Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
Post-processing write-up #27
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Post-processing write-up #27
Changes from 2 commits
c036f8e
a00afd6
5918012
f5c00c1
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
Large diffs are not rendered by default.
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.
Maybe add a note about where
cal_object
comes fromThere 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.
All of these also have
x
as a first argument. Wherex
is the workflowThere 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.
Might need a
levels
argument and anordered
argument? Likeprobably::make_two_class_pred()
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.
In probably
probably::make_class_pred()
had abuffer
argument that created a range of[threshold - buffer[1], threshold + buffer[2]]
where anything inside the buffer range was marked equivocal. Maybe you could use thebuffer
arg here?Maybe also name it something similar to
add_prob_threshold()
likeadd_prob_threshold_buffered()
where:add_prob_threshold()
always returns a factor (maybe ordered)add_prob_threshold_buffered()
always returns a<class_pred>
from probablyThere 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.
I would consider giving all of these functions a common prefix that differentiates them from the other
add_*()
functions, likeadd_post_*()
:add_post_calibration() # do you need prob vs reg calibration? can you just "figure it out"? can it be an argument? add_post_threshold() add_post_threshold_buffered() add_post_mutate()
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.
Conflicted on this. I agree this would be nice for tab completion, but is inconsistent with the naming convention for preprocessors:
add_variables()
,add_recipe()
,add_formula()
.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.
I am mildly worried about the number of Imports that dev probably has. It is fairly high, and might be worth it to go back and see if some of them can be moved to Suggests as optional deps
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.
If this is our plan, I might argue we put this functionality in workflows or probably from the get-go. Feels a bit like this living its own package could eventually feel like technical debt.
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.
Since this is really an "internal" function, I think we can just assume that the workflow has already trained the
pre
andfit
stages, i.e. we don't need to try to do any checks to see if that is true or not. It should only be used by workflows internally and tune