-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 202
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
Improve merging and iterative merging #3487
Conversation
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
merging_methods = ["circus", "auto_merges"] | ||
|
||
|
||
def create_sorting_analyzer_with_templates(sorting, recording, templates, remove_empty=True): |
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.
If this is a need we should have this function somewhere else
… into meta_merging
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
@yger can you fix the failing tests? |
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
… into meta_merging
I've changed sparsity_threshold to sparsity_overlap for consistency, and remove some changes related to clustering in SC2 and that will go in one other PR. Looks good to me and seems to work |
This branch depends on #3435 , and adds the possibility to benchmark only meta merging, i.e. the final steps of a sorting procedure. Such step is crucial in the context of drift-corrected recordings. Note that it will replace #2934 that will be closed, since now the code is easier to read, cleaner, and more in line with @samuelgarcia point of view. It can still be discussed however, to know if we should do a proper merging step for the sortingcomponents. I think we should, because several options could be tried and benchmark.
Functions to split by times and/or amplitudes have been rewritten without any dependencies, in a separate file as requested in #2934 (splitting_tools.py in generation)