You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
As noted here, this is done in a few places already, but conceptually this is not that clean.
Observations with allowing optional quantile values:
it will make scoring and ensembling not as straight-forward, as it requires subsetting to just models that have a shared set of quantiles. Complicates downstream analyses.
several hubs have optional "0" and "1" quantiles (indicating a "min" and "max") of the distribution. Not all distributions will have these (e.g. many distributions are unbounded), so it's not a concept that is general for all probabilistic representations. If we allow 0/1 quantiles (some might argue we should not), then they definitely should be optional, as not all distributions will have finite min/max.
There is a "sorting" issue with pmf and cdf category names that is not a problem with quantiles (because they can always be alphanumerically sorted), so having a list broken up into required and optional sections would not hamper sorting.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Per https://github.com/orgs/hubverse-org/discussions/24,
the thinking here is that it does not make sense for a hub to allow submissions where some quantile output_type_id fields are optional.
As noted here, this is done in a few places already, but conceptually this is not that clean.
Observations with allowing optional quantile values:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: