Closed psteinb closed 2 years ago
I am not yet 100% happy with the naming scheme. I also observed that no tasks appear to have unit tests.
Thanks for starting off a PR! Perhaps it would be best to have a general unit tests that checks all tasks in the same way and consider more specific ones on a per-task basis?
two_moons
(a starting point for more perhaps)norefposterior
implementation for the time beingThe code is pretty much done at this point. the simulate step for norefposterior
turns out to be quite slow. I am not a pyro expert and hence need to check at some later point in time, what the root cause of this might be.
@jan-matthis please review.
alright, this PR is ready to go from my side. Studying the other tasks, I see that my application tends to be somewhat special as I simulate an entire dense representation. So I am happy to receive any feedback on that.
I'll check now, how to obtain benchmark results on this task.
Great, I will review it tomorrow
Could you rebase on main
for the next round of reviews?
huh, I thought I did so last night. Let me check.
Done, I hope.
Sorry folks, I hand-cuffed myself by using git rebase
in a wrong fashion. I undid my rebase from earlier now (using cherry-pick
) and repeated the exercise.
I hope I have addressed all comments now. Sorry for the mess with the accidental rebase.
No worries at all -- unfortunately, I think something is not quite right yet: Currently the PR still contains changes are on the main branch already
Not sure what you mean. github says this PR has no conflicts. I just did a manual git merge upstream main
... what am I missing?
I think you resolved the issue with commit b876c91
above. All looks good now!
I assume this is ready to be merged then -- or should we rather do #29 first? 🎉
Let's wait for #29 to be merged first. Then I will close this PR, split the code according to #29 and resubmit a new PR. One merit of this is also, that this very long conversation gets squashed into a handful of commits. Feel free to disagree.
Quite frankly: I'd love to get on with stuff and start running experiments.
Let's wait for #29 to be merged first. Then I will close this PR, split the code according to #29 and resubmit a new PR. One merit of this is also, that this very long conversation gets squashed into a handful of commits. Feel free to disagree.
Sounds good to me!
closed in favor of #34 Thanks to @jan-matthis and @janfb for all your valuable feedback
this PR paves the way to allow users to add simulations without a reference posterior. This way, (I hope) it becomes easier for users to test drive and benchmark sbi for their use case even.
Closes #19