Skip to content
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

Update all hardcoded numbers in the paper #170

Open
4 tasks done
jlperla opened this issue Aug 23, 2023 · 3 comments
Open
4 tasks done

Update all hardcoded numbers in the paper #170

jlperla opened this issue Aug 23, 2023 · 3 comments

Comments

@jlperla
Copy link
Member

jlperla commented Aug 23, 2023

  • Decide if you want to use the tex_constants. If not, then just get rid of any \mapvar{RBC_latent_state} etc. in the document. I will remove the package and macro when I edit it next
  • Update all hardcoded numbers such as the number of samples, the pseudotrue, etc. based on the code in generate_results and the constants for running the scripts in this repo
  • Verify anything which refers to qualitative results in the tables/figures to doublecheck that they are still correct (e.g., that signs didn't flip, that quality is described accurately, etc.)
  • See if there are any changes in formatting or bugs in the figures or tables and post issues for me if something needs to be changed.
@wupeifan
Copy link
Member

When David was editing the numbers in the intro part I see that he has been using \mapvar{}. Hence I'm going to follow the same approach at this point.

@wupeifan
Copy link
Member

wupeifan commented Aug 28, 2023

I've updated all the constants -- the number of variables, observations, states, etc -- accordingly in the csv file. What I haven't updated in the main text are mostly constants that are used only once, or model specific ones, or the numbers existing in the tables. In addition, I edited some qualitative and quantitative descriptions in the paper.

@wupeifan
Copy link
Member

Now I am pretty sure that there are no issues with the main texts. I passed the texts to David and asked him for another round of review, but my hunch is we are very close for the main texts.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants