-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 70
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
722 show estimated parameter uncertainties or not #729
Conversation
Coverage summary from CodacySee diff coverage on Codacy
Coverage variation details
Coverage variation is the difference between the coverage for the head and common ancestor commits of the pull request branch: Diff coverage details
Diff coverage is the percentage of lines that are covered by tests out of the coverable lines that the pull request added or modified: See your quality gate settings Change summary preferencesYou may notice some variations in coverage metrics with the latest Coverage engine update. For more details, visit the documentation |
Coverage summary from CodacySee diff coverage on Codacy
Coverage variation details
Coverage variation is the difference between the coverage for the head and common ancestor commits of the pull request branch: Diff coverage details
Diff coverage is the percentage of lines that are covered by tests out of the coverable lines that the pull request added or modified: See your quality gate settings Change summary preferencesYou may notice some variations in coverage metrics with the latest Coverage engine update. For more details, visit the documentation |
Looks good. Should be rebased after PR723 is merged. |
Maybe it is better to rename "par_uncertainty" to "stderr" or "par_stderr"? |
or just write it out entirely :)? |
I renamed it to |
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). |
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 |
Coverage summary from CodacySee diff coverage on Codacy
Coverage variation details
Coverage variation is the difference between the coverage for the head and common ancestor commits of the pull request branch: Diff coverage details
Diff coverage is the percentage of lines that are covered by tests out of the coverable lines that the pull request added or modified: See your quality gate settings Change summary preferencesYou may notice some variations in coverage metrics with the latest Coverage engine update. For more details, visit the documentation |
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! |
…er-uncertainties-or-not
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: