You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
After some local improvements (#5482 is amazing), the optimistic/pessimistic estimates themselves are quite accurate and the next best improvement might be better blending/choosing between them rather than improving them in isolation.
It never made complete sense to blend two times based on graphs and arrive at a time that has nothing to do with the graph. I might prefer trying to predict which estimate is better optimistic/pessimistic and just go with it. If we could do this prediction with 100% accuracy, we could reduce error ~2-6% across the board.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
After some local improvements (#5482 is amazing), the optimistic/pessimistic estimates themselves are quite accurate and the next best improvement might be better blending/choosing between them rather than improving them in isolation.
It never made complete sense to blend two times based on graphs and arrive at a time that has nothing to do with the graph. I might prefer trying to predict which estimate is better optimistic/pessimistic and just go with it. If we could do this prediction with 100% accuracy, we could reduce error ~2-6% across the board.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: