Skip to content
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

Adds Evidence estimator module #157

Draft
wants to merge 8 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

Adds Evidence estimator module #157

wants to merge 8 commits into from

Conversation

maho3
Copy link
Owner

@maho3 maho3 commented Jun 4, 2024

Adds implementations of evidence estimators from:

Implements runners for each of these methods, and compares their ability to measure $\log K$ in notebooks/evidence.ipynb.

Still to-do:

  • Add capacity for embedding nets
  • Add capacity for ensembling
  • Add functional documentation
  • Add tests

@maho3 maho3 linked an issue Jun 4, 2024 that may be closed by this pull request
@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Jun 4, 2024

⚠️ Please install the 'codecov app svg image' to ensure uploads and comments are reliably processed by Codecov.

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0.46948% with 212 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 85.88%. Comparing base (3019bbd) to head (4733d3b).

Files Patch % Lines
ili/evidence/runner.py 0.00% 144 Missing ⚠️
ili/evidence/utils.py 0.00% 67 Missing ⚠️
ili/evidence/__init__.py 0.00% 1 Missing ⚠️

❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality.

Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #157       +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   96.95%   85.88%   -11.08%     
===========================================
  Files          23       26        +3     
  Lines        1644     1856      +212     
===========================================
  Hits         1594     1594               
- Misses         50      262      +212     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@DeaglanBartlett
Copy link
Collaborator

DeaglanBartlett commented Jun 21, 2024

As highlighted in astro-informatics/harmonic#271, using the harmonic code for models with only one parameter does not work, since the normalising flow expects there to be at least two parameters. Even if this is not fixed in harmonic, we should create a work around here. Creating a simple normalising flow which we then wrap to become a hm.model.FlowModel object so that it has the correct functionality should be sufficient. This edge case should be explicitly included in the unit tests.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Implement evidence nets
3 participants