# Solving problem of \`uq\_print\_uq\_inversion.m\` on dealing with quantiles if the situation is very simple **URL:** \ **Category:** Feature Requests\ **Tags:** inversion\ **Created:** [December 10, 2020, 5:02pm UTC](https://uqworld.org/t/solving-problem-of-uq-print-uq-inversion-m-on-dealing-with-quantiles-if-the-situation-is-very-simple/967 "2020-12-10T17:02:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 2\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![olaf.klein](https://uqworld.org/user_avatar/uqworld.org/olaf.klein/32/468_2.png) [@olaf.klein](https://uqworld.org/u/olaf.klein)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2020, 5:02pm UTC](https://uqworld.org/t/solving-problem-of-uq-print-uq-inversion-m-on-dealing-with-quantiles-if-the-situation-is-very-simple/967/1 "2020-12-10T17:02:35Z")
Dear @paulremo, dear all, it seems that I observed a further **well-hidden bug** , i.e. a bug that only shows up if only one parameter is unknown and also the error distribution is given. In this situation, in the report generated by `uq_print_uq_inversion.m` the value for the 0.05 Quantile is also printed as value for the 0.95 Quantile, see the output [SCR\_BI\_to\_2261\_to\_send-out.zip](https://uqworld.org/uploads/short-url/aNr47CDkUEH8J373T4Xtc6ogPOX.zip) (2.0 KB) of [SCR\_BI\_to\_2261\_to\_send.m](https://uqworld.org/uploads/short-url/t1olh9SoVRAH9ghFJ2Wgd5zpKyH.m) (1.8 KB) . According to my investigations, it seems that this incorrect output is created from the line 166 in `uq_print_uq_inversion.m`. There it is excepted that `percentiles(1,mm)` is the value for for the 0.05 Quantile for the mm-th unkown parameter/Error and `percentiles(2,mm)` is the value for the corresponding 0.95 Quantile., which seems to satisfied in most situations, but not in the simple one under considerations. Since `percentiles` is copied from `module.Results.PostProc.Percentiles.Values` in `uq_print_uq_inversion.m` the corresponding field is printed in my test file, showing that in the special situation that there **is only one unknown parameter** and **no unknown error size** it holds that one can find the value for the 0.95 Quantile in `module.Results.PostProc.Percentiles.Values (1,2)` and **not in** `module.Results.PostProc.Percentiles.Values (2,1)` as expected somehow by `uq_print_uq_inversion.m.` The content of `module.Results.PostProc.Percentiles.Values` is copied in `uq_postProcessInversion.m` from `percentiles` containing the output of `uq_inversion_percentiles(Sample3D, perc_probabilities)`, which is an output of the matlab funtion `quantile`. So, I suggest that somewhere during one of this coping of data processes it should be to checked if one is in the spacial situation that the (copied) output of `quantile` is a (1,2) field and to create then a copy that is the transposed (2,1) field, such that the report generated by `uq_print_uq_inversion.m` is also correct in simple situations. To decide where this should be done requires some more knowledge on the UQLab programming style then I have. Greetings Olaf ---
**Author:** ![paulremo](https://uqworld.org/user_avatar/uqworld.org/paulremo/32/192_2.png) [@paulremo](https://uqworld.org/u/paulremo)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2020, 10:56pm UTC](https://uqworld.org/t/solving-problem-of-uq-print-uq-inversion-m-on-dealing-with-quantiles-if-the-situation-is-very-simple/967/2 "2020-12-10T22:56:24Z")
Hi @olaf.klein Thanks for finding this well-hidden bug. As you correctly point out, the root of the problem is inside the `uq_inversion_percentiles` function. It can also be traced to the defaults for the percentiles that are specified inside `uq_postProcessInversion` as a row vector, when they should be a column vector. To fix this bug, I changed the default and added an input check to `uq_inversion_percentiles` to convert the `probabilities` input to a column vector, if passed as a row vector. Thanks again for catching this!