeck]

Hi @evanhockings just checking in, please let us know if you have any updates regarding the timeline for releasing the changes.

[evanhockings]

Hi @phibeck I've made the changes (including updating the paper) and released them as v0.2.0, so everything is ready for review!

[phibeck]

Hi @evanhockings perfect, thanks for the update! I'll have editorialbot start the review in another issue

[phibeck]

@editorialbot start review

[editorialbot]

OK, I've started the review over in #7707.