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

Kernel Density Estimate #32

Open
wants to merge 9 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Kernel Density Estimate #32

wants to merge 9 commits into from

Conversation

arkwave
Copy link
Contributor

@arkwave arkwave commented Apr 22, 2016

matlab transferEntropyKDE and mdKDE functions are done, tests written and passing on local machine.

@AceHao
Copy link
Contributor

AceHao commented Apr 26, 2016

looks good to me,

@Christopher-Tennant
Copy link
Contributor

This looks good. Two quick questions, (1) Math is a "generic" Python library, correct? (2) The large number of text files is required because you are testing many of the cases presented with the original toolbox?

@arkwave
Copy link
Contributor Author

arkwave commented May 1, 2016

Sorry for the late reply. Yes, Math is a library native to python. The large number of text files is essentially because i ran the entire simulation given in the demoscript, and verified correctness to the same degree for all of them.

@stefanv
Copy link
Contributor

stefanv commented May 1, 2016

Note that kernel density estimates are already implemented in SciPy, so you probably want to re-use those.

Also, please use the numpy documentation format to document functions.

from math import log


def kerneldensityestimation(source, target, timelagx, timelagy, n, bw_coeff):
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

According to PEP8, function names should be in the form kernel_density_estimation. That also goes for timelag_x and timelag_y.

@arkwave
Copy link
Contributor Author

arkwave commented May 1, 2016

Alright in light of the issues thus far (lack of testing coverage and the existence of KDE in scipy), I'll take some time after finals to re-write this function after understanding the math behind it. @stefanv should I close this pull request and make a new one later?

@stefanv
Copy link
Contributor

stefanv commented May 2, 2016 via email

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.

4 participants