Add functions for PIT and LOO-PIT about posterior

[avehtari]

1. I think it fits here. It's still generic so that there is no dependency on where the draws come from, and if pit function would support draws objects it would be natural here. Yesterday @paul-buerkner also agreed initially
2. Makes sense
3. Makes sense

[paul-buerkner]

I think that PIT in posterior does make sense. Will we want to use it for other stuff than plotting though? If yes, than posterior is I think good. If we only ever want to use it for bayesplot, then perhaps also bayesplot could be a reasonable target(?)

[paul-buerkner]

Just to clarify, are we talking about the methods or the generic (or both)?

[avehtari]

• PIT values could be summarised with scalar diagnostic value, but the preferred way is graphics, but we may want to use other plots than what is available in bayesplot (which is what I was doing)
• 1. methods, 2. it would be nice if the method function could be called with any posterior draws object type

[paul-buerkner]

sounds like good arguments for posterior indeed. Aki Vehtari ***@***.***> schrieb am Fr., 19. Jan. 2024, 18:55:

…

- PIT values could be summarised with scalar diagnostic value, but the preferred way is graphics, but we may want to use other plots than what is available in bayesplot (which is what I was doing) - 1. methods, 2. it would be nice if the method function could be called with any posterior draws object type — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#338 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADCW2ABIJ65MBMUIWRKAWHDYPKQP5AVCNFSM6AAAAABCB7SLJ6VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTSMBQG43DCOJZGI> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[jgabry]

Sounds good to me too