-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10
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
Better quantile spacing #35
Comments
This was referenced Dec 7, 2016
Merged
Just commenting to document that we want to develop a better way to choose quantile spacing. Let's leave this issue open for this purpose. |
Good good. Feel free to punt it to the post-launch DESC Note milestone.
…On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Alex Malz ***@***.***> wrote:
Just commenting to document that we want to develop a better way to choose
quantile spacing. Let's leave this issue open for this purpose.
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#35 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AArY98IEgS0f8G4elR_4OQOcVaB9aPWQks5rGbHpgaJpZM4LHJvn>
.
|
OK, I made a milestone for this analysis (and other enhancements): Mock Photo-z Test |
Open
It seems like optimization over each chosen metric (presumably in survey mode once #43 is done) is probably the way to approach this one. |
12 tasks
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
I guess we want to choose the quantiles such that we sample the peaks and wings well: uniform in CDF does not seem to be optimal (or even superior to a histogram). In fact; don't we want to preferentially place interpolation nodes where the second derivative of the function is high? How about the first derivative? There must be a whole literature on this.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: