Make peak detection (locally_exclussive, matched_filtering) faster and more accurate. #4341
+228
−324
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
Collaborator
|
Great, this is cool, looking forward to try it out ! But what about the matched filtering ? |
yger
approved these changes
Jan 26, 2026
samuelgarcia
changed the title
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
After playing a bit with the rust language, and trying to reimplement the peak detection algo using "locally_exclussive"
I discover that the actual impelmentation could be fasten a lot (at least 3X faster on my machine).
"matched_filtering" has also beeb changed in this PR.
Also the new implementation is is more accurate for corener cases :
Also I change the
exclude_sweep_ms=0.1at many place in the code this was a bad value by default it has to be half on the peak waveforms or a bit more.