-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 149
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
M values aren't trained for a column #2154
Comments
The condition used to determine whether or not parameters are estimated for a comparison is whether it not any data columns are used in any of the comparison levels. In your case, the The match weight chart (and the m u parameters chart) will show the default m-values for any comparison that has no trained values associated to it, so those will probably be what you are seeing there. The parameter estimates chart should not show default values, and should only be displaying values that are estimated from training sessions (expectation maximisation or estimate u from random sampling) - if you do have m-values appearing there for |
I think possibly the distinction here is whether you're displaying from
(which shouldn't) I admit, it's a bit confusing that |
Thanks both for the replies this solves it. @ADBond apologies, there was indeed no values shown for sname in parameter_estimate_comparisons_chart() |
What happens?
Hello, I am using splink to link two datasets, using mostly custom comparisons. One of my columns, "sname" is used in comparison and in neither of my blocking rules. However, when I use EM to calculate the m values, splink says the column is used in the blocking rules (it isn't). Yet, when i print the match weight charts and the parameter estimate comparisons chart, they both show values for sname. What should I believe? Are my M values trained properly or not?
Am i missing something obvious?
To Reproduce
A notebook is attached (as a .txt to allow for upload), but I cannot share the data files
bugged_ipynb.txt
OS:
Debian
Splink version:
3.9.14
Have you tried this on the latest
master
branch?Have you tried the steps to reproduce? Do they include all relevant data and configuration? Does the issue you report still appear there?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: