Fix Issue #772, alternative that doesn't affect imsd() but still correctly calculates weighted average for emsd() #774
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
vivarose
changed the title
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
My previous pull-request, #773 included NaN output, which was intentional (and I believe it was correct!) but caused some tests to fail. [Edit: No, that is not what caused some tests to fail. They are still failing.]
This is a new version intended to calculate the emsd correctly in cases of particle gaps (missing data), but to avoid the NaN output. The trick is to set the number of effective measurements N to 0 in cases where there are zero effective measurements.