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

Fix pending point extraction in gen_multi_from_multi #2914

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

mgarrard
Copy link
Contributor

Summary:
Earlier today danielcohenlive was having trouble using gs and was getting a weird modeling error. Lena did some investigation an found we were using the wrong method to grab pending points from the experiment. See her notebook in the test plan for more details. to quote "Basically in some settings it’s not safe to deem a point pending based on the trial status; generally no point for which we have data, we want to consider pending"

I just am putting up the fix with her logic here

Differential Revision: D64563496

@facebook-github-bot facebook-github-bot added the CLA Signed Do not delete this pull request or issue due to inactivity. label Oct 17, 2024
@facebook-github-bot
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D64563496

mgarrard added a commit to mgarrard/Ax that referenced this pull request Oct 17, 2024
Summary:

Earlier today danielcohenlive was having trouble using gs and was getting a weird modeling error. Lena did some investigation an found we were using the wrong method to grab pending points from the experiment. See her notebook in the test plan for more details. to quote "Basically in some settings it’s not safe to deem a point pending based on the trial status; generally no point for which we have data, we want to consider pending"

I just am putting up the fix with her logic here

Differential Revision: D64563496
@facebook-github-bot
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D64563496

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Oct 17, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 95.67%. Comparing base (202dc33) to head (797f0ee).

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #2914   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   95.67%   95.67%           
=======================================
  Files         502      502           
  Lines       49542    49542           
=======================================
  Hits        47400    47400           
  Misses       2142     2142           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

mgarrard added a commit to mgarrard/Ax that referenced this pull request Oct 18, 2024
Summary:

Earlier today danielcohenlive was having trouble using gs and was getting a weird modeling error. Lena did some investigation an found we were using the wrong method to grab pending points from the experiment. See her notebook in the test plan for more details. to quote "Basically in some settings it’s not safe to deem a point pending based on the trial status; generally no point for which we have data, we want to consider pending"

I just am putting up the fix with her logic here

Reviewed By: lena-kashtelyan, Cesar-Cardoso

Differential Revision: D64563496
@facebook-github-bot
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D64563496

Summary:

Earlier today danielcohenlive was having trouble using gs and was getting a weird modeling error. Lena did some investigation an found we were using the wrong method to grab pending points from the experiment. See her notebook in the test plan for more details. to quote "Basically in some settings it’s not safe to deem a point pending based on the trial status; generally no point for which we have data, we want to consider pending"

I just am putting up the fix with her logic here

Reviewed By: lena-kashtelyan, Cesar-Cardoso

Differential Revision: D64563496
@facebook-github-bot
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D64563496

@facebook-github-bot
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request has been merged in 9c362ab.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
CLA Signed Do not delete this pull request or issue due to inactivity. fb-exported Merged
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants