You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I was hoping for functionality to the effect of 'automatically estimate box cox lambda parameter from available data'.
Note that this is very easy to do using scipy.stats.boxcox:
# df is some pandas dataframe that conforms to your format importscipy.stats.boxcoxasbcbox_cox_lambda_estimated_by_maximum_likelihood=bc(df['y'].values, None)[1]
I suggest this could be done within AutoARIMA, e.g. for a setting of blambda = -1:
AutoARIMA(blambda=-1)
Use case
The above is not easy to pass to the underlying AutoARIMA functionality (as each series would have it's own BoxCox parameter) without breaking parallelism (and potentially cross-validation; if I run boxcox on the whole of data, I cannot pass that to window based cv - I would have to redo the lambda estimation for each window to not leak information about the future).
Thus, this workflow would require a substantial sacrifice for a user to implement, which is why I would like you to consider supporting it (I am happy to supply the PR that implements this).
Thank you for consideration!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Description
Hello! Thanks for the nice package :)
I was hoping for functionality to the effect of 'automatically estimate box cox lambda parameter from available data'.
Note that this is very easy to do using scipy.stats.boxcox:
I suggest this could be done within AutoARIMA, e.g. for a setting of blambda = -1:
Use case
The above is not easy to pass to the underlying AutoARIMA functionality (as each series would have it's own BoxCox parameter) without breaking parallelism (and potentially cross-validation; if I run boxcox on the whole of data, I cannot pass that to window based cv - I would have to redo the lambda estimation for each window to not leak information about the future).
Thus, this workflow would require a substantial sacrifice for a user to implement, which is why I would like you to consider supporting it (I am happy to supply the PR that implements this).
Thank you for consideration!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: