[ML] Correct the multimodal prior confidence interval calculation #176
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
tveasey
added a commit
to tveasey/ml-cpp-1
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 2, 2018
tveasey
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 2, 2018
tveasey
added a commit
to tveasey/ml-cpp-1
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 2, 2018
tveasey
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 2, 2018
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The multimodal confidence interval calculation solves for specific values of the c.d.f. However, if a count weight is applied it scales the log of the c.d.f. by this weight. No scaling should be applied for the purpose of computing confidence intervals. The easiest fix is to apply the equivalent scaling to the target value to solve for, which this change makes.
We were getting log errors generated as a result, see #155, because we couldn't solve for the target value after scaling.
This could affect the predicted value and model bounds for the model, but shouldn't affect the probability calculation and so anomalies detected.
Fixes #155.