Initialisation error with data that has low initial incidence and little evidence of ongoing transmission. #332
Replies: 13 comments 1 reply
-
I have tried to add all missing days with a value of "0" but i still get the same error. Howver if add "1" to all newly added missing days it works. So my guess is that it fails when there is missing days or days with 0 infections |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Hi @davidvilanova, Thanks for opening the issue. To make it easier to help could you provide a reprex (i.e a minimal example that reproduces the issue). The model should be robust to the issues you describe. Either you have found a bug or there is an aspect of your data that doesn't match up to our model assumptions. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Hi,
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Great thanks, and to be clear you are using the GitHub version of the package? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I´m using thanks |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Great. If you have a chance posting a complete reprex (i.e data -> code -> error (I assume I can patch together code across posts here if not?)) along with session information would speed things up. Do you also get this behaviour with |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Ok here is the full code: dataset:
Code:
Partial error code
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
i didn´t try with 1.3.2 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
So the core issue is that the first part of your data starts with 3 months with effectively zero cases (i.e due to imports and not local transmission). As you will see from our documentation, we are using a renewal equation, so previous cases generate new cases in our model. Here there is very little or no transmission, so the model is unstable. I think the error comes from the initialisation of the initial conditions. Ideally this would be handled more robustly for these settings. Even if this is handled however I think estimates from the current model would be very unstable just due to the generating process of the data being far from our assumed process. If you filter to the start of more transmission-like behaviour (i.e the 1st of March) I see successful model fits. Obviously, your setting is one we might see at the start of an outbreak. To support it we would need a constant importation factor (or treat this as known data). Both of these are options (with the latter being what is done in If the filtering approach is not sufficient and you'd like guidance on alternative solutions (and potentially adding these to the package) happy to provide guidance. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Ok, great, i see !!! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Yes - that is because this is a method that is keyed for real-time usage and not retrospective usage by default. If you want retrospective estimates, and it sounds like you do if trying to fit to that much data, I'd explore some of the faster options (like changing the mean function of the gaussian process in |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Great Thanks !! That´s the output with 20 cores: |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Hi,
Following the github exemple with my dataset i go this error,
I don´t know what is wrong ??
Below is my dataset that contains missing dates. Could the be the problem, should i include all days even if there is no data for that date ?
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions