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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

The calculation for the percentile in basicStatistics pp is inconsistent #756

Closed
10 tasks done
wangcj05 opened this issue Aug 22, 2018 · 3 comments · Fixed by #1206
Closed
10 tasks done

The calculation for the percentile in basicStatistics pp is inconsistent #756

wangcj05 opened this issue Aug 22, 2018 · 3 comments · Fixed by #1206
Assignees
@wangcj05 @alfoa
Labels
defect priority_normal

Comments

@wangcj05
Copy link
Collaborator

wangcj05 commented Aug 22, 2018 •
edited
Loading

Issue Description

What did you expect to see happen?

percentile calculation with uniform probability weights or without probability weights should be the same

What did you see instead?

They are not.

Do you have a suggested fix for the development team?

The utils.find_le_index is used to identify the percentile, however, it will return the index of the nearest point.

The percentile calculation without probability weight will return the lower point.

Please attach the input file(s) that generate this error. The simpler the input, the faster we can find the issue.

For Change Control Board: Issue Review

This review should occur before any development is performed as a response to this issue.

  • 1. Is it tagged with a type: defect or improvement?
  • 2. Is it tagged with a priority: critical, normal or minor?
  • 3. If it will impact requirements or requirements tests, is it tagged with requirements?
  • 4. If it is a defect, can it cause wrong results for users? If so an email needs to be sent to the users.
  • 5. Is a rationale provided? (Such as explaining why the improvement is needed or why current code is wrong.)

For Change Control Board: Issue Closure

This review should occur when the issue is imminently going to be closed.

  • 1. If the issue is a defect, is the defect fixed?
  • 2. If the issue is a defect, is the defect tested for in the regression test system? (If not explain why not.)
  • 3. If the issue can impact users, has an email to the users group been written (the email should specify if the defect impacts stable or master)?
  • 4. If the issue is a defect, does it impact the latest stable branch? If yes, is there any issue tagged with stable (create if needed)?
  • 5. If the issue is being closed without a merge request, has an explanation of why it is being closed been provided?
@wangcj05 wangcj05 self-assigned this Aug 22, 2018
@alfoa
Copy link
Collaborator

alfoa commented Jan 24, 2020

@wangcj05 did we fix this?

@alfoa alfoa self-assigned this Apr 7, 2020
alfoa added a commit that referenced this issue Apr 8, 2020
@alfoa
Closes #756
fa94c81
@alfoa alfoa mentioned this issue Apr 8, 2020
Merged
9 tasks
@wangcj05
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@alfoa Could you draft an email for the user?

@wangcj05
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Checklist is good to me.

wangcj05 pushed a commit that referenced this issue Apr 14, 2020
@alfoa
Closes #756 and #1148 (#1206)
7480f9d 
* Closes #756

* regolded basic stat tests

* regold factorial

* removed np.max since it does another pass of the array that is not needed since it is supposed to be sorted

* fixed exception type

* Closes #1148

* addressed wangcj05's comments

* Update DynamicEventTree.py
@alfoa alfoa mentioned this issue Apr 27, 2020
Closed
10 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@wangcj05 wangcj05

@alfoa alfoa

Labels
defect priority_normal
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

Closes #756 and #1148 idaholab/raven
2 participants
@wangcj05 @alfoa