Skip to content

Conversation

lorcandelaney
Copy link
Contributor

@lorcandelaney lorcandelaney commented Aug 8, 2019

See #772

Includes:

  1. Method for Covariance-Adaptive Slice Sampling: Covariance Matching.
  2. Tests for Covariance Matching method.
  3. TO DO: Notebooks.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Aug 8, 2019

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 100.00%. Comparing base (fe3e6d7) to head (dbc221e).
Report is 1915 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##              main      #896    +/-   ##
==========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%            
==========================================
  Files           66        67     +1     
  Lines         7052      7180   +128     
==========================================
+ Hits          7052      7180   +128     

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

Copy link
Collaborator

@ben18785 ben18785 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Very readable code -- nice work! I've suggested a few (very minor) changes. I can't see where this code deviates from what is written. The only thing I'm unsure about is whether ask / tell returns the gradient or negative gradient and if F and R need to be transposed (as this is the last part of your chud function).

Can you add an example notebook here that shows the issue? I couldn't find one.

@MichaelClerx
Copy link
Member

MichaelClerx commented Sep 3, 2019

@lorcandelaney if the other PR is "correct" does that mean this one can go??

Sorry it's a different method isn't it?

@MichaelClerx MichaelClerx mentioned this pull request Sep 3, 2019
49 tasks
@MichaelClerx
Copy link
Member

Is this ready for re-review @ben18785 ?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants