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

Numerical errors when calculating SD? #225

Closed
EmileSonneveld opened this issue Nov 8, 2023 · 5 comments · Fixed by #245
Closed

Numerical errors when calculating SD? #225

EmileSonneveld opened this issue Nov 8, 2023 · 5 comments · Fixed by #245
Assignees
Labels
bug Something isn't working

Comments

@EmileSonneveld
Copy link
Contributor

Looks like some floating point errors, or integer overflow.

.aggregate_temporal(intervals=temporal_extent, labels=[temporal_extent[0]], reducer="sd", dimension="t")

job_id: j-23110872a30f419fb4ace82d03c2cbc8
image
image

@soxofaan
Copy link
Member

soxofaan commented Nov 9, 2023

as discussed: check if doing (cube * 1.0).aggregate_temporal(... instead of cube.aggregate_temporal(... can be used as workaround

@EmileSonneveld
Copy link
Contributor Author

That indeed works. Recalculation here:
image

I still feel this might be a nice thing to fix, as the result values are around the same range as the original values and the result may be of the same cellType

@soxofaan
Copy link
Member

soxofaan commented Nov 9, 2023

sure, this has to be fixed, but the good thing is that there is a simple workaround for now

@jdries
Copy link
Contributor

jdries commented Dec 14, 2023

may be fixed as side effect of other celltype issues

@jdries
Copy link
Contributor

jdries commented Feb 1, 2024

@EmileSonneveld should be fixed on dev instances. Please try again and reopen if necessary.

@jdries jdries closed this as completed Feb 1, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants