On 8/9/24 15:09, Melanie Plageman wrote: > > ... > > Okay, so as I think about evaluating a few new algorithms, I realize > that we do need some sort of criteria. I started listing out what I > feel is "reasonable" accuracy and plotting it to see if the > relationship is linear/exponential/etc. I think it would help to get > input on what would be "reasonable" accuracy. > > I thought that the following might be acceptable: > The first column is how old the value I am looking for actually is, > the second column is how off I am willing to have the algorithm tell > me it is (+/-): > > 1 second, 1 minute > 1 minute, 10 minute > 1 hour, 1 hour > 1 day, 6 hours > 1 week, 12 hours > 1 month, 1 day > 6 months, 1 week >
I think the question is whether we want to make this useful for other places and/or people, or if it's fine to tailor this specifically for the freezing patch. If the latter (specific to the freezing patch), I don't see why would it matter what we think - either it works for the patch, or not. But if we want to make it more widely useful, I find it a bit strange the relative accuracy *increases* for older data. I mean, we start with relative error 6000% (60s/1s) and then we get to relative error ~4% (1w/24w). Isn't that a bit against the earlier discussion on needing better accuracy for recent data? Sure, the absolute accuracy is still better (1m <<< 1w). And if this is good enough for the freezing ... > Column 1 over column 2 produces a line like in the attached pic. I'd > be interested in others' opinions of error tolerance. > > - Melanie I don't understand what the axes on the chart are :-( Does "A over B" mean A is x-axis or y-axis? -- Tomas Vondra
