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

Easy route to homogenous estimate #180

Closed
adamkucharski opened this issue Nov 15, 2023 · 4 comments · Fixed by #192
Closed

Easy route to homogenous estimate #180

adamkucharski opened this issue Nov 15, 2023 · 4 comments · Fixed by #192
Labels
good first issue Good for newcomers

Comments

@adamkucharski
Copy link
Member

Sometimes it's useful to get a quick handle on finalsize in basic SIR model, but it looks like currently user has to define all matrices, e.g. below for R0=2:

final_size(2,matrix(1),1,susceptibility = matrix(1), p_susceptibility = matrix(1))

Perhaps a simple solution would be to just mention in the quickstart, unless straightforward to add checks for a one-dimensional mixing scenario?

@pratikunterwegs
Copy link
Member

Thanks, would it be good to have these as default arguments? Otherwise can add to the Quickstart as suggested.

@pratikunterwegs pratikunterwegs added the good first issue Good for newcomers label Nov 16, 2023
@Bisaloo
Copy link
Member

Bisaloo commented Dec 7, 2023

I like the idea of adding them as defaults.

However, one thing we've discussed in the past with @sbfnk and others is the fact that users will sometimes rely on defaults if provided, even if they don't make sense for their specific case, and then present the result as scientifically valid.

🤔

@adamkucharski
Copy link
Member Author

I think it's nice for users to be able to run a simple – and possibly quite common – use case (e.g. homogenous model specified only by R0) without having to define a lot of extra variables. I'd avoid having an unusual scenario as default that means users unknowingly run with an odd setting (e.g. susceptibility = 50%), but don't think we should introduce extra friction unnecessarily – if functions are clearly documented (which they are), think we should trust users to make the call.

@pratikunterwegs
Copy link
Member

I have had this question before from David H. as he was temporarily stumped by the susceptibility/p_susceptibility requirements.

I don't think it would interfere with any current users' workflows if we provided sensible defaults. While discussing use cases we have considered LMIC users who might not have information on demographic or susceptibility structure, where the parsimonius assumption would be uniform mixing and full susceptibility (as in Adam's original example).

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

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants