-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12
v2: Clarify simulation file #632
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
Conversation
* Remove the simulation from the list of PEtab files, because it is not part of the parameter estimation problem. * Add a section under *measurement table* stating the expected column name. Closes #628.
Co-authored-by: Dilan Pathirana <[email protected]>
To be more useful, I think also the actual noise value should be part of that table, at least for those cases where |
This is a good point that especially can help with testing. If it is included I think it is should be included for all measurement points. |
Including the evaluated noise scale would require an additional column ( |
Yes, that would require an extra column, which I do not know if we want to have if the table should match the measurements table as closely as possible. Maybe easiest to not include it in the current iteration? |
I'd rather remove any mention of the simulation file then until we converged on what it should look like. I am not sure it's helpful if different tools have different expectations of what columns are present... |
I do not even know if most tools support outputting the noise, while due to the test-suite most tools should be able to output simulated values. So feels it should be fine to keep simulation as it is, and in future iterations add noise-column potentially? |
Okay, I'll add it as is for now. |
Closes #628.