-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 71
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
Uncertainty #161
Uncertainty #161
Conversation
Need to be worked out still..
Now computes a reasonable prediction interval.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looking good! I added a few minor comments, mostly about code style that apply to several of the new methods (not just where i added the comment):
- Do we hide internal methods in pastas by prepending _?
- Should docstrings for internal methods be as complete as for public methods?
Looks good. I do not have time to look into the code in detail though. Personally I would keep 'model' instead of 'ml', but if this helps to be consistent throughout Pastas it's better like this. |
@mbakker7, could you review this PR (if you haven't already)? I'd like to start using/testing it from the dev branch. |
Initial methods to add uncertainty calculations to Pastas Models.
For example, uncertainty calculations are called as follows after model optimisation: