Skip to content
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

[FIX] Sort comptable by varex before identifying outlier components #295

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 23, 2019

Conversation

tsalo
Copy link
Member

@tsalo tsalo commented May 23, 2019

Closes #176. While this does not clarify everything about this step (e.g., why it is run three times specifically, or why the outlier components are excluded when computing elbows but not when selecting components later), it does resolve the most pressing issue of explaining why the step exists.

This was originally part of #247, but has been split off because it is self-contained and should be merged separately.

Changes proposed in this pull request:

  • Sort component table when identifying ncls (components presumably without outlier variance explained) by descending variance explained. Before, the component table was sorted by descending Kappa values when identifying outliers. Per discussions with @handwerkerd, this was identified as a bug.

@tsalo
Copy link
Member Author

tsalo commented May 23, 2019

#261 was approved by @handwerkerd, so I'm going to merge this once it passes CI.

Copy link
Collaborator

@jbteves jbteves left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, the sorting is also much more explicit for future reference.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented May 23, 2019

Codecov Report

Merging #295 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 0%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@          Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #295   +/-   ##
======================================
  Coverage    49.1%   49.1%           
======================================
  Files          37      37           
  Lines        2122    2122           
======================================
  Hits         1042    1042           
  Misses       1080    1080
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
tedana/selection/tedica.py 24.8% <0%> (ø) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 1030a69...6345ecc. Read the comment docs.

1 similar comment
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented May 23, 2019

Codecov Report

Merging #295 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 0%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@          Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #295   +/-   ##
======================================
  Coverage    49.1%   49.1%           
======================================
  Files          37      37           
  Lines        2122    2122           
======================================
  Hits         1042    1042           
  Misses       1080    1080
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
tedana/selection/tedica.py 24.8% <0%> (ø) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 1030a69...6345ecc. Read the comment docs.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
breaking change WIll make a non-trivial change to outputs
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Determine rationale for for loop in Step 2 of selcomps (v2.5)
2 participants