[ENH] Add fastSRM functionality #70
Conversation
|
Opened hugorichard/FastSRM#6 for fastSRM package deprecations ! |
|
LMK when you want a review. |
|
@bthirion I think this is now ready ! I've kept the existing PR mostly as-is (just dealing with build and deprecation issues), so would be good to go over it. Will also review myself ! |
|
@thomasbazeille I'm guessing you don't have time / interest to review, but your input is also always welcome ! 🤗 |
fmralign/piecewise.py
Outdated
|
|
||
| reshaped_aligned = | ||
|
|
||
| !!!Not implemented for n_bags>1 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we worry about that ? Issue a warning ?
fmralign/piecewise.py
Outdated
|
|
||
| Parameters | ||
| ---------- | ||
| X_i: ndarray |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The docstring does not march the signature here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks like this was pulled from the existing fit_one_piece, which is maybe another plus for integrating it there. Noting that we'll also need to handle Identity differently or we'll have overloaded params.
fmralign/piecewise.py
Outdated
|
|
||
| def fit_one_parcellation( | ||
| X_list, | ||
| srm, |
fmralign/piecewise.py
Outdated
|
|
||
| def __init__( | ||
| self, | ||
| srm, |
I believe these can only be used with SRM, since SRM is a group-level method so we have to handle training data differently. There is already a fit_one_piece method and (non-overlapping, but similarly named) generate_Xi_Yi functions in One option is to add another |
|
@bthirion I've gone through and patched up the obviously outdated docstrings ; I'm thinking to leave the reorg to another PR, though, just to get the initial code in. WDYT ? |
emdupre
force-pushed
the
main
branch
2 times, most recently
from
cc75363
to
0e1ce05
Compare
|
OK, I'm worried that this is now blocking #74 (as we patch dependencies for both nilearn and fastsrm here), so I'd like to get this merged in. Similar to the discussion there, this has SRM in a standalone module. Please let me know, @bthirion and @denisfouchard, if you have any concerns with merging this ! If I don't hear otherwise, I'll plan to merge early next week. |
|
LGTM. @denisfouchard please voice your opinion. |
|
No problems, as SRM is independent from my work. I presume that FastSRM being a more "reputable" package it is ok to keep it standalone. How about fugw btw ? Would it be nice to integrate it to compare to basic OT method ? Maybe @alexisthual ? |
|
Thanks, both ! I'm going to go ahead and merge this then, but I opened a new issue with your comment re : fugw so it's not lost ! We can continue the discussion there 🙂 |
Supersedes #50