Replies: 3 comments 6 replies
-
I am also going towards not including optimizing stuff. I think including optimization will also mean that will include distributions object etc. Even if I think that won't take too much time to reach this point I think it is good to stop earlier. I also think that doing that will be kind of beneficial to highlight that anyone can easily interact with the library at a relatively low level and plug already existing code/scripts in all languages. I also agree with the list of issues and corresponding feature, some of them (like #106 and #115) are new features compared to existing codes (python transport maps and matlab). FYI there is a PR for #40 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
But optimization is still utilized in the examples, right? Or are there some low-level examples you are thinking about? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
What about #140? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I think we're about ready to start preparing a JOSS submission on MParT, but want to make we're all on the same page about what we need to do before submission. I think the biggest question is whether we want to include MParT-based optimization in this first submission or not. Even though optimization is on our near-term roadmap, I'm leaning towards not including it in this first submission. I think we should focus entirely on the parameterization framework itself. That said, I do think the extra transformations discussed in Issues #115 and #89 should be included. What do you think?
The current list of issues to close before JOSS submission would be #40, #44, #70, #71, #80, #82, #89, #106, #115, #124, #141 . What do you all think?
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions