-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 189
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
Strange number in a variogram function #119
Comments
Looks like there are several variants for the exponential variogram model. In particular,
so it should be fine. |
Thanks for the answer. I agree the number won't affect the fitting performance. But I'd suggest to remove |
I was thinking about bringing the models of PyKrige in line with the ones from GSTools. There the length scale in the exponential model coincides with its integral scale. |
We could also introduce a scaling factor, that is fixed (not estimated during the variogram fitting).
Since the len_scale in the model doesn't need to coincide with other scales (like integral scale or a precentile scale), the scaling factor could help, to rescale the len_scale to a meaningful range. In the mentioned case above, the scaling factor would be |
This is solved in GSTools with the introduction of the |
Dear authors,
I was looking for the python open source of Kriging to solve my works. Feel lucky to find this convenience and clean package. However, I found a small strange number (parameter) with
3.
in the exponential function of the line 58.Actually it doesn't affect the fitting performance, but the scale of the range may cause misunderstanding. Not sure if it is because of the unit from feet to meter or miss-assignment. I know this is A small issue, I am just curiosity about it.
Many thanks,
Jui-Fa
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: