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
Thank you for this great package! I have some questions regarding how burn-in (or warm-up) steps is handled in this original implementation.
From my understanding, this package adaptively determines the burn-in by analyzing the log-likelihood trajectory, using the following process:
Compute the log-likelihood for each sample.
Consider the last fraction of samples (e.g., the final 10%) and find a high quantile (e.g., the 90th percentile) of log-likelihood in this tail portion.
Identify the earliest point in the chain where the log-likelihood exceeds this quantile, and drop all samples before this point.
This adaptive approach can, in some cases, lead to dropping the first 90% of samples, depending on the log-likelihood trajectory. I have a few questions about this:
Could you confirm if my understanding of the burn-in behavior in the R implementation is correct? If not, I’d appreciate any corrections or clarifications.
I’m curious about the logic of looking at the last fraction of samples to determine the burn-in threshold. Wouldn’t it make more sense to use the first fraction (e.g., the first 20%) to determine the threshold? This might prevent discarding a large proportion of samples and ensure the point estimates and credible intervals are based on a sufficiently large set of samples.
Thank you for your time and for considering these questions. I look forward to hearing your insights!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hello
CausalImpact
team,Thank you for this great package! I have some questions regarding how burn-in (or warm-up) steps is handled in this original implementation.
From my understanding, this package adaptively determines the burn-in by analyzing the log-likelihood trajectory, using the following process:
This adaptive approach can, in some cases, lead to dropping the first 90% of samples, depending on the log-likelihood trajectory. I have a few questions about this:
Thank you for your time and for considering these questions. I look forward to hearing your insights!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: