-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 737
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
BUG: generate valid EBMModel
when merging
#578
base: develop
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Signed-off-by: DerWeh <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: DerWeh <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: DerWeh <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: DerWeh <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: DerWeh <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: DerWeh <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: DerWeh <[email protected]>
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #578 +/- ##
========================================
Coverage 75.68% 75.69%
========================================
Files 72 72
Lines 9078 9102 +24
========================================
+ Hits 6871 6890 +19
- Misses 2207 2212 +5
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Yes, @DerWeh, this approach looks great. Let me know when you feel it's ready to be merged. |
f8501a4
to
e0369a7
Compare
50d4254
to
5e999b6
Compare
This PR is meant to fix #576. Upon merging, we average numerical parameters.
I would add a warning to the documentation, that we do not guarantee that EBMs produced by
merge_ebms
can be fitted. You often allow for so many different types of arguments, that hardly can catch every edge case meaningfully.@paulbkoch please take a look at
_initialize_ebm
. Is this how you imagine handling the parameters? I would appreciate some early feedback. If this is in general what you have in mind, I'll try cleaning up the code some more. But it's quite messy, as your API is so flexible.TODO
monotonize
andexclude