Fixed bug that causes GP to only use one column of distance matrix #226
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…nce matrix. Changed input dimensions to exploit the whole distance matrix
|
Check out this pull request on See visual diffs & provide feedback on Jupyter Notebooks. Powered by ReviewNB |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
issue #164
Noted that the Gaussian process code was only using one column of the distance matrix. I updated the input dimensions argument to use all 10 columns. Reran associated plotting cells.
New notebook finds substantially stronger estimates for spatial covariance than old notebook. The new covariances are also even stronger than those reported in the textbook. Its a bit unclear what would reproduce McElreath's textbook example exactly - the textbook might have a typo or code error. And in the 2023 videos for statistical rethinking, it looks like he might also have stronger covariances. So without a clear target for what we are trying to reproduce, I think we should fix the bug and leave the new stronger covariances as is. But do let me know if there is a better plan here.