Improved docstring and added examples for Development class

[kennethshsu]

Summary of Changes

Improved doctoring documentation, added a section on the order of drop operations, and added some examples

Related GitHub Issue(s)

#704

Additional Context for Reviewers

N/A

• I passed tests locally for both code (uv run pytest) and documentation changes (uv run jb build docs --builder=custom --custom-builder=doctest)

---

Note

Low Risk
Documentation-only changes to Development (docstring text and doctest-style examples) with no runtime behavior modifications.

Overview
Improves the Development class docstring by clarifying average/drop-related parameter descriptions and explicitly documenting the order of operations when multiple drop options are combined (including how preserve affects exclusions).

Adds doctest-style examples demonstrating link ratio inspection and several common pattern-selection workflows (drop by cell, drop_above thresholds, combined drop_above/drop_below with preserve, and comparing average methods).

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 2763b68. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.}

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 86.94%. Comparing base (e76d85d) to head (2763b68).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #834   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   86.94%   86.94%           
=======================================
  Files          86       86           
  Lines        4994     4994           
  Branches      644      644           
=======================================
  Hits         4342     4342           
  Misses        462      462           
  Partials      190      190           

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	86.94% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[henrydingliu]

it's difficult to appreciate these examples by examining the estimate ldf_. it would be more instructive to also show the age_to_age off the transformed triangle following this example.

ethan also has an outstanding PR that he's been working on. you'll likely have some merge conflicts.

[kennethshsu]

Let me add in the LDFs I think that's a good idea.

@EKtheSage can you respond to the PRs you submitted, I don't think you are working on the development class and my has the newer stuff that was just merged.

[henrydingliu]

i see the original ata factors, but not the transformed ata factors.

[kennethshsu]

The Development class currently doesn't return any transformed age-to-age triangle as an attribute, but it actually goes one step further and actually estimate the LDFs and CDFs.

If you think there's value is seeing the transformed age-to-age triangles we will need to implement it, but I'm not sure that should sit in the Development class because Development() is an LDF/CDF estimator. We could probably do the weights or something? This is because we want follow SKLearn's implementation where model and data are supposed to be separated.

If we want the .fit() to return another attribute called weights we can make another ticket and I can try to work on that.

[henrydingliu]

this example is for the Development class itself? so a transformed triangle should be within scope.

my original point was just that showing the ldf_ doesn't intuitively demonstrate what the drop parameter is doing. but showing the transformed link ratios does.

[kennethshsu]

That's my point. The current implantation doesn't show the transformed triangle.

Maybe I'm not following you. What code do you want to show in the docstring?

[henrydingliu]

something like cl.Development().fit_transform(tri).link_ratio. basically this.