-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 190
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Proposal to implement a sorting_analyzer.merge_units() syntax #3043
Conversation
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
…o meta_merging_sc2
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
Some questions remain. When we do a merge, do we want to add the possibility to remove spikes that would violate some refractory period? If this, this might make evertyhing a bit more complicated. Also, for some extensions (such as template, unit_locations) I made the choice to use the mean average merges, but this could be discussed. For the template_similarity merge, should we recompute, or just take a sliced value? Minor details that need to be discussed |
Perfect thanks @yger. |
the spike_indices was fuzzy between global and local indices and use diffently
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
Thanks for the tests! Actually I made something very similar, but @samuelgarcia told me not to push anything so I was waiting for his green light.... But it will barely be ready for the release |
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
@samuelgarcia curation docs updated! Ready to merge on my end |
This is WIP, and it can be discussed, but the goal of this PR is to implement a sorting_analyzer.merge_units() call that will work as the select_units() one.
Currently, this is only working for some extension, but i'll finish all of them while the PR remains in draft mode. This could be super useful for the GUI and/or for meta merging at the end, since ideally we want to be able to merge units with as few recomputations as possible, given all the precomputed extensions of a sorting_analyzer.
Currently, merges should be given as dict {unit_id : list_unit_ids_to_be_merged}, but this could be disscussed. In this current view, templates are then given as means of merged templates, and i'll do the same for positions. Cross-Corr can only be recomputed for the merged units, ...
In all these functions, no censor period is applied, but after discussing with @alejoe91 it was noted that maybe this would be worth considering. Let's discuss that @samuelgarcia @alejoe91