on possible (minor) tweaks to Annotation.to_samples

holy moly I can’t thank past us (but mostly @bmcfee and @justinsalamon) for making #109 happen, just bailed me out of an annoying issue I’m having with open-tag JAMS and issues around what to do with null events (separate issue, will cease tangent).

In working with this super useful feature, I’ve a couple ideas / questions for the crowd. Not super confident these are worth the effort yet, but this is why this is a question and not a PR…

1. What if the instantaneous values object is a tuple instead of a list? This would aid in the reuse of other objects (e.g. set, collections.Counter) which need a hashable type for reduction. This wouldn’t necessarily be super useful for continuous / float values, but categorical (e.g. tags, like in my case) would be way helpful. The two counterarguments I see are: I understand from looking at the source how a mutable list makes this so much easier to implement; and, if this isn’t a standard case, it’s easy enough to lambda-map the results into a hashable type after and then do this.
2. Thoughts on adding a fill_value field to the method’s interface? In my case, only positive intervals are labeled, and so I get back empty lists where there is no range. It’d be great to backfill the null class at sample time, and at first blush this seems like an easy feature … the only issue I see is, what default parameter would give the current result? It can’t be None, because one could truly want None as the backfill value, e.g. [[None], [None], ... ]. It shouldn’t be [], because semantically one would expect [[[]], [[]], ... ]. Any ideas on this one?

If nothing else, I skimmed the issue that originally spawned this feature, and didn’t see a discussion of either (1) or (2) above, and figured they’d be worth adding to the conversation. Tagging this as wontfix is a potentially fine outcome.

[bmcfee]

1. The two counterarguments I see are: I understand from looking at the source how a mutable list makes this so much easier to implement; and, if this isn’t a standard case, it’s easy enough to lambda-map the results into a hashable type after and then do this.

I’m leaning toward leaving it as is. Tuples, being immutable, can be a little unwieldy for a lot of the things we want to use values outputs for (eg slicing down to a fixed vocab).

2. Thoughts on adding a fill_value field to the method’s interface? In my case, only positive intervals are labeled, and so I get back empty lists where there is no range. It’d be great to backfill the null class at sample time, and at first blush this seems like an easy feature … the only issue I see is, what default parameter would give the current result

I like this in theory, but as you say, the API for it seems awkward, especially when you consider that it should be consistent across all namespaces. You could do it in two steps by having a flag to control backfill, and a separate fill_value parameter to handle the data itself.

[bmcfee]

And then, I would simply not validate these custom empty values, let the user take care of it if needed.

I guess that’s valid. If a user supplies a bad fill value, that’s on them.

So to recap, here’s the current logic:

1. Generate an array of sample positions
2. Initialize a value for each sample position as an empty list. (Repeat for confidences.)
3. For each observation, get its value, and append it to each list corresponding to a sample time that lands within the observed interval. (Repeat for confidences.)

The reason for all the list hackery is that observations can overlap, so the to_samples definition for a value at time t is the union of value fields. Any sample that’s outside of any labeled interval retains the empty list as its values.

The proposed change would allow a user to change this by providing a list of default values that it initializes with instead of the empty list. In writing this up, I see two problems with this idea that had escaped my attention before:

1. Are fill values retained for non-empty samples? Or do we only fill when the output would be otherwise empty? The former is easier programmatically, but the latter might be more what the user would expect. I really don’t know here.
2. What do we do with confidences? Another parameter with the same kind of logic?

I’m beginning to think this not worth implementing. It’s easy enough for a user to post-process the values array as follows:

values = ann.to_samples(...)
for v in values:
    if not v:
        v.extend(default_values)
# and repeat for confidences

and then get on with their life. I think I prefer this solution over trying to implement something general-purpose that leads to awkward and confusing API decisions.