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

Update README.md #767

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
May 29, 2024
Merged

Update README.md #767

merged 2 commits into from
May 29, 2024

Conversation

cwmeijer
Copy link
Member

Some extra pointers to choosing good rise parameters.

Some extra pointers to choosing good rise parameters.
@cwmeijer cwmeijer requested a review from elboyran May 16, 2024 09:59
🠊 The feature resolution $n_{features}$ exhibited an optimum at a value of $6$.
🠊 The feature resolution $n_{features}$ exhibited an optimum at a value of $6$. Higher values can offer a finer grained result but require (far) more $n_masks$. This is also dependent on the scale of the phenomena in the input data that we want to take into account in the explanation.

🠊 Larger $n_masks$ results in more consistent results at the cost of computation time. If 2 identical runs yield (very) different results, the results are likely mostly noise and a higher value for $n_masks$ should be used.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Lots of repetition of "results" (both as a verb and plural noun). Try to drop some/us synonyms.

removed some results :-)
@cwmeijer cwmeijer merged commit 2e7a10c into main May 29, 2024
16 of 17 checks passed
@cwmeijer cwmeijer deleted the rise-parameter-documentation-additions branch May 29, 2024 07:38
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.

2 participants