Replies: 4 comments
-
|
I would tend to lean towards |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Hi, yes agree, it should be better to make it consistent for other modules in PyMC. If it is alright, I will open an issue in PyMC to change the |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Great idea, I like sigma too. And it'd be good to be consistent. One thing that should be better documented though, is I think where So for instance here's this line in Line 449 in 0b191ad And then |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Yes, agree, we definitely need to update the docs to make it clearer. Many thanks @bwengals :) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Hi, in
pymc.gp.gp.pyfile, several GP classes such as "Marginal" and "MarginalApprox" usenoiseas a parameter in theirmarginal_likelihood()function, while other GP classes like "MarginalKron" usesigmaas a parameter.And also in docstrings, sometimes we use
noise=sigma, sometimes we usesigma=sigma.As the use of
noiseandsigmain the gp context is similar, it could be better to use ONLYnoiseORsigmain these GP classes. This could make the APIs formarginal_likelihood()function a bit more consistent to users.I would prefer only keep
noiseas a parameter, as it represents the meaning ofnoisepart in the equation:y = f(x) + noise. But using onlysigmais also fine.Would love to have your opinions on this. Thanks!
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions