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

Indent HEPML.tex, move Fast inference / deployment, and other fixes #123

Closed
wants to merge 8 commits into from

Conversation

jmduarte
Copy link
Contributor

@jmduarte jmduarte commented Nov 14, 2022

This PR proposes two main changes, and two needed fixes

  1. Automatically indent HEPML.tex using latexindent.pl pre-commit hook to make it more readable (also enforce it moving forward)
  2. Move Fast inference / deployment up one level (so it's no longer a subcategory under Classification, but its own category alongside it). I believe this is a sensible change because these techniques are quite general and have been used for regression, reconstruction, etc.
  3. I also fixed the missing second-tier headings (like Representations, Targets, etc.) in the README
  4. For convenience, I also cherry-picked @j824h's Hbb fix from fix: Properly select } in \textbf argument #113

By the way, this came up because I'm trying to make a nomological net of ML in particle physics concepts and I thought it would be nice to re-use these categories. See here: https://github.com/jmduarte/Nomological_Net_ML_Particle_Physics

@bnachman @matthewfeickert can you review? Thank you!

@jmduarte jmduarte changed the title Indent & move Fast inference / deployement Indent HEPML.tex, move Fast inference / deployment, and other fixes Nov 14, 2022
@jmduarte
Copy link
Contributor Author

I also just noticed @bnachman's issue: #60, which suggests to also move Representations into its own section as well. I'm happy to add that to this PR. (Should Targets be its own section too?)

@matthewfeickert
Copy link
Member

matthewfeickert commented Nov 15, 2022

Thanks for the PR! I'll review this tonight, but it is generally preferable to have PRs be as atomic as possible. This one combines multiple actions, so I might split this out and rebase it.

@ramonpeter
Copy link
Collaborator

@jmduarte
Is this PR still relevant? otherwise I will close it.
Thanks

@ramonpeter ramonpeter closed this Nov 6, 2024
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants