Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

722 show estimated parameter uncertainties or not #729

Conversation

OnnoEbbens
Copy link
Member

@OnnoEbbens OnnoEbbens commented Apr 9, 2024

Short Description

Remove the estimated parameter uncertainties from the fit report and the model results plot by default. Add an optional argument to include the parameter uncertainties in both.

The estimated parameter uncertainties are only accurate estimates if some conditions are met. This is described in this notebook: https://pastas.readthedocs.io/en/master/examples/diagnostic_checking.html. To avoid people using the uncertainties while they are not accurate we remove them by default from some visuals.

Checklist before PR can be merged:

@OnnoEbbens OnnoEbbens linked an issue Apr 9, 2024 that may be closed by this pull request
@OnnoEbbens OnnoEbbens changed the base branch from master to dev April 9, 2024 15:12
@OnnoEbbens OnnoEbbens marked this pull request as draft April 9, 2024 15:13
Copy link

Coverage summary from Codacy

See diff coverage on Codacy

Coverage variation Diff coverage
-0.27% (target: +0.00%) 55.00%
Coverage variation details
Coverable lines Covered lines Coverage
Common ancestor commit (3189a40) 5999 4484 74.75%
Head commit (ba47e82) 6009 (+10) 4475 (-9) 74.47% (-0.27%)

Coverage variation is the difference between the coverage for the head and common ancestor commits of the pull request branch: <coverage of head commit> - <coverage of common ancestor commit>

Diff coverage details
Coverable lines Covered lines Diff coverage
Pull request (#729) 20 11 55.00%

Diff coverage is the percentage of lines that are covered by tests out of the coverable lines that the pull request added or modified: <covered lines added or modified>/<coverable lines added or modified> * 100%

See your quality gate settings    Change summary preferences

You may notice some variations in coverage metrics with the latest Coverage engine update. For more details, visit the documentation

Copy link

codacy-production bot commented Apr 9, 2024

Coverage summary from Codacy

See diff coverage on Codacy

Coverage variation Diff coverage
+0.00% (target: +0.00%) 73.91%
Coverage variation details
Coverable lines Covered lines Coverage
Common ancestor commit (bf64e28) 6163 4647 75.40%
Head commit (8ceb605) 6191 (+28) 4668 (+21) 75.40% (+0.00%)

Coverage variation is the difference between the coverage for the head and common ancestor commits of the pull request branch: <coverage of head commit> - <coverage of common ancestor commit>

Diff coverage details
Coverable lines Covered lines Diff coverage
Pull request (#729) 23 17 73.91%

Diff coverage is the percentage of lines that are covered by tests out of the coverable lines that the pull request added or modified: <covered lines added or modified>/<coverable lines added or modified> * 100%

See your quality gate settings    Change summary preferences

You may notice some variations in coverage metrics with the latest Coverage engine update. For more details, visit the documentation

@mbakker7
Copy link
Collaborator

mbakker7 commented Apr 9, 2024

Looks good. Should be rebased after PR723 is merged.

@rubencalje
Copy link
Collaborator

Maybe it is better to rename "par_uncertainty" to "stderr" or "par_stderr"?

@dbrakenhoff
Copy link
Member

or just write it out entirely :)? parameter_stderr

@OnnoEbbens
Copy link
Member Author

I renamed it to stderr

@OnnoEbbens OnnoEbbens marked this pull request as ready for review April 10, 2024 10:08
@mbakker7
Copy link
Collaborator

If I am not mistaken, none of the examples in the docs now show the stderr. But there are a few notebooks where we check the diagnostics. Those would be good notebooks to modify and show that the stderr can added (and the good workflow is then to do a diagnostics check first).

@OnnoEbbens
Copy link
Member Author

OnnoEbbens commented Apr 10, 2024

You are correct, I've added the standard errors to the diagnostics and uncertainty notebooks. The standard error is also mentioned in the 'adding_trends' notebook (https://pastas.readthedocs.io/en/master/examples/adding_trends.html) for drawing a confidence interval. I don't think we have to add the standard error to the other plot in this notebook and we can leave it as is. The only thing that bothered me in the trends notebook is that I don't see the confidence interval in the plot but that is another issue

Copy link

Coverage summary from Codacy

See diff coverage on Codacy

Coverage variation Diff coverage
+0.09% (target: +0.00%) 75.00%
Coverage variation details
Coverable lines Covered lines Coverage
Common ancestor commit (bf64e28) 6163 4647 75.40%
Head commit (c1e84d1) 6189 (+26) 4672 (+25) 75.49% (+0.09%)

Coverage variation is the difference between the coverage for the head and common ancestor commits of the pull request branch: <coverage of head commit> - <coverage of common ancestor commit>

Diff coverage details
Coverable lines Covered lines Diff coverage
Pull request (#729) 24 18 75.00%

Diff coverage is the percentage of lines that are covered by tests out of the coverable lines that the pull request added or modified: <covered lines added or modified>/<coverable lines added or modified> * 100%

See your quality gate settings    Change summary preferences

You may notice some variations in coverage metrics with the latest Coverage engine update. For more details, visit the documentation

@raoulcollenteur
Copy link
Member

I think there are a couple more notebook where we can show the stderr. I know that for recharge estimation this is possible. I'll have a look at that after merging PR #678 . Otherwise I think this looks good!

@raoulcollenteur raoulcollenteur changed the base branch from dev to prepare_noise_is_false April 12, 2024 09:31
@OnnoEbbens OnnoEbbens merged commit c4a5e0c into prepare_noise_is_false Apr 12, 2024
0 of 2 checks passed
@OnnoEbbens OnnoEbbens deleted the 722-show-estimated-parameter-uncertainties-or-not branch April 12, 2024 09:55
@martinvonk martinvonk added the development Indicates development of new features label May 15, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
development Indicates development of new features
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Show estimated parameter uncertainties or not
6 participants