-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7
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
The upper and lower bounds are not (always) properly computed for alpha = 0 #36
Comments
Why would one choose an alpha = 0? Maybe we could solve it by requiring |
|
Maybe we need to move away from |
Currently looking at this in the noci branch. |
For
alpha = 0
, the upper and lower bounds should always beInf
and0
, respectively.However:
glm
: trendbreaker usesciTools::add_pi
internally to find upper and lower bounds.asmodee
andciTools::add_pi
whenglm
is used in the former and both are applied in the same.lm
: a lower bound of-Inf
is sometimes found, which per se is fine for the assumed normal distribution, but doesn't make sense for counts. trendbreaker should either renounce usinglm
(see asmodee() shouldn't incorporate lm() #34) or set a minimum lower bound of 0.The correct behavior is shown below with
MASS::glm.nb
, where trendbreaker sets bounds explicitly based on the negative binomial.See https://github.com/reconhub/trendbreaker/R/model-interface.R.
Output:
(The last percentages will vary from run to run, see #35.)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: