Skip to content

112: add numerical tolerance options#116

Open
danielinteractive wants to merge 5 commits into
mainfrom
112_numerical_tolerance
Open

112: add numerical tolerance options#116
danielinteractive wants to merge 5 commits into
mainfrom
112_numerical_tolerance

Conversation

@danielinteractive

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

closes #112

@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Jul 4, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

badge

Code Coverage Summary

Filename                     Stmts    Miss  Cover    Missing
-------------------------  -------  ------  -------  ------------
R/bias.R                        34       0  100.00%
R/find_data.R                    3       0  100.00%
R/predict_couterfactual.R       77       0  100.00%
R/prediction_cf.R               22       0  100.00%
R/robin_glm.R                   49       1  97.96%   40
R/robin_lm.R                    28       0  100.00%
R/surv_effect.R                 67       0  100.00%
R/survival_cov_adj.R           146       0  100.00%
R/survival_score.R             294       0  100.00%
R/survival.R                   345       1  99.71%   603
R/treatment_effect.R           101       1  99.01%   51
R/utils.R                      204       3  98.53%   83, 115, 119
R/variance_anhecova.R           44       0  100.00%
R/variance_hc.R                 10       0  100.00%
TOTAL                         1424       6  99.58%

Diff against main

Filename        Stmts    Miss  Cover
------------  -------  ------  -------
R/survival.R      +28       0  +0.03%
TOTAL             +28       0  +0.01%

Results for commit: acbf242

Minimum allowed coverage is 80%

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results

@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Jul 4, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Unit Tests Summary

  1 files   13 suites   9s ⏱️
142 tests  96 ✅ 46 💤 0 ❌
348 runs  284 ✅ 64 💤 0 ❌

Results for commit acbf242.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Jul 4, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Unit Test Performance Difference

Test Suite $Status$ Time on main $±Time$ $±Tests$ $±Skipped$ $±Failures$ $±Errors$
survival 💚 $7.94$ $-1.99$ $+7$ $0$ $0$ $0$
Additional test case details
Test Suite $Status$ Time on main $±Time$ Test Case
survival 👶 $+0.02$ h_log_hr_est_via_score_passes_control_to_uniroot
survival 👶 $+0.21$ robin_surv_gives_the_same_estimate_as_coxph
survival 👶 $+0.02$ surv_control_works_as_expected

Results for commit bb55a97

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.


Estimate Std.Err Z Value Pr(>|z|)
Male v.s. Female 0.53343 0.16727 3.189 0.001428 **
Male v.s. Female 0.53037 0.16718 3.1724 0.001512 **

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@danielinteractive may I ask why changing the control will lead to such difference?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Before the control epsilon for the uniroot was too large, therefore we did not find the actual root of the score function, i.e. the HR estimate was not really correct.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Numerical difference between robin_surv() and coxph() results

2 participants