-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
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
Milestones and features #48
Comments
Hmm, I would vote against MCMC diagnostics. As you write, this is already pretty well done in coda and ggmcmc (and some in rstan & bayesplot, or even superdiag), so I'd see a lot of potential for duplicating. If either of you feels different though, please post below! |
Here are some things I suggest for the next versions; please feel free, all, to edit as you see fit! 0.1.0
0.2.0
0.3.0
later versions
|
We had some requests at ICPSR to add more functionality to mcmcTab() - any thoughts on what might make that better? I also agree on leaving out mcmc diagnostics, and I wholeheartedly support expanding to other glms. |
I agree that we should leave MCMC diagnostics out since there are very mature packages that handle most/all of them. Other features I've considered:
If these sound good, I can work them into the milestones in @jkarreth's post above. |
Thanks for these suggestions!
Lastly, before we expand too much, I just came across the very cool bayestestR package. It doesn't duplicate what we do but may already cover some things that we may have planned. |
@ShanaScogin do you want to submit the current version (post-JOSS) to CRAN as version 0.1.0? I adjusted the version milestones above. It may depend a bit on what @jayrobwilliams would like to do with the coefficient plot and marginal effects functions. If we add these soon, we could wait and put 0.2.0 on CRAN. |
I'm totally up for submitting this version to CRAN. Rob, what do you think? |
I think we should submit as is, since |
Great! Let me make a couple small changes to the vignette and I will post here again when it's ready for your review/submitting to CRAN. |
@ShanaScogin vignette should be good to go - just added a reference and a few line breaks in the code. |
Great - am submitting now. Will let everyone know when it's up. I'll pull Andy's request after that and start working on the enhancement in issue #50 |
|
Great! Cran release for v0.1.0 went out Sunday as well. Look forward to working on the new stuff for the next couple months. |
@jkarreth your comment on caterpillar plots
is prescient since today I realized that caterpillar plots are just our existing Also, I agree that we should just add a |
👍 on the I'd be happy with your suggestion about Lastly, what are your thoughts about the following for
|
Those all sound good to me. I think the binary/categorial interaction and sorting the point estimates are good targets for 0.2.0, and the interflex and Pr > or < 0 plots make sense for a later version since they're more involved. Once I get those additions implemented and @ShanaScogin gets the static docs site working do we want to release 0.2.0? |
@jkarreth had the very good point that we should start developing milestones and deciding what features/issues should be associated with which milestones. I think the starting point is what do we want to see in a feature complete, version 1.0.0?
I think the biggest/most consequential question we need to answer first is do we consider MCMC diagnostics to be part of Bayesian post estimation, or is that an auxiliary task we can leave to other packages? coda and ggmcmc implement lots of diagnostics and diagnostic plots in addition to presentation of results with coefficient/caterpillar plots and density plots. Do we want to try and include this diagnostic functionality in BayesPostEst, or do we want to focus on presenting results as we've defined them so far?Decided below to focus on substantive post estimation.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: