Skip to content

Move and restructure CPAC comparison notes#341

Merged
gkiar merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
docs/cpac-comparison
May 23, 2026
Merged

Move and restructure CPAC comparison notes#341
gkiar merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
docs/cpac-comparison

Conversation

@nx10
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@nx10 nx10 commented May 21, 2026

Moves tests/data/cpac_rbc_divergences.md to docs/cpac_comparison.md (it's reference material, not a test fixture, and the old name was a bit jargony for someone scanning docs/ for the first time).

While there, split the findings into two sections:

  • Bugs (#4 TR/bandpass, #5 DVFinal = DVInit) - unambiguous numerical or spec-vs-implementation errors.
  • Divergences (#1 N4 discarded, #2 despike in template, #3 ALFF as std, plus a new #6 on CPAC's duplicate motion correction) - differences from RBC's approach that may reflect intentional design choices in CPAC.

Also folded the old "Two parallel motion correction paths" note into the new #6 divergence so the RBC-vs-CPAC contrast is explicit.

Renames tests/data/cpac_rbc_divergences.md to docs/cpac_comparison.md
and splits findings into Bugs (#4, #5) and Divergences (#1, #2, #3, #6)
to distinguish unambiguous numerical errors from defensible design
choices. Adds a new divergence about CPAC's duplicate motion correction.
@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Coverage

Tests Skipped Failures Errors Time
791 0 💤 0 ❌ 0 🔥 11.598s ⏱️

@nx10 nx10 requested review from gkiar, jpillai00 and kaitj May 21, 2026 19:47
Comment thread docs/cpac_comparison.md

---

### 6. Motion correction runs twice (pre-STC for regressors, post-STC for spatial application)
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
### 6. Motion correction runs twice (pre-STC for regressors, post-STC for spatial application)
### 4. Motion correction runs twice (pre-STC for regressors, post-STC for spatial application)

@kaitj
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

kaitj commented May 21, 2026

Content wise looks good, numbering of the headers is throwing me off a little based on where they are, but otherwise lgtm.

@nx10
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

nx10 commented May 21, 2026

Yes did not want to change the numbering from before because I referred to them by their number in many notes

@gkiar gkiar merged commit bdf0ab9 into main May 23, 2026
8 checks passed
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.

3 participants