Add smoothness metric #72

hugofluhr · 2023-08-18T09:54:20Z

Closes #71

PR that add smoothness computation for signals that are defined on nodes of the graph. It's my first contribution to such a project so I'm happy to get feedback :)

Proposed Changes

add a smoothness fct in operations.metrics.
add corresponding test fct.
add corresponding class method in objects.

Change Type

Checklist before review

I added everything I wanted to add to this PR.
[Code or tests only] I wrote/updated the necessary docstrings.
[Code or tests only] I ran and passed tests locally.
[Documentation only] I built the docs locally.
My contribution is harmonious with the rest of the code: I'm not introducing repetitions.
My code respects the adopted style, especially linting conventions.
The title of this PR is explanatory on its own, enough to be understood as part of a changelog.
I added or indicated the right labels.

I added information regarding the timeline of completion for this PR.

Please, comment on my PR while it's a draft and give me feedback on the development!

codecov · 2023-08-18T10:03:52Z

Codecov Report

Merging #72 (854c047) into master (4ffa7cb) will increase coverage by 0.13%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master      #72      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   90.93%   91.06%   +0.13%     
==========================================
  Files          14       14              
  Lines        1235     1254      +19     
==========================================
+ Hits         1123     1142      +19     
  Misses        112      112

Files Changed	Coverage Δ
nigsp/cli/run.py	`97.14% <100.00%> (+0.08%)`	⬆️
nigsp/objects.py	`100.00% <100.00%> (ø)`
nigsp/operations/metrics.py	`100.00% <100.00%> (ø)`
nigsp/references.py	`100.00% <100.00%> (ø)`

venkateshness · 2023-08-18T16:28:56Z

Looks good to me !

Some nice-to-have things:
a) Worth embedding a ref paper e.g: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep42013.pdf in the docstring
b) Compare the size of nodes in laplacian and signal and raise an error message if there's a mismatch; before the np.dot()

smoia

Hey @hugofluhr, this is a very solid start, thank you so much!

A couple of additional features would be great (as @venkateshness was proposing):

Add if statements to check that:
1. the signal is 1D, in which case a warning should be returned (e.g. here) and an axis added (in last position, I think, but not sure) to fake a 2D matrix
2. the first dimension of laplacian matches the first dimension of signal, and if not it returns a ValueError (like here)
Consequently, add breaking tests to the test suite
Add a citation (the one you believe being the most relevant):
- in the docstrings (in fact, I should do the same myself!), like here
- using duecredit, in references.py (e.g. this one
- using duecredit's decorator (e.g. here)
Don't forget to add smoothness in the CLI (e.g. here) and in the supported metrics list

Optionally, if you have time:

when you add if statements, you could test whether, if 2 is false, transposing signal fixes things (raising a warning, ofc)
in an SDI fashion (if it makes sense?), you could replicate functional_connectivity's structure, transforming what you have now in a hidden sub-function, and then add features to compute smoothness on the whole timeseries and on the split timeseries!
Also, if signal has a third dimension (e.g. multisubject), check that the operations don't break!

hugofluhr · 2023-08-21T08:21:21Z

Thanks for the inputs!

Progress tracker :

add ref
check input sizes
add smoothness to CLI
add smoothness to list of supported metrics
try transposing signal if dimension mismatch
add corresponding tests
allow for 3rd dimension of signal, e.g. subjects
change structure to match functional_connectivity, hidden sub-function

hugofluhr · 2023-08-22T12:52:06Z

@smoia the coverage is decreasing partly due to LGR.warning not being covered in tests, any guidance on how to cover those?

venkateshness · 2023-08-22T13:50:27Z

Unless I am missing (had a quick look on my mobile), LGF.warning is triggered by if statements in 2 cases. You can push to kick these if statements in the break tests ?

smoia · 2023-08-22T14:12:55Z

If the coverage decreases a little, that's ok.
If you do want to test particular cases, I would add a couple of asserts in the main test of the function that do specific checks on those cases!

Break tests are only for raising errors!

smoia · 2023-08-22T14:17:13Z

nigsp/tests/test_metrics.py

+    computed_smoothness = metrics.smoothness(laplacian, signal)
+
+    assert (expected_smoothness == computed_smoothness).all()
+


You can add an assert here with signal = rand(10) and expected_smoothness computed on signal[..., np.newaxis]. And another one with signal = rand(2,10) and expected smoothness on signal.T.

Or use chatGPT 🤣

smoia · 2023-08-24T06:10:47Z

nigsp/tests/test_metrics.py

+    s3 = rand(2, 10)
+    laplacian = rand(10, 10)
+
+    expected_smoothness1 = np.dot(s1.T, np.dot(laplacian, s1))


Is this correct? If so you don't need a warning and a special treatment, since it's the same as the main case!

for s3 I need to transpose it by hand to compute the expected_smoothness otherwise the dot product won't work! See the difference between lines 81 and 84

I'm talking about s1-s2

ah yes that's correct sorry, I'm trying to make it work with a 3rd dimension for different subjects so I'll see how this evolves as I will probably move from np.matmul to np.tensordot

Not sure it'd fit in in memory, keep an eye on mem usage! You might have to run over subjects dim with a loop

Tensordot might indeed not work out - Maybe you can constrain axes in the multiplication, or indeed loop through subjects. I have some code in another function (the graph fourier transform, if I remember correctly) that split cases based on dimensions (and runs a loop).

smoia · 2023-08-24T06:11:53Z

nigsp/operations/metrics.py

+        else:
+            raise ValueError("The dimensions of the signal and Laplacian don't match.")
+
+    return np.matmul(signal.T, np.matmul(laplacian, signal))


Yeaaaah... Do you remember when your function was one line? Now you understand the pain of the Sdev...

Yes definitely, thanks for the guidance and regular feedback!

smoia · 2023-11-02T13:26:01Z

@hugofluhr can we merge this in?

hugofluhr added 3 commits August 18, 2023 11:14

[enh]-added smoothness metric and test

3d4761b

fixed name of test fct

af2c427

reformat

1ce603d

smoia reviewed Aug 20, 2023

View reviewed changes

smoia changed the title ~~Adding smoothness metric~~ Add smoothness metric Aug 21, 2023

smoia added the Minormod This PR generally closes an `Enhancement` issue. It increments the minor version (0.+1.0) label Aug 21, 2023

hugofluhr added 3 commits August 21, 2023 12:02

added citations for smoothness

c1ed943

add smoothness to CLI and supported metrics

a8ecda6

fixed typo

f51ddd7

Merge branch 'MIPLabCH:master' into enh/smoothness

1b4d091

smoia reviewed Aug 22, 2023

View reviewed changes

additional tests for different inputs

854c047

hugofluhr force-pushed the enh/smoothness branch from f493ec1 to 854c047 Compare August 23, 2023 09:05

smoia reviewed Aug 24, 2023

View reviewed changes

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Add smoothness metric #72

Add smoothness metric #72

hugofluhr commented Aug 18, 2023 •

edited by smoia

Loading

codecov bot commented Aug 18, 2023 •

edited

Loading

venkateshness commented Aug 18, 2023

smoia left a comment •

edited

Loading

hugofluhr commented Aug 21, 2023 •

edited

Loading

hugofluhr commented Aug 22, 2023 •

edited

Loading

venkateshness commented Aug 22, 2023

smoia commented Aug 22, 2023

smoia Aug 22, 2023 •

edited

Loading

smoia Aug 24, 2023

hugofluhr Aug 24, 2023 •

edited

Loading

smoia Aug 24, 2023

hugofluhr Aug 24, 2023

venkateshness Aug 24, 2023 •

edited

Loading

smoia Aug 24, 2023

smoia Aug 24, 2023

hugofluhr Aug 24, 2023

smoia commented Nov 2, 2023

		computed_smoothness = metrics.smoothness(laplacian, signal)

		assert (expected_smoothness == computed_smoothness).all()

Add smoothness metric #72

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Add smoothness metric #72

Conversation

hugofluhr commented Aug 18, 2023 • edited by smoia Loading

Proposed Changes

Change Type

Checklist before review

codecov bot commented Aug 18, 2023 • edited Loading

Codecov Report

venkateshness commented Aug 18, 2023

smoia left a comment • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

hugofluhr commented Aug 21, 2023 • edited Loading

hugofluhr commented Aug 22, 2023 • edited Loading

venkateshness commented Aug 22, 2023

smoia commented Aug 22, 2023

smoia Aug 22, 2023 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

smoia Aug 24, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

hugofluhr Aug 24, 2023 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

smoia Aug 24, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

hugofluhr Aug 24, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

venkateshness Aug 24, 2023 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

smoia Aug 24, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

smoia Aug 24, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

hugofluhr Aug 24, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

smoia commented Nov 2, 2023

hugofluhr commented Aug 18, 2023 •

edited by smoia

Loading

codecov bot commented Aug 18, 2023 •

edited

Loading

smoia left a comment •

edited

Loading

hugofluhr commented Aug 21, 2023 •

edited

Loading

hugofluhr commented Aug 22, 2023 •

edited

Loading

smoia Aug 22, 2023 •

edited

Loading

hugofluhr Aug 24, 2023 •

edited

Loading

venkateshness Aug 24, 2023 •

edited

Loading