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
Currently we have separate constructors for Jackknife and CV methods, e.g. JackknifePlusRegressor and CVPlusRegressor. Since the former is just a special case of the latter (for which nfold=nobs), technically this makes the former constructor redundant. By getting rid of it we could make the code base more DRY ("don't repeat yourself").
The problem with this idea is that at instantiation the models have no access to data, so nobs is unknown. So if we want to keep a separate model type (JackknifePlusRegressor), then making the code more DRY would come with its own complications.
Currently undecided, so won't fix myself, but leaving this here for discussion.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Currently we have separate constructors for Jackknife and CV methods, e.g.
JackknifePlusRegressor
andCVPlusRegressor
. Since the former is just a special case of the latter (for whichnfold
=nobs
), technically this makes the former constructor redundant. By getting rid of it we could make the code base more DRY ("don't repeat yourself").The problem with this idea is that at instantiation the models have no access to data, so
nobs
is unknown. So if we want to keep a separate model type (JackknifePlusRegressor
), then making the code more DRY would come with its own complications.Currently undecided, so won't fix myself, but leaving this here for discussion.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: