Open TeemuSailynoja opened 6 months ago
I think that PIT in posterior does make sense. Will we want to use it for other stuff than plotting though? If yes, than posterior is I think good. If we only ever want to use it for bayesplot, then perhaps also bayesplot could be a reasonable target(?)
Just to clarify, are we talking about the methods or the generic (or both)?
sounds like good arguments for posterior indeed.
Aki Vehtari @.***> schrieb am Fr., 19. Jan. 2024, 18:55:
- PIT values could be summarised with scalar diagnostic value, but the preferred way is graphics, but we may want to use other plots than what is available in bayesplot (which is what I was doing)
- methods, 2. it would be nice if the method function could be called with any posterior draws object type
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/stan-dev/posterior/issues/338#issuecomment-1900761992, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADCW2ABIJ65MBMUIWRKAWHDYPKQP5AVCNFSM6AAAAABCB7SLJ6VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTSMBQG43DCOJZGI . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>
Sounds good to me too
loo_pit
is currently inrstantools
but needs implementation for discrete variables, and should probably be moved toposterior
.pit
isn't currently available, but is used, for example, bybayesplot
, where I have currently implemented the computation.My questions are: 1 . PIT would require observations in addition to the draws object, which to my understanding isn't the case for other functions. Is this a problem?