[REVIEW]: GroupFunctions.jl: computing individual entries of the irreducible representations of the unitary group U(d)

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @knszm (Konrad Szymański)
Repository: https://github.com/davidamaro/GroupFunctions.jl
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss-submission
Version: 0.3.4
Editor: @olexandr-konovalov
Reviewers: @SoongNoonien, @kaashif
Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/913a5d6866235c7ec7b01127e49def00"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/913a5d6866235c7ec7b01127e49def00/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/913a5d6866235c7ec7b01127e49def00/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/913a5d6866235c7ec7b01127e49def00)

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

@SoongNoonien & @kaashif, 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 @olexandr-konovalov know.

✨ Please start on your review when you are able; the expectation is that it will take 2-4 weeks to complete. ✨

Checklists

📝 Checklist for @kaashif

[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]

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

✅ OK DOIs

- 10.1007/bf00046717 is OK
- 10.1016/j.physleta.2020.126459 is OK
- 10.1103/xmlq-vssg is OK
- 10.1145/1993636.1993682 is OK
- 10.1063/1.3521562 is OK
- 10.1007/978-3-030-55777-5_60 is OK
- 10.22331/q-2024-06-18-1378 is OK
- 10.22331/q-2023-02-21-931 is OK
- 10.1016/j.cpc.2022.108511 is OK
- 10.21105/joss.01705 is OK
- 10.1103/PhysRevA.110.022440 is OK
- 10.1088/0305-4470/29/18/032 is OK
- 10.1103/physreva.89.063819 is OK

🟡 SKIP DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Finite-dimensional representations of the group of...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: SUNRepresentations.jl
- No DOI given, and none found for title: IntegrateUnitary.jl: A Julia package for symbolic ...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Haarpy, a Python library for Weingarten calculus a...

❌ MISSING DOIs

- None

❌ INVALID DOIs

- None

[editorialbot]

Repository Analysis Report

Code breakdown

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.98  T=0.07 s (890.5 files/s, 172257.1 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SVG                              7              4              4           4849
Julia                           26            800           1247           3125
Markdown                        19            529              0           1204
YAML                             7             11              3            187
TeX                              1             16              0            170
TOML                             3              5              0             32
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                            63           1365           1254           9567
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit Count by Author

159	David Amaro Alcala
    41	David Amaro Alcalá
    28	Konrad Sz.

Repository History

Repository age: First commit on September 13, 2020

Code distribution (top 3 48-hour windows):

Period	Insertions	% of Total	Signal	View Changes
Jun 30, 2026 - Jul 02, 2026	7334	28.9%	🟡	View diff
Sep 13, 2020 - Sep 15, 2020	2315	9.1%	🟢	View diff
Dec 20, 2024 - Dec 22, 2024	1795	7.1%	🟢	View diff

GitHub Activity Metrics

Metric	Count
GitHub stars	2
Forks	1
GitHub contributors	2
Releases	3
Total issues	13
Total pull requests	6
Unique commenters/reviewers (excluding authors)	2

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 1024

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

✅ The paper includes a State of the field section

✅ The paper includes a Software design section

✅ The paper includes a Research impact statement section

✅ The paper includes an AI usage disclosure section

[editorialbot]

License info:

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

[editorialbot]

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

[kaashif]

Review checklist for @kaashif

AI usage

• I confirm that I have read the JOSS AI policy and understand that:
  • AI may only be used for non-substantive assistance (e.g., grammar checking my review text, contextualizing public materials)
  • All evaluative decisions—including scoring, accept/reject recommendations, and assessments of originality, correctness, significance, and ethics compliance—must be made exclusively by me, not AI
  • I bear full responsibility for all judgments, recommendations, and technical claims in my review
  • I will disclose any AI assistance at the conclusion of my review

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/davidamaro/GroupFunctions.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 (@knszm) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
• Scope and significance: Does this submission demonstrate clear research impact or credible scholarly significance as 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.

Development history and open-source practice

• Development timeline: Does the project show evidence of sustained development over time (preferably months or years) rather than rapid, recent code generation?
• Open development: Was the software developed openly from early stages? For projects with recent public repositories, is there at least six months of public development history with evidence of releases, public issues/pull requests, and ideally external engagement?
• Collaborative effort: Does the project show evidence of community engagement — such as contributions from multiple developers, issues/discussions from external users, or community influence on development — in the repo or as described in the paper?
• Good practices: Does the project look like a reusable, non-throwaway research software project that follows good open-source practices (license, documentation, tests and/or verification processes, releases, and clear contribution/support pathways).

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 (required section): 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 (required section): 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 (required section): Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages? If related tools exist, do they provide a clear "build vs. contribute" justification explaining their unique scholarly contribution and why alternatives are insufficient?
• Software Design (required section): Does the paper include a "Software Design" section that explains the trade-offs weighed, the design/architecture chosen, and why it matters? Is the content compelling and does it demonstrate meaningful design thinking?
• Research Impact Statement (required section): Does the paper include a "Research Impact Statement" section providing evidence of realized impact (publications, external use, integrations) or credible near-term significance (benchmarks, reproducible materials, community-readiness signals)? Is the evidence presented compelling?
• AI usage disclosure (required section): Does the paper include an "AI usage disclosure" section that transparently discloses any use of generative AI in the software creation, documentation, or paper authoring?
• 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?