An estimated parameter is silently dropped from the simulation mapping when the model cannot give it a value
I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 1 giorno
Nessuno ha ancora preso questa issue.
Valutazione
- Difficoltà
- 4/5
- Tempo stimato
- 3-5 giorni
- Idoneità per principianti
- 48/100
Direzione di ricerca
Start at get_optimization_to_simulation_parameter_mapping and _apply_parameter_table, then inspect lint_problem and the minimal example in the issue. Compare the mapping and lint output for k_derived; the work is done when an estimated parameter the model cannot provide is no longer silently ignored and the chosen handling is verified for the reported case.
Scritto dal modello di indicizzazione a partire dal testo della issue.
Descrizione
A parameter that the model class leaves out of get_free_parameter_ids_with_values() is dropped from the simulation mapping even when the parameter table says to estimate it. The optimizer varies it, the simulator never sees it, and nothing reports a problem.
This is the silent sibling of #519, which covers the same root cause reached through the condition table, where it crashes instead.
What happens
get_optimization_to_simulation_parameter_mapping seeds the mapping from the model:
simulation_parameters = dict(model.get_free_parameter_ids_with_values())
_apply_parameter_table then walks the parameter table and skips any row that is not already in that mapping:
for row in parameter_df.itertuples():
if row.Index not in par_mapping:
# The current parameter is not required for this condition
continue
For a parameter whose initial assignment cannot be reduced to a number, the seeding step leaves it out, so the skip treats an estimated parameter as one this condition does not need.
Minimal example, on 0.9.0 and on current main:
import pandas as pd
import petab.v1 as petab
from petab.v1.models.sbml_model import SbmlModel
C = petab.C
problem = petab.Problem()
problem.model = SbmlModel.from_antimony(
"k_base = 1.5; k_derived = k_base + 1; conc = 1; conc' = -k_derived * conc;"
)
problem.condition_df = pd.DataFrame(
index=pd.Index(["condition1"], name=C.CONDITION_ID)
)
problem.observable_df = pd.DataFrame(
{C.OBSERVABLE_FORMULA: ["conc"], C.NOISE_FORMULA: [1.0]},
index=pd.Index(["obs_conc"], name=C.OBSERVABLE_ID),
)
problem.measurement_df = pd.DataFrame({
C.OBSERVABLE_ID: ["obs_conc"],
C.SIMULATION_CONDITION_ID: ["condition1"],
C.TIME: [1.0],
C.MEASUREMENT: [0.5],
})
problem.parameter_df = pd.DataFrame(
{
C.PARAMETER_SCALE: [C.LIN, C.LIN],
C.LOWER_BOUND: [0.1, 0.1],
C.UPPER_BOUND: [10.0, 10.0],
C.NOMINAL_VALUE: [1.5, 2.5],
C.ESTIMATE: [1, 1],
},
index=pd.Index(["k_base", "k_derived"], name=C.PARAMETER_ID),
)
print(dict(problem.model.get_free_parameter_ids_with_values()))
print(problem.x_ids)
print(problem.get_optimization_to_simulation_parameter_mapping()[0][1])
print(petab.lint_problem(problem))
Output:
{'k_base': 1.5}
['k_base', 'k_derived']
{'k_base': 'k_base'}
False
So k_derived is optimized and has no effect on the objective. lint_problem returns no error and no warning is raised.
Why it matters
An optimizer told to estimate a parameter that cannot change the simulation will still move it, so the fit reports a value for k_derived that means nothing, and the parameter's bounds and prior are silently ignored. The larger the fraction of the model that is written with initial assignments, the more of the parameter table disappears this way. Unlike #519 there is nothing to notice: no exception, no log line, no lint failure.
This is not specific to SBML. BioNetGen models have the same shape, where a parameter may be defined by an expression over other parameters, and that is where I came across it while working on #517.
Possible directions
The full answer is presumably #518, where the model exposes the expression so it can be evaluated after the parameter table is applied. Short of that, the silence seems worth fixing on its own. Either the mapping keeps a parameter-table row the model did not report, so a consumer can see it, or lint fails when a parameter marked for estimation is one the model cannot accept a value for. The second is small and would turn a wrong fit into a clear error message.
Reported from petab 0.9.0 and from main at 847b16f.
- Lingua principale
- Python
- Stelle
- 18
- Fork
- 9
- Merge medio
- 1g 8h
- PR unite (30g)
- 21
Preparare l'ambiente
- Nessun Dockerfile né file Docker Compose
- Nessun modello di pull request
- Leggi la guida per i contributori
Come iniziare
- Leggi tutta la issue e poi la guida ai contributi del progetto.
- Commenta sulla issue per dire che te ne occupi tu — evita che due persone facciano lo stesso lavoro.
- Fai un fork del repository e lavora su un branch.
- Apri una pull request che faccia riferimento al numero della issue.
Altre issue di PEtab-dev/libpetab-python
-
Difficoltà 2/5 1-3 ore Idoneità per principianti 82/100
PEtab-dev/libpetab-python#568 ·
I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 1 giorno
-
`petab_files_1to2` keeps a stale model file when converting into a non-empty output directoryAperta
Difficoltà 2/5 1-3 ore Idoneità per principianti 73/100
PEtab-dev/libpetab-python#566 ·
I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 1 giorno
-
Difficoltà 2/5 1-3 ore Idoneità per principianti 72/100
PEtab-dev/libpetab-python#549 ·
I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 1 giorno
-
Difficoltà 2/5 1-3 ore Idoneità per principianti 72/100
PEtab-dev/libpetab-python#525 ·
I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 1 giorno
-
Deprecation warnings with pandas 3.1 (`inplace`, `read_csv(float_precision=...)`)Forse già presa @dweindl l’ha presa 1 giorno fa. Aperta
PEtab-dev/libpetab-python#570 · 1 assegnatario ·
I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 1 giorno
Tutte le issue di PEtab-dev/libpetab-python
Issue simili
-
Difficoltà 2/5 1-3 ore Idoneità per principianti 82/100
I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 1 giorno
-
enhancement good first issue
Difficoltà 2/5 1-3 ore Idoneità per principianti 76/100
I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 1 giorno
-
Difficoltà 2/5 1-3 ore Idoneità per principianti 75/100
iceboundrock/AutoForge#304 ·
I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 1 giorno
-
enhancement
Difficoltà 2/5 1-3 ore Idoneità per principianti 72/100
fossasia/visdom-dev#77 ·
I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 4 giorni
-
Difficoltà 2/5 1-3 ore Idoneità per principianti 82/100
aws-cloudformation/cfn-lint#4890 ·
I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 2 giorni