Grouped-sum absence rules are implemented twice (CSRStore._from_scatter and CSRStore.aggregate)

オープン
  • 何か問題がありますか？
#1,124 コメント 0 件 リアクション 0 件 担当者 0 名 GitHub で見る

メンテナーはふだん 1 日以内に返信

まだ誰も着手していません。

評価

難易度
4/5
見積もり時間
3〜5日
初心者へのやさしさ
25/100
issue の種類
リファクタリング
明瞭さ
おおむね明確
活発さ
活発
技術スタック
python
領域
backend

調査の方向性

The two grouped-sum kernels are CSRStore._from_scatter and CSRStore.aggregate in linopy/csr.py, reached through from_grouper, and CSRStore.from_coo is a third presence rule. Start by reading convention.rst §13 and comparing how each kernel derives presence and the constant. The lower-effort path is a conformance test that runs groupby().sum() through both kernels over the listed absence cases and asserts identical stores. Refactoring _from_scatter onto aggregate is design work and should be agreed with maintainers first.

索引モデルが issue の本文から書いたものです。

説明

[!NOTE]
The following content was generated by AI.

CSRStore has two kernels that compute a grouped sum, and each one implements the absence rules (convention.rst §13) on its own:

  • CSRStore._from_scatter (linopy/csr.py, used by from_grouper for dense sources) scatters the dataset's terms into cells. It drops -1 / NaN terms, then derives presence and the constant itself: const[cell_rows] = 0.0 + np.add.at(...), with a skipna switch.
  • CSRStore.aggregate (linopy/csr.py, used by from_grouper for CSR sources and by DenseStore.aggregate via as_sparse(...).aggregate(...).to_dense()) regroups CSR rows. It derives presence from the row bounds (const[np.diff(bounds) == 0] = np.nan) and always skips NaN constants.

Today both agree on every case we probed: cells nothing lands in are absent, cells whose members are all absent are present with constant 0, and NaN constants are skipped. But the rules live in two places. A change to one won't reach the other, and dense and sparse groupby().sum() could start to diverge silently. This came up in the review of #1122, where a third copy of the presence rule (CSRStore.from_coo) had already drifted: cells reached only through masked labels came out absent instead of zero.

Possible directions

  • Express _from_scatter as "build one CSR row per member, then aggregate", so presence and constant handling live in aggregate alone. The skipna=False case would remain a small post-step on the constant.
  • Or, at minimum, add a conformance test that runs groupby().sum() through both kernels over a table of absence cases (unaddressed cell, all-masked members, NaN member constants, explicit zero coefficients, duplicates) and asserts identical stores.

Related observations, possibly separate

  • §13 says "a sum of none is the zero expression", but a multi-key cartesian groupby and reindex give absent cells, while @ / .sum() give zero. The convention docs should say which rule applies where.
  • At the constraint layer, a present row with no live terms is silently dropped (active_row_mask, constraints.py). An all-masked 0 == 1 therefore disappears instead of making the model infeasible, and the solver can't tell absent from zero.

Generated by Claude Code

主要言語
Python
スター
263
フォーク
93
平均マージ
1日 10時間
マージ済み PR（30日）
68

環境構築

はじめの一歩

  1. issue を最後まで読み、次にプロジェクトのコントリビューションガイドを読みます。
  2. 着手することを issue にコメントします — 二人が同じ作業をするのを防げます。
  3. リポジトリをフォークし、ブランチを切って変更します。
  4. issue 番号を参照したプルリクエストを送ります。

PyPSA/linopy のほかの issue

PyPSA/linopy の issue をすべて見る

似ている issue

Python の issue をもっと見る

新しい issue をメールで受け取る

初心者向けの GitHub issue を短くまとめたダイジェスト。