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

Non-binary incidence #127

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Oct 20, 2020
Merged

Non-binary incidence #127

merged 2 commits into from
Oct 20, 2020

Conversation

jamiecook
Copy link
Contributor

Hey @bstabler, we were looking to do some work using PopSim and noticed that the non-binary incidence hadn't made its way into a release. So I generated the PR :)

bstabler and others added 2 commits May 12, 2020 08:36
* Allow non-binary incidence

* style

* update tests to pass

* add some progress indication

* tidy up validation script, use histogram for a histogram

* fix render and some typos
@@ -234,3 +234,5 @@ Release Notes
* v0.3.4 - add survey weighting use case
* v0.3.5 - add Python 3.5+ support
* v0.4 - transfer to ActivitySim.org
* v0.4.1 - package updates
* v0.4.2 - validation script in Python
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
* v0.4.2 - validation script in Python
* v0.4.2 - allow non-binary incidences and updates to fix validation notebook

@lmz
Copy link

lmz commented Sep 24, 2020

Are there documentation update to go with this? It would be helpful to have some of the documentation in #123 included in the PopulationSim documentation (https://github.com/ActivitySim/populationsim/tree/gh-pages/_sources)

@jamiecook
Copy link
Contributor Author

@lmz - I'm not sure what documentation updates would be relevant? I've been through the docs and I can't really see anywhere where there is any real discussion of the nature of the incidence and the previous requirement that it be binary....

If you can point me to a particular section that would be appropriate I'm happy to update though.

@jamiecook
Copy link
Contributor Author

Also... i'm not sure why the build failed... it doesn't seem to have anything to do with this PR

image

@bstabler
Copy link
Contributor

bstabler commented Oct 8, 2020

@jamiecook - we plan to get to this soon...we're thinking about how the documentation may want to include stuff like this

@binnympaul
Copy link
Collaborator

@jamiecook - we plan to get to this soon...we're thinking about how the documentation may want to include stuff like this

Currently, we do not explain the mathematical details of the algorithm in the wiki, but we cite the TRB paper which describes the mathematical equations in detail. This PR would fix a mismatch between mathematical specification and implementation.

@jamiecook
Copy link
Contributor Author

@binnympaul - yeah i was confused as to why documentation was mentioned as this just brings the implementation in line with the existing documentation.

@bstabler
Copy link
Contributor

I'm pulling this so the code is up-to-date with the paper. I created #128 for us to add documentation to the user's guide to describe the algorithms/methods.

@bstabler bstabler merged commit 2c2536e into master Oct 20, 2020
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.

4 participants