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

No model meta #307

Closed
athowes opened this issue Sep 11, 2024 · 7 comments
Closed

No model meta #307

athowes opened this issue Sep 11, 2024 · 7 comments
Assignees
Labels
high Required for next release

Comments

@athowes
Copy link
Collaborator

athowes commented Sep 11, 2024

In the case that there is no model on a parameter we can either

  1. Work around it by setting appropriate priors (Automate setting prior in case where there is no model #305)
  2. Enforce there being a model by putting ~ 1 internally (Consider setting intercept on any distributional parameters without a model #266)

This is a meta issue for deciding between these options, or suggesting new ways to handle this.

@seabbs
Copy link
Contributor

seabbs commented Sep 18, 2024

I strongly think we should do 2 for simplicity

@kgostic
Copy link
Collaborator

kgostic commented Sep 18, 2024

Agreed in meeting that we're doing 2.

@athowes
Copy link
Collaborator Author

athowes commented Sep 19, 2024

  • Also shift to brms style formula input.
  • If given string then add on all other formula as constant
  • Require formula on everything if given brms::bf()
  • Have to also deal with the fixing stuff to a constant case

@seabbs
Copy link
Contributor

seabbs commented Sep 19, 2024

sounds good

I think the default brms input is

bmr(mu ~ 1 +w wefwef) vs a string (see here: https://paulbuerkner.com/brms/)

@athowes
Copy link
Collaborator Author

athowes commented Sep 20, 2024

bmr(mu ~ 1 +w wefwef)

What's this? Ok got it as in brm(formula, ...) where formula isn't a string. So it's not being given a string it's being given a formula (that isn't a bf?)

@seabbs
Copy link
Contributor

seabbs commented Sep 20, 2024

yes exactly sorry should have been clearer

@athowes
Copy link
Collaborator Author

athowes commented Oct 10, 2024

Closing as outdated / no longer relevant.

@athowes athowes closed this as not planned Won't fix, can't repro, duplicate, stale Oct 10, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
high Required for next release
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants