[BUG] Fix Laplace energy_self calculation and docstring typos#720
Merged
fkiraly merged 2 commits intosktime:mainfrom Feb 13, 2026
Merged
[BUG] Fix Laplace energy_self calculation and docstring typos#720fkiraly merged 2 commits intosktime:mainfrom
fkiraly merged 2 commits intosktime:mainfrom
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Reference Issues/PRs
Fixes #719
What does this implement/fix? Explain your changes.
Bug fix in
Laplace._energy_self: The 1.5 multiplier for self-energy was incorrectly placed inside the array dimension check, causing scalar Laplace distributions to return wrong energy values. Moved the multiplier to apply unconditionally before the dimension check.Docstring convention fixes: Changed
Parameter→ParametersandReturn→Returnsto follow NumPy docstring conventions in:Input validation in
evaluate(): Added a check thatXandyhave the same length, providing a clear error message instead of cryptic failures downstream.Does your contribution introduce a new dependency? If yes, which one?
No.
What should a reviewer concentrate their feedback on?
Did you add any tests for the change?
No new tests added. Existing tests cover the fixed functionality.
PR checklist
bugandcodebadges