[SciPy-Dev] Sensitivity analysis module proposal (Robert Kern)

[Ilhan Polat]

I am hesitant for exactly the points you raised. One is that once this goes
in it's in for a decade. So your bus factor is critical for us too because
who's going to maintain it if not you? We have some modules already in need
of love and care for which sometimes we feel they don't belong to scipy.
Moreover there's a lack of time and effort, in salibthis case would be also
expertise.

Second who is going to use this? I think it's far from a generic usage
topic. And SAlib already made a name for itself anyways so whoever is
benefiting from this finds the right place and we don't get requests for it
to much.

Adding to scipy seems like a compromise for both sides and hence lose-lose
to me for these reasons

On Thu, 2 Sep 2021, 21:30 William Usher, <wusher at kth.se> wrote:

> Hi Robert,
>
> Thanks for the response. You raise good points.
>
> Obviously, that you are interested in the proposal assuages some of that,
> but I'm still unclear on why you are interested in this. What is the
> benefit that you think everyone will get by absorbing SALib into scipy? It
> still looks to me like a mostly-lateral move that will merely be disruptive
> to your dependent projects more than anything else.
>
>
> The real value of SALib is in providing a consistent interface to a
> (large) suite of sensitivity analysis methods which allows users to easily
> switch between those methods.
>
> We (as maintainers) could benefit from reducing duplication of code and
> implementations, such has Sobol’ sequence generation, LHS, and could
> contribute some of the more general sample generation implementations where
> appropriate (many are linked directly to the SA implementations and not
> useful outside of that).  We think the scientific community as a whole
> would benefit from the greater exposure a SciPy implementation of SA would
> bring - as a large community-led effort - it could provide a neutral forum
> for further development of these methods. This would likely come at some
> “cost” to the successful “cottage industry” we’ve established and grown
> (SALib is getting lots of citations and use). I think a key argument
> against integration is that it may reduce the agility with which we can add
> new methods to our SA suite (although this could be mitigated with careful
> design).
>
> I think you raise an important point about our dependent projects, and
> particularly how we would continue to support legacy releases if developer
> resources were focussed on a SciPy integration?
>
> An attraction is the possibility of funding to support the development of
> SA within SciPy.  Like all open-source projects, we suffer from resourcing
> issues, and are predominantly volunteer-driven from the academic
> community.  And while we are technically a “multi-developer” community,
> we’re only a few bus accidents (or career changes) away from being a
> lone-maintainer.
>
> Will
>
> *From: *Robert Kern <robert.kern at gmail.com>
> *Subject: **Re: [SciPy-Dev] Sensitivity analysis module proposal*
> *Date: *2 September 2021 at 16:14:13 CEST
> *To: *SciPy Developers List <scipy-dev at python.org>
> *Cc: *Jon Herman <jdherman at ucdavis.edu>, Takuya Iwanaga <
> iwanaga.takuya at anu.edu.au>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 9:12 AM William Usher <wusher at kth.se> wrote:
>
>> Hi;
>>
>> I’m one of the maintainers of SALib <https://pypi.org/project/SALib/>, a
>> Python library which offers implementations of popular global sensitivity
>> analysis approaches including Sobol’, Morris, DMIM, DGSM, FAST and others.
>>
>> We’ve been approached <https://github.com/SALib/SALib/issues/463> by
>> roy.pamphile at gmail.com regarding the possibility of either
>>
>> - contributing the entire SALib library to SciPy, or
>> - contributing key functions from SALib to SciPy, keeping SALib as a
>> user-friendly wrapper around the SciPy implementations + extensions that
>> don’t fit within SciPy’s remit.
>>
>> We believe that this move could overall benefit the scientific and
>> sensitivity analysis communities.
>>
>
> I laid out my general rubric for considering absorbing functionality into
> scipy the last time this was brought up:
>
>   https://mail.python.org/pipermail/scipy-dev/2021-April/024715.html
>
> Obviously, that you are interested in the proposal assuages some of that,
> but I'm still unclear on why you are interested in this. What is the
> benefit that you think everyone will get by absorbing SALib into scipy? It
> still looks to me like a mostly-lateral move that will merely be disruptive
> to your dependent projects more than anything else.
>
> --
> Robert Kern
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SciPy-Dev mailing list
> SciPy-Dev at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SciPy-Dev mailing list
> SciPy-Dev at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.python.org/pipermail/scipy-dev/attachments/20210903/8f1cb200/attachment-0001.html>