| ... | ... | @@ -146,24 +146,24 @@ Do we have any specific requests right now? |
|
|
|
* Feed back wanted!!!
|
|
|
|
* What doesn’t make it to Dec 10 code freeze will go to O4b.
|
|
|
|
* Jolien: slide 4: what affects the results?
|
|
|
|
* Leo: new chisq signal model
|
|
|
|
- Leo: new chisq signal model
|
|
|
|
* Chad: slide 5: the VT plot looks very good if ignoring SNR. This seems to improve VT where it didn’t in the previous plot. The SNR plot doesn’t make sense. Can’t reconcile it with the plot above.
|
|
|
|
* Leo: agreed.
|
|
|
|
* Chad: mapping between SNR and FAR is not linear.
|
|
|
|
* Leo: not telling us that we are gaining sth concrete. Ryan also got similar plot.
|
|
|
|
* Ryan: eah i don't have it on me, but it was really similar to this new one.
|
|
|
|
* Chad: consistent improvement in heavy BBH.
|
|
|
|
* Chad: rework Prathamesh’s patch and make it such that it can be passed to command line options so that we don’t commit it for code freeze but with a backup plan
|
|
|
|
* Leo: can this averaging be done during rerank?
|
|
|
|
* Chad: no, because background model needs to be reconstructed.
|
|
|
|
* Leo: not sure if we should aim the code freeze or O4b
|
|
|
|
* Rework Prathamesh’s patch so that it is optional.
|
|
|
|
- Leo: agreed.
|
|
|
|
- Chad: mapping between SNR and FAR is not linear.
|
|
|
|
- Leo: not telling us that we are gaining sth concrete. Ryan also got similar plot.
|
|
|
|
- Ryan: eah i don't have it on me, but it was really similar to this new one.
|
|
|
|
- Chad: consistent improvement in heavy BBH.
|
|
|
|
- Chad: rework Prathamesh’s patch and make it such that it can be passed to command line options so that we don’t commit it for code freeze but with a backup plan
|
|
|
|
- Leo: can this averaging be done during rerank?
|
|
|
|
- Chad: no, because background model needs to be reconstructed.
|
|
|
|
- Leo: not sure if we should aim the code freeze or O4b
|
|
|
|
- Rework Prathamesh’s patch so that it is optional.
|
|
|
|
* Chad: slide 6: its probably 1 / e^2
|
|
|
|
* Anarya: Do you have some insight why it would be 1/e^2 from the math? If so it would be an extremely helpful
|
|
|
|
* Chad: nope just trolling you
|
|
|
|
- Anarya: Do you have some insight why it would be 1/e^2 from the math? If so it would be an extremely helpful
|
|
|
|
- Chad: nope just trolling you
|
|
|
|
* Leo: slide 8: ifs-dependent bug fix: incorporated in MDC. Review waiting
|
|
|
|
* Chad: slide 8: we should try svd_tolerance = 0.99999 etc.
|
|
|
|
* Leo: try it in the MDC
|
|
|
|
- Leo: try it in the MDC
|
|
|
|
* Jolien: it is about a factor of ln(2)... https://github.com/scipy/scipy/blob/v1.9.3/scipy/signal/_spectral_py.py#L2019-L2044
|
|
|
|
* jolien: slide 8: is this a bug that was there for a while? and sth should be done about that.
|
|
|
|
* Leo: hopeful that higher tolerance won’t harm the computation, but if so we need alternative approach.
|
| ... | ... | |
