[REVIEW]: elk: A Python package to elicit latent knowledge from LLMs

[editorialbot]

Submitting author: @lauritowal (Walter Laurito)
Repository: https://github.com/EleutherAI/ccs
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): joss-paper
Version: 0.1.1
Editor: @mooniean
Reviewers: @praneethd7, @isdanni
Archive: Pending

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/185369445fa61332ccc687783e11d290"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/185369445fa61332ccc687783e11d290/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/185369445fa61332ccc687783e11d290/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/185369445fa61332ccc687783e11d290)

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

@praneethd7 & @isdanni, 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 @mooniean 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 @isdanni

📝 Checklist for @praneethd7

[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=0.18 s (2078.9 files/s, 309578.2 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAML                           304           6840            102          41693
Python                          54           1034           1020           3334
JSON                             4              0              0            408
Markdown                         3             47              0            174
TOML                             1              9             19             55
Dockerfile                       1             10             10             31
TeX                              1              1              0             13
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           368           7941           1151          45708
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

   177	Walter Laurito
   168	Nora Belrose
    45	KayKozaronek
    42	Fabien Roger
    38	Alex Mallen
    37	pre-commit-ci[bot]
    34	Christy Koh
    25	James Chua
    23	neverix
    19	jon
    14	Alexander Wan
    11	Kyle1668
     9	Reagan Lee
     6	Benjamin
     4	ChristyKoh
     4	derpyplops
     2	AugustasMacijauskas
     1	Benw8888
     1	Eric Mungai Kinuthia
     1	MariusPL
     1	Waree Sethapun
     1	kaarelh
     1	walt

[editorialbot]

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 529

✅ 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]

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

OK DOIs

- None

MISSING DOIs

- No DOI given, and none found for title: Discovering latent knowledge in language models wi...
- No DOI given, and none found for title: Eliciting Latent Knowledge (ELK)

INVALID DOIs

- None

[mooniean]

Hi @lauritowal @isdanni @praneethd7 - this is the review thread for the submission. All of our communications will happen here from now on. The title was updated on the pre-review but I'm not sure why it wasn't updated here - I'll try to sort it!

Meanwhile, please check the post at the top of the issue for instructions on how to generate your own review checklist. As you go over the submission, please check any items that you feel have been satisfied. There are also links to the JOSS reviewer guidelines.

The JOSS review is different from most other journals. Our goal is to work with the authors to help them meet our criteria instead of merely passing judgment on the submission. As such, the reviewers are encouraged to submit issues directly in the software repository. If you do so, please mention this thread so that a link is created (and I can keep an eye on what is happening). Please also feel free to comment and ask questions in this thread. It is often easier to post comments/questions/suggestions as you come across them instead of waiting until you've reviewed the entire package.

Please feel free to ping me (@mooniean) if you have any questions or concerns. Thanks!

[mooniean]

@arfon Hello! The title of the paper was updated on the Pre-Review but didn't move properly for the review - is there a way to fix that? Thanks in advance!

[isdanni]

Review checklist for @isdanni

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/EleutherAI/ccs?
• 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 (@lauritowal) 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?

[arfon]

👋 @mooniean – just removing the waitlist label as... this isn't waitlisted any longer 😸

[praneethd7]

Review checklist for @praneethd7

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/EleutherAI/ccs?
• 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 (@lauritowal) 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?

[praneethd7]

Hello Walter @lauritowal! I just started the review process. I wanted to get some clarity on the following checkbox item:

Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@lauritowal) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

I am curious that there are more contributors on the GitHub repository than the number of authors listed in the submission. Could you confirm if you checked with all the contributors regarding the authorship? Perhaps, some of their contributions are minor but I wanted to make sure.

[mooniean]

Hi @praneethd7 @isdanni and @lauritowal! Checking in and poking on the review and how things are coming along!

[praneethd7]

@mooniean I have asked the corresponding author to provide more clarity on the authorship. Please advise if I should wait for their response to continue my review process since authorship is crucial.

[isdanni]

Hi @praneethd7 @isdanni and @lauritowal! Checking in and poking on the review and how things are coming along!

Thanks for checking in! I finished the initial round of review in the linked issue, waiting for author response.

[mooniean]

👋 @lauritowal - just checking into see if you are able to provide feedback in to the reviewers in the very near future?

[lauritowal]

@praneethd7 I can just include the others too

[crvernon]

👋 @mooniean - it looks like @praneethd7 had a question for you here...

@mooniean I have asked the corresponding author to provide more clarity on the authorship. Please advise if I should wait for their response to continue my review process since authorship is crucial.

[crvernon]

@mooniean - just pinging you again on this one. Thanks!

👋 @mooniean - it looks like @praneethd7 had a question for you here...

@mooniean I have asked the corresponding author to provide more clarity on the authorship. Please advise if I should wait for their response to continue my review process since authorship is crucial.

[mooniean]

Apologies! I thought I had responded - I believe the author has replied to the reviewer

@praneethd7 I can just include the others too

So now is up to the reviewer if that's the best way?

[isdanni]

cc author @lauritowal, just checking in - my initial round of review is in the linked issue waiting for response, let me know if you have any questions!

[lauritowal]

@praneethd7 I could not reach all other contributors, but the ones listed in the paper should are the main contributors anyway.

[lauritowal]

@isdanni can you provide the exact link? I'm not sure where I can find it?

EDIT: nevermind, found it

[mooniean]

Hi everyone @isdanni @praneethd7 @lauritowal ! How's the review going?

Do you need anything from me?

[lauritowal]

I did get some feedback from one reviewer and still need to incorporate some changes.

[isdanni]

yes, I have provided feedback in the linked thread and will update the checkbox once the changes are done

[crvernon]

👋 @lauritowal, @praneethd7, and @isdanni

cc. @mooniean

Could you please provide an update in this thread to your progress and an estimate of when you think you may be able to finish your reviews?

Thanks!

[lauritowal]

@crvernon I'll hope to have all the changes max by the end of August.

[crvernon]

Thank you @lauritowal

[isdanni]

Thanks @lauritowal for the update! I finished the initial round of the review at EleutherAI/ccs#8 and checked off the list items

[praneethd7]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

⚠️ An error happened when generating the pdf.

[praneethd7]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

⚠️ An error happened when generating the pdf.

[lauritowal]

Let's try now: @editorialbot generate pdf

[crvernon]

@editorialbot generate pdf

[editorialbot]

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

[mooniean]

@praneethd7 hello! I can see you have some items on the checklist to be checked! how is the review coming along?

[lauritowal]

Hi @mooniean
@praneethd7 added some todos in form of issues for me to our repository. I will address them over this and the next week. :)

[praneethd7]

Hello @mooniean. I am mostly done with the review. I have a few items that I will check off the list once @lauritowal and their team make changes. Thank you!