You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I am only using a single candidate segmentation and only passing in the cell masks(no raw images) and am noticing there is a lot of cell splitting and also some missing segmentations.....
I have below the original instance segmentation on top and then the tracking output below for that timepoint
I am using the following parameters below:
config.segmentation_config.min_frontier = 0.35 # increase this to get less split cells?
config.linking_config.max_neighbors = 5
config.linking_config.max_distance = 50
To avoid splitting you need to filter intermediate nodes, as you did with minimum_frontier, you can increase it to any value below 1 and maintain your labels. Be sure that no cells size are exceeding the max_area parameter and that track(sigma=None).
If with these changes you're still getting splits there must be a bug and we will fix it.
To decrease the amount of disappearing cells you have to bring the tracking_config weights closer to zero, so they are not penalized for not finding a reliable pair.
Hello again,
I am only using a single candidate segmentation and only passing in the cell masks(no raw images) and am noticing there is a lot of cell splitting and also some missing segmentations.....
I have below the original instance segmentation on top and then the tracking output below for that timepoint
I am using the following parameters below:
config.segmentation_config.min_frontier = 0.35 # increase this to get less split cells?
config.linking_config.max_neighbors = 5
config.linking_config.max_distance = 50
config.tracking_config.appear_weight = -1.0
config.tracking_config.disappear_weight = -1.0
config.tracking_config.division_weight -0.1
config.tracking_config.window_size = 15
config.tracking_config.overlap_size = 3
config.tracking_config.solution_gap = 0.01
Any suggestion on parameters that I should play around with?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: