-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
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
Shuffling labels and coordinates #136
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
@naveedishaque what do you think regarding the structure? |
@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@ | |||
channels: | |||
- conda-forge | |||
- defaults |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would remove defaults. Shouldn't be needed here
@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@ | |||
channels: | |||
- conda-forge | |||
- defaults |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would remove defaults. Shouldn't be needed here
} | ||
|
||
# Randomize labels | ||
df_randomized <- data.frame(label = sample(df$label)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We might have an additional colum, in this dataframe that splits the label into high and low confidence. Should that be shuffled too?
@naveedishaque
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think you mean "if we shuffle the label
we should also shuffle the confidence
"?
My feeling is to keep a low confidence spot as a low confidence spot even after label shuffling.
Does that make sense?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, good point. In that case the code still needs to be adjusted to keep the additional columns untouched. Make sure only the labels are shuffled and the rownames still match all the other existing columns
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sounds good. I'll add the changes :)
They should be separate |
We need to figure out how to make use of it i.e. how tpo connect this to the metrics and trace back that it is a simulation. I think this probably requires a bit more thought on the workflow side. Also wondering if we need a separate folder for simulations @naveedishaque |
Implementation of shuffling labels (closes issue #80) and shuffling coordinates (closes issue #79).
Notes