You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Two possible improvements in how we work with contrasts:
(minor) Maybe we should have a way to specify a contrast symbolically, like linear_constraint but just the linear part, not the = constant part.
(major) There should be some way to specify contrasts and constraints in terms of predictions (which are invariant wrt coding), rather than predictors (betas). Like it should be possible to say "the difference between an item with a=1 and an item with a=2", and the model will spit out a matrix encoding this -- or, crucially, if the model has an interaction between a and b, then it will say "that's not estimable, you can't leave b unspecified". Possibly we also want to be able to say "tell me the derivative of the prediction wrt x1", since that's also one of the things that betas encode.
Syntax for this will be tricky. Possibly just an array of weights + a list of data dicts?
I need to brush up on the estimable contrast literature...
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Two possible improvements in how we work with contrasts:
linear_constraint
but just the linear part, not the= constant
part.Syntax for this will be tricky. Possibly just an array of weights + a list of data dicts?
I need to brush up on the estimable contrast literature...
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: