Merge regularized CM into CM reconstructor #203
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
To minimize redundancy, merge the `RegularizedCorrelationMatrixReconstructor` into `CorrelationMatrixReconstructor`. These have similar behaviors (and, frankly, I am skeptical of the utility of the regularized form anyway).
|
Should we do the same with NaiveMeanFieldReconstructor and ExactMeanFieldReconstructor? If these are not merge-able then we should mention in the documentation what's the main difference. |
|
They seem pretty similar; I'll look into it separate from this PR. |
tlarock
approved these changes
May 22, 2019
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
To minimize redundancy, merge the
RegularizedCorrelationMatrixReconstructorinto
CorrelationMatrixReconstructor. These have similar behaviors (and,frankly, I am skeptical of the utility of the regularized form anyway).
This decreases our test coverage slightly; see #202 for efforts to address this more systematically.