Updating and improving the statistical capabilities in Scipy
Hi, I apologize in advance if this is the wrong approach. All this talk has inspired me to do something about developing the statistics of Scipy. We need to develop a strategy to improve the statistical functions within Scipy. A central requirement is a sort of code review to ensure that the existing functions have adequately documentation (see also the Scipy documentation Marathon http://www.scipy.org/Developer_Zone/DocMarathon2008) and have appropriate tests for functionality and accuracy. Basically I strongly believe that we must carefully use a slow divide-and-conqueror approach to succeed simply due to the scope involved. I would be extremely interested in what people would like to see so that we can develop specific goals and action plans to update and improve them. I consider at the least the following major areas currently present in Scipy that I am aware of: 1) Statistical distributions: Josef has vastly improved this. 2) Uni- and multi-variate kernel density estimation - currently Gaussian only available. 3) Basic statistical functions - available for standard and masked arrays but it is inconsistent. 4) Model fitting aspects that integrates different code within Scipy (including Jonathan Taylor's model class - which is really impressive and the Cookbook ols) to provide important functionality including general linear models, generalized linear models, and generalized additive models. I would suggest that we develop some type of PEP structure as starting point for discussion as well as using different threads to address different areas as well as future directions. Therefore I have put together something to address the basic statistical functions in a separate thread. Thanks Bruce
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 04:02:44PM -0600, Bruce Southey wrote:
I would suggest that we develop some type of PEP structure as starting point for discussion as well as using different threads to address different areas as well as future directions.
My 2 cents: Find a place that seems important to you, and that you believe you can fix or improve, and do what you believe is right, and propose patches or discussions around this patches. The reason I say this is that I noticed that I was thrilled by your e-mail, and immediately caring on moving it outside of my mailbox without replying to it. We are a bunch of busy folks, and you might not get anywhere with large-scope discussions, although people are enthousiastic about your ideas. :( Gaƫl
participants (2)
-
Bruce Southey
-
Gael Varoquaux