You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Great detective work. Sounds like we'll need to add bound checks up front.
Also, a good example why you want to test with asymmetric inputs. I wonder whether things still work with [0.4, 0.6] or you'd see a violation of add-to-one constraints?
Re asymmetry: I originally noticed this for a state in our replication and the row had asymmetric entries (but would need to confirm). So I guess the indexing is not at the individual entry level but the rows (at least in this example with just period as argument).
FWIW I also tried different combinations of required rows (i.e..periods) and provided rows but this didn't seem to have an effect, consistent with the above.
I came across unexpected behavior for stochastic next functions with the
_period
argument.For
N_PERIODS = 3
and a binary state I thought we needed a 2x2 matrix (one for each period transition). But the following does not throw an error:I checked it's actually included in the model, providing an empty transition matrices raises an indexing error as expected.
Providing a matrix that's "too large" (e.g.
(4, 2)
) here also doesn't result in an error.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: