-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9
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
Vector args for loglike? #75
Comments
(Also, the docstring should probably specify whether |
That's kind of a bigger issue -- ignore it for now and assume vectors are satisfactory. For the most part we tend to work with moderately tightly-typed floats or integers, so it's not as big an issue. I'd be interested in seeing a tuple approach here but that comes with a bajillion headaches that it's not worth digging into at the moment. |
In addition, the code that calls the functions (i.e., the proposal algorithms) is using Vectors, since the pool of live points is a Matrix. We could allow users the option of container type, but there's no pressing need right now. |
This is a good point. I think this is something that could be built into a more "intelligent" NestedModel. For example, if I had a way for nested models to know whether to apply the prior transform explicitly or not, I can just create a generic method like "loglike_withtransform" for use in the proposal algorithms. I don't know if this is 100% feasible with the algorithms currently implemented but I can check! |
From what I can tell, using named tuples or structs instead of vectors would provide a very big benefit for linking with Turing.jl -- |
Should we be working with vectors here rather than tuples? The main concern I have is if the parameters are of different types (e.g. if one of the parameters is discrete), which could lead to a
Vector{Real}
, for instance.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: