-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
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
350 pairing extra feats #352
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention:
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #352 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 90.48% 90.73% +0.25%
==========================================
Files 29 29
Lines 904 950 +46
==========================================
+ Hits 818 862 +44
- Misses 86 88 +2 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Distances are easily recovereable from the data Distances are easily recovereable from the data
@danielmwatkins Below is what the output data structure is looking like after the matching criteria is addee. All units for lengths and areas are in km and sq. km, respectively; orientation is in radians. 6×14 DataFrame
The other 'goodness of fit' metrics are being excluded from the output as they can be easily computed from the inputs. I was thinking that the same is true for centroid distances (thus not included above). Should they? Any further thoughts? Thanks! |
Yes, along-track distance is easily calculated from the other columns. I
think Float64 makes sense for area_under and corr as well, since we want to
be able to have NaN for the last timestamp in a trajectory. For clarity, I
wonder if we should make the names "area_under" and "corr" more
descriptive. The column as listed is actual 1 - correlation, is it not? If
so, we should convert it to correlation (so the first row would be ~0.99
instead of 0.01) since in the Lopez-Acosta paper psi-s correlation is
described with large values being a better match. For area_under, that's
the total area of mismatch isn't it? Like, a 0 means that after rotation,
the floes line up perfectly? If so, instead of calling it "area_under" we
could call it "area_mismatch". Thoughts?
…On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 11:38 AM Carlos Paniagua ***@***.***> wrote:
@danielmwatkins <https://github.com/danielmwatkins> Below is what the
output data structure is looking like after the matching criteria is addee.
All units for lengths and areas are in km and sq. km, respectively;
orientation is in radians. area_under (as named in the Matlab script) is
the registration "floe mismatch" (sometimes clamped to 0 if a certain
threshold is met); corr is the psi-s correlation. They are computed
between the floes in the current row and the next. Note that these values
are missing for the last floe in each group ID.
6×14 DataFrame
RowIDpasstimeareaconvex_areamajor_axis_lengthminor_axis_lengthorientation
perimeterlatitudelongitudexyarea_undercorr
Int64DateTimeFloat64Float64Float64Float64Float64Float64Float64Float64
Float64Float64Float64?Float64?
1 1 2022-09-14T12:44:49 31.7219 41.7497 8.85311 6.227 0.607172 28.5445
66.4384 -173.71 1.20753e6 -1.68165e6 0.0 0.0102782
2 1 2022-09-14T13:59:19 27.3962 37.3585 8.36951 6.02703 0.566405 27.3084
70.5095 -153.641 1.20779e6 -1.68216e6 0.0 0.0104143
3 1 2022-09-15T12:44:49 31.7219 41.7497 8.48116 6.45538 0.479664 28.7566
71.483 -131.167 1.20574e6 -1.68088e6 missing missing
4 2 2022-09-14T12:44:49 84.6792 101.523 20.8234 5.61064 -0.316888 48.9224
66.5149 -173.725 1.19448e6 -1.67628e6 0.0 0.00823861
5 2 2022-09-14T13:59:19 77.0764 94.5103 20.5266 5.27752 -0.340923 47.8983
71.4251 -127.612 1.19499e6 -1.67704e6 0.0 0.0126095
6 2 2022-09-15T12:44:49 84.6136 102.441 21.0872 5.65186 -0.358114 49.4344
71.5446 -131.022 1.19268e6 -1.67576e6 missing missing
The other 'goodness of fit' metrics are being excluded from the output as
they can be easily computed from the inputs. I was thinking that the same
is true for centroid distances (thus not included above). Should they? Any
further thoughts? Thanks!
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#352 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AB6TAULEIGQMRQGQZXNNYQLYDEG7FAVCNFSM6AAAAAA65H5HPGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTOOJVGQYTGNRWHA>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
@danielmwatkins |
# rename uuid to ID | ||
rename!(propsvert, :uuid => :ID) | ||
# sort by uuid_0, passtime and keep unique rows | ||
_pairs = DataFrames.sort!(_pairs, [:uuid_0, :passtime]) |> unique |
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.
Nice! That's a great way to just get rid of the extra rows
@@ -497,3 +497,58 @@ function addfloemasks!(props, imgs) | |||
end | |||
return nothing | |||
end | |||
|
|||
## LatLon functions originally from IFTPipeline.jl |
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.
Will it be removed from ice-floe-tracker-pipeline
? It looks like these were orginially in the h5.jl
script in that repo.
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.
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.
Looks good! Maybe just update the comment about where these functions were originally and log an issue for removing from the other repo.
Needs merging WilhelmusLab/IceFloeTracker.jl#352
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.
Looks good to me!
#350 #339