Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Change non-monotonic AM predictor coefficients #6283

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 30, 2024

Conversation

wthrowe
Copy link
Member

@wthrowe wthrowe commented Sep 11, 2024

Either version works, but this version makes the analytic expressions nicer and is what will be in the paper.

Note that this does not affect the BBH paper, because that uses the monotonic method.

Proposed changes

Upgrade instructions

Code review checklist

  • The code is documented and the documentation renders correctly. Run
    make doc to generate the documentation locally into BUILD_DIR/docs/html.
    Then open index.html.
  • The code follows the stylistic and code quality guidelines listed in the
    code review guide.
  • The PR lists upgrade instructions and is labeled bugfix or
    new feature if appropriate.

Further comments

nilsdeppe
nilsdeppe previously approved these changes Sep 13, 2024
@nilsdeppe
Copy link
Member

@wthrowe I don't know if this relates at all to your group meeting update, but in any case, I'll let you merge it when you are ready :)

@wthrowe
Copy link
Member Author

wthrowe commented Sep 13, 2024

That's a good question, actually. Maybe I should hold off on this until I figure out exactly what we want.

@wthrowe wthrowe marked this pull request as draft September 13, 2024 19:45
@knelli2
Copy link
Contributor

knelli2 commented Sep 13, 2024

@nilsdeppe @wthrowe Maybe post a quick synopsis of what was brought up so we have a record of it?

@wthrowe
Copy link
Member Author

wthrowe commented Sep 13, 2024

Basically, what's on develop, what's in this PR, and what I wrote in my paper draft are all different. They all satisfy the requirements on the method, so it's not clear which one to choose. (And I'm now also considering a fourth version.)

Either version works, but this version is simpler and is what will be
in the paper.
@wthrowe
Copy link
Member Author

wthrowe commented Sep 30, 2024

Decided to go with a simpler version without the conditional on alignment. This should be ready now.

@wthrowe wthrowe marked this pull request as ready for review September 30, 2024 17:46
@nilsdeppe nilsdeppe merged commit 67ceaf6 into sxs-collaboration:develop Sep 30, 2024
23 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants