Fix off-by-1 indexing bug (#154) - #155
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Take EMburn = 3, and EMiter = 6. Originally, we're indexing from (3+1):(6+1) -> 4:7 -> c(4, 5, 6, 7). The first item is the init value. The next three c(2, 3, 4) are in the burn section, and the final three c(5, 6, 7) are in the keep section. However, we're pulling in the final one in the burn section. So it should be EMburn + 2. See adw96#154.
adw96
self-requested a review
June 11, 2026 20:38
adw96
approved these changes
Jun 16, 2026
adw96
left a comment
Owner
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM, thanks so much for this fix, @mooreryan
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Take EMburn = 3, and EMiter = 6. Originally, we're indexing from (3+1):(6+1) -> 4:7 -> c(4, 5, 6, 7). The first item is the init value. The next three c(2, 3, 4) are in the burn section, and the final three c(5, 6, 7) are in the keep section. However, we're pulling in the final one in the burn section. So it should be EMburn + 2.
See #154.
I assume the actual numerical difference made by this change would be small. To do a quick check of that I ran through the debugger using this data:
Then added some diagnostic plots to the fit_atichison function. Something like this:
b0_EM:
b_EM:
sigma_em:
(If you look at the actual values there very close.)