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

Add support for time-varying ascertainment #792

Open
seabbs opened this issue Sep 24, 2024 · 6 comments
Open

Add support for time-varying ascertainment #792

seabbs opened this issue Sep 24, 2024 · 6 comments

Comments

@seabbs
Copy link
Contributor

seabbs commented Sep 24, 2024

As the title. On a single data source this could/would only be in the form of a user input but if any additional complexity (i.e. multiple data sources) it could be fit.

@seabbs
Copy link
Contributor Author

seabbs commented Sep 24, 2024

An example use case could be if you know the number of hospitals that are reporting and this varies with time.

@kgostic
Copy link

kgostic commented Sep 25, 2024

Would you just specify the change point and let the model infer the scaling factor? Or would it be more like you have to input some proxy for the time-varying ascertainment across the entire time period?

@seabbs
Copy link
Contributor Author

seabbs commented Sep 30, 2024

So I think you could do either and I think it would make sense to:

  1. Most general case as a feature (i.e its all priros that vary over time)
  2. Add a feature to make the fixed input special case
  3. Add a helper to do piecewise changes

Starting with 1. makes sense as this then naturally extends to the planned model with multiple time series support

@sbfnk
Copy link
Contributor

sbfnk commented Oct 2, 2024

In principle this could be supported as part of the proposed changes in #525 and #600 if ever going down those routes.

@seabbs
Copy link
Contributor Author

seabbs commented Oct 2, 2024

Yes agree. I was wondering about a easier version in the first instance though which could be supported right now with a special argument (for case 2.)

@sbfnk
Copy link
Contributor

sbfnk commented Oct 30, 2024

To be addressed following #547 with another column as discussed in #839.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants