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

Improve modeling multi-cards #228

Open
dfsnow opened this issue Apr 16, 2024 · 0 comments · May be fixed by #312
Open

Improve modeling multi-cards #228

dfsnow opened this issue Apr 16, 2024 · 0 comments · May be fixed by #312
Assignees
Labels
method ML technique or method change pipeline Code that glues all the model bits together

Comments

@dfsnow
Copy link
Member

dfsnow commented Apr 16, 2024

Multi-card sales are excluded from the sales used to train the model for multiple reasons. The model predicts values per card, not per property; as such, multi-card sales are excluded from training the model, because the model won't know which card to attribute how much of the sale price to. But is there something we can do for modeling multi-card properties?

Some ideas

  • Constructing a new variable: card's percentage of bldg sqft of total bldg sqft on the parcel. Check with Valuations on whether this proxy makes sense from a valuation perspective. Then can we apportion sales of multi-card PINs, such that the sale price is divvied up per card, and we could use that to train a multicard model?
  • What about other variables, such as "key card" (largest percentage) and non-primary cards? This might help the model learn which cards are and are not ADUs.
@dfsnow dfsnow added method ML technique or method change pipeline Code that glues all the model bits together labels Dec 19, 2024
@wagnerlmichael wagnerlmichael linked a pull request Jan 7, 2025 that will close this issue
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
method ML technique or method change pipeline Code that glues all the model bits together
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants