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

predict_confidence #77

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 16, 2019
Merged

predict_confidence #77

merged 1 commit into from
Jan 16, 2019

Conversation

mkborregaard
Copy link
Contributor

Handle prediction that returns a confidence interval
cc @nalimilan
cf JuliaStats/GLM.jl#253

Handle prediction that returns a confidence interval
Models that drop the intercept will be fitted without one: the intercept term will be
removed even if explicitly provided by the user. Categorical variables will be expanded
Models that drop the intercept will be fitted without one: the intercept term will be
removed even if explicitly provided by the user. Categorical variables will be expanded
in the rank-reduced form (contrasts for `n` levels will only produce `n-1` columns).
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Everything above here is just my text editor removing trailing whitespace

@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented Nov 11, 2018

Codecov Report

Merging #77 into master will decrease coverage by 20.22%.
The diff coverage is 33.33%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #77       +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   93.03%   72.8%   -20.23%     
==========================================
  Files           6       6               
  Lines         287     364       +77     
==========================================
- Hits          267     265        -2     
- Misses         20      99       +79
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
src/statsmodel.jl 58.97% <33.33%> (-37.03%) ⬇️
src/modelmatrix.jl 73.43% <0%> (-22.57%) ⬇️
src/modelframe.jl 78.37% <0%> (-19.93%) ⬇️
src/contrasts.jl 77.55% <0%> (-17.45%) ⬇️
src/formula.jl 71.32% <0%> (-16.07%) ⬇️

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 f9c247d...4b87184. Read the comment docs.

Copy link
Member

@nalimilan nalimilan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks!

@mkborregaard
Copy link
Contributor Author

Is this ready to go in, or do you need anything more from me?

@nalimilan
Copy link
Member

That's fine with me (I've approved!).

@nalimilan nalimilan merged commit a64cb50 into JuliaStats:master Jan 16, 2019
@mkborregaard
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks @nalimilan . @andreasnoack just remarked on Slack that he thinks the return type here should be a DataFrame not a 3-column Matrix. Do you agree with this? I can make a new PR.

@andreasnoack
Copy link
Member

Maybe I didn't read the conversation carefully enough but it did seem to me as if people thought a table was appropriate here.

@mkborregaard
Copy link
Contributor Author

This was merged before that discussion took place

@andreasnoack
Copy link
Member

@mkborregaard Would you mind that this is reverted while you prepare the new PR? I'd like to get the GLM docs set up again but that requires a new release of StatsModels.

@mkborregaard
Copy link
Contributor Author

That's fine I expect to fix this tomorrow

andreasnoack added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 17, 2019
andreasnoack added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 17, 2019
Revert "Handle prediction that returns a confidence interval (#77)"
mkborregaard added a commit to mkborregaard/StatsModels.jl that referenced this pull request Jan 17, 2019
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.

None yet

4 participants