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

All distributions should have RNGs #21

Open
2 tasks
agarie opened this issue May 28, 2015 · 4 comments
Open
2 tasks

All distributions should have RNGs #21

agarie opened this issue May 28, 2015 · 4 comments

Comments

@agarie
Copy link
Member

agarie commented May 28, 2015

Some of the currently supported distribution don't have RNGs, e.g. Fisher-Snedecor and exponential.

  • Triage the code to see which distributions lack a RNG.
  • Prepare a plan to implementing them. Can we copy some implementation or should we roll our own? (this is actually quite easy for the ones we currently support)
@envp
Copy link
Member

envp commented Jan 16, 2016

Currently these are the distribution with an rng method (grep -rl def\ rng ./lib/distribution):

  • Chi-squared
  • Exponential
  • Logistic
  • Normal
  • Uniform

That leaves the following with no rng method defined:

  • Beta
  • Binomial
  • Bivariatenormal
  • F
  • Gamma
  • Hypergeometric
  • Lognormal
  • Normalmultivariate
  • Poisson
  • Student's T
  • Weibull

Let me know if I missed something.

@agarie
Copy link
Member Author

agarie commented Feb 1, 2016

@vaibhav-y that's very good. Can you update the table in the README.md file? Just send a PR with that and I'll merge it.

@envp
Copy link
Member

envp commented Feb 1, 2016

PR #34 added for README.

This PR doesn't consider changes uniform distribution since SciRuby/distribution hasn't merged it yet. I will rebase that PR and update the README there itself.

Edit:
Please don't close this PR yet, I intend to use this to track the implementations for the rng methods which seem to be the only outstanding things as of now (apart from gamma distribution's Inverse CDF)

@agarie
Copy link
Member Author

agarie commented Feb 1, 2016

That's fine. I'll merge #34 as soon as it passes Travis.

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants