Skip to content

Update ISC permutation doc to clarify pairwise groups#476

Merged
mihaic merged 7 commits into
brainiak:masterfrom
snastase:2samp-perm-doc
Sep 2, 2020
Merged

Update ISC permutation doc to clarify pairwise groups#476
mihaic merged 7 commits into
brainiak:masterfrom
snastase:2samp-perm-doc

Conversation

@snastase

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

This addresses the confusion with issue #449 (via @mcdoar9). The documentation was unclear on how to supply pairwise ISCs for two groups to the permutation test. The documentation is now updated to make it more clear that pairwise ISCs must be computed on both groups at once (such that between-group ISCs are included in the pairwise ISC matrix) prior to this ISC matrix being supplied to permutation_isc.

@snastase

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Oops accidentally created this branch off the isc-boot-fix branch at PR #475. Hopefully won't cause problems...?

@CameronTEllis

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Great, Tristan volunteered for this

@snastase snastase changed the title Update ISC permutation doc to clarity pairwise groups Update ISC permutation doc to clarify pairwise groups Aug 10, 2020

@tristansyates tristansyates left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This looks great! I will say that it took me a second to fully understand the description of the input for permutation_isc. One small tweak that would help is to change the tense of the sentence : "In the pairwise approach, pairwise ISCs should be computed across both groups at once..." to the past tense (should have been). It may also be good to put the description of the shape of the input in either the beginning or the end of the paragraph instead of in both places

@tristansyates tristansyates left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

See review above

@snastase

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@tristansyates good point! I fixed the tense. I think I'll leave the somewhat redundant input shape descriptions... the earlier one is intended to clarify that pairwise ISCs should have been computed in such a way as to produce a distance matrix containing both groups; the latter more specifically describes the input shapes (which for the pairwise approach should be distance vectors, not square).

mihaic
mihaic previously approved these changes Aug 17, 2020
@mihaic mihaic dismissed their stale review August 17, 2020 18:06

Missed overlap with PR #475

@mihaic

mihaic commented Aug 17, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@snastase, the current changes look off. If you try to fix the code, start with a pull from GitHub because I used the update branch from master button.

@snastase

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@snastase, the current changes look off. If you try to fix the code, start with a pull from GitHub because I used the update branch from master button.

@mihaic—not sure I totally understand. Does something in particular look off to you? It looks correct to me... The only weirdness is that the changes from #475 are also part of the diff here. If we merge #475, this will only have a small diff—i.e. the only real diff in this PR is the two added lines 1070-1071 in the docstring.

@mihaic

mihaic commented Aug 17, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

I thought the main change of this PR was introduced in commit
8e557d4

I thought that change was missing in the current diff. However, I noticed that change was actually merged with PR #477.

If you only need lines 1070-1071, we can merge them right away if you remove the changes from #475. Or we can wait for #475.

@mihaic mihaic merged commit 776b7b8 into brainiak:master Sep 2, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants