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

Fix sequence size and compute_validation_tests #264

Open
wants to merge 25 commits into
base: masterr
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

isaacmg
Copy link
Collaborator

@isaacmg isaacmg commented Feb 3, 2021

The goal of this PR is to do the following

  • Correct a bug where forecast_length was not being passed to `simple_dec
  • Fix bugs related to the unscaled_test_loss
  • Add unit tests to validate compute_validation logic explicitly.

@isaacmg isaacmg changed the title fix seuqnece size Fix sequence size and compute_validation_tests Feb 3, 2021
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 3, 2021

Codecov Report

Merging #264 (33b6c02) into master (308dc3c) will increase coverage by 0.02%.
The diff coverage is 85.71%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #264      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   69.54%   69.57%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files          56       56              
  Lines        3526     3536      +10     
==========================================
+ Hits         2452     2460       +8     
- Misses       1074     1076       +2     
Flag Coverage Δ
python 69.57% <85.71%> (+0.02%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files Coverage Δ
flood_forecast/basic/linear_regression.py 76.36% <50.00%> (-2.07%) ⬇️
flood_forecast/pytorch_training.py 76.39% <100.00%> (+0.62%) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 308dc3c...939302e. Read the comment docs.

@isaacmg
Copy link
Collaborator Author

isaacmg commented Feb 3, 2021

This #265 #253

@isaacmg
Copy link
Collaborator Author

isaacmg commented Feb 4, 2021

Update there is still an ongoing problem that I can't figure out where in the cases of unscaled_test_loss MSE seems to be double DilateLoss in pretty much every training session. This is try in every logging for some reason. This isn't the case for the scaled_test. At the moment I believe the scaled_test_loss is correct. Additionally when un-scaling the scaled_test_loss it often doesn't equal the scaled_test_loss.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Edge case where forecast_len>forecast_history causes error Double check test_loss
1 participant