Skip to content
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

Adding a conservative elbow-free decision tree #1129

Open
handwerkerd opened this issue Sep 17, 2024 · 2 comments · May be fixed by #1131
Open

Adding a conservative elbow-free decision tree #1129

handwerkerd opened this issue Sep 17, 2024 · 2 comments · May be fixed by #1131
Labels
effort: medium Theoretically <40h total work enhancement issues describing possible enhancements to the project good first issue issues that we think are good for new contributors. Equivalent to "very low" effort. impact: medium Improves code/documentation functionality for some users priority: medium Should get addressed soon TE-dependence issues related to TE dependence metrics and component selection

Comments

@handwerkerd
Copy link
Member

Summary

This is based on an OHBM2024 discussion with @moser297 that was discussed at our July 2024 developer call. The kappa and rho elbows do not robustly appear in all runs. In particular, an infant dataset seemed to often not generate clear elbows. This is worth investigating in general, but we could also add a conservative super-minimal decision tree that doesn't depend on any elbows or relative values that might cause issues in some datasets.

Additional Detail

The idea would be to make a decision tree wouldn't be as aggressive at removing noise as other trees, but any user could be reasonably confident that it never removes something they care about. My initial idea would be to just include the first 6 nodes of the MEICA Decision Tree ( https://tedana.readthedocs.io/en/stable/included_decision_trees.html ) which just exclude extreme cases, like rho>kappa.

Right now, this is a placeholder issue so that we don't forget this discussion. Anyone is welcome to take this on.

Next Steps

  • Make & name a simple decision tree and test it on some data, possibly in collaboration with @moser297
  • Check if the tree is too conservative (i.e. it's only removing things that would have already been removed by detrending regressors or other standard tools)
  • Check if there are any criteria tweaks that could be used to make it a bit more agressive, but still reliable.
@handwerkerd handwerkerd added enhancement issues describing possible enhancements to the project good first issue issues that we think are good for new contributors. Equivalent to "very low" effort. TE-dependence issues related to TE dependence metrics and component selection priority: medium Should get addressed soon effort: medium Theoretically <40h total work impact: medium Improves code/documentation functionality for some users labels Sep 17, 2024
@tsalo tsalo linked a pull request Sep 17, 2024 that will close this issue
@moser297
Copy link

Thank you for tackling this topic! I currently don't have the capacity to be actively involved but I am happy to share some testing data with you if you like.

@handwerkerd
Copy link
Member Author

@moser297 I'm not sure I'll be able to immediately test something, but if you share your data, I'll try to find time soonish. I just emailed your UMN address so that we can coordinate directly. Thank you.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
effort: medium Theoretically <40h total work enhancement issues describing possible enhancements to the project good first issue issues that we think are good for new contributors. Equivalent to "very low" effort. impact: medium Improves code/documentation functionality for some users priority: medium Should get addressed soon TE-dependence issues related to TE dependence metrics and component selection
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants