Open sysilviakim opened 3 years ago
In general the latest case study has the latest version, but I don't think it's changed since the stan_intro
case study so one could start there. My only hesitation with PRs for the older case studies is that all of those need a mess of other updates as well that I don't yet have time to implement yet and I'd rather change everything together.
check_div
is consistent. check_treedepth
is consistent for the default tree depth of 10, but I'm not sure if it checks against user set values. check_energy
may use a more conservative threshold of 0.3 instead my recommended 0.2
RStan runs similar check_n_eff
and check_rhat
automatically in every fit but the thresholds are different. In particular the check_n_eff
uses a very different threshold that ends up checking for different things -- see for example my post https://discourse.mc-stan.org/t/suggestions-on-reporting-hmc-diagnostics-for-scientific-publication/20003/14?u=betanalpha. Not sure why these never made separate functions; one issue is that the development is fragmenting a bit and much of the recent development is going into the separate posterior
and arviz
packages that are making their own decisions outside of general Stan community discussion.
Thanks for the really informative post. That makes a lot of sense. I'll leave it for now, in that case.
Hi Mike,
I have a couple of questions about the
stan_utility
script:stan_utility.R
's latest version is in thestan_intro
folder, but would it help to have a pull request that updates it for all the other folders?check_div
,check_treedepth
, andcheck_energy
fully substitutable with rstan's own functions, with the caveat that it isrstan::check_divergence
and notrstan::check_div
?check_n_eff
andcheck_rhat
aren't in the package itself---or did I miss something?My Stan is a bit rusty at the moment.