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

Update beta calibration docs #2097

Merged
merged 9 commits into from
Feb 17, 2025

Conversation

btrotta-bom
Copy link
Contributor

Follow-up to #2078

  • Fix an issue where the extended docs were not included properly and did not appear in the html.
  • Add more detail about how to choose the parameters of the beta distribution.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 17, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 98.41%. Comparing base (84a8944) to head (73f3766).
Report is 72 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2097      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   98.39%   98.41%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         124      135      +11     
  Lines       12212    13304    +1092     
==========================================
+ Hits        12016    13093    +1077     
- Misses        196      211      +15     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

benowen-bom
benowen-bom previously approved these changes Feb 17, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

@benowen-bom benowen-bom left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good to me. I think outlining how to determine alpha and beta values is important element to promote the use/uptake of this CLI.

@btrotta-bom btrotta-bom added the MO review required PRs opened by non-Met Office developers that require a Met Office review label Feb 17, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

@benowen-bom benowen-bom left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good to me. I think outlining how to determine alpha and beta values is important element to promote the use/uptake of this CLI.

@bayliffe bayliffe self-assigned this Feb 17, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

@bayliffe bayliffe left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I've checked both the local build and the build on read-the-docs. Both appear to work fine, so thanks for this.


Alternatively, one could jointly optimise the blending weights and the parameters of the beta calibration. This may yield better results, but
is more complex.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for the additional detail.

@bayliffe bayliffe merged commit 73bfa3f into metoppv:master Feb 17, 2025
10 checks passed
@bayliffe bayliffe assigned btrotta-bom and unassigned bayliffe Feb 17, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
MO review required PRs opened by non-Met Office developers that require a Met Office review
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants