search

Bruker-Amics / bugs_features

3 stars 0 forks source link

BUG-MAJOR_AMICS-3.3.0.1580_PROCESS_EXPORT: data slightly different to calculated data table #355

Open Matt-Power opened 1 year ago

Matt-Power commented 1 year ago

V 3.3.0.1508 When data are extracted using a batch calculation, there is a slight but noticeable difference between that data and the data shown in the calculation tables tab. They should be exactly the same.

MarkGuo7 commented 1 year ago

@Matt-Power Thanks Matt, I will take a look of it. May I know is that all results exported have this issue, or just some of them? Do these samples have overlap?

If can have a sample to try, that would be great. With thanks

Matt-Power commented 1 year ago

All of them have the same issue and they do have an overlap (i.e. all have been stitched).

I've seen it before so not a new thing and almost certain it affects maps and segmented measurements. I'll send over an example for you.

Thanks!

Matt-Power commented 1 year ago

Not sure if this related but I reclassified a copy of a measurement and the area % data are identical (very reliable - great news) but the mass % data are slightly different which I don't understand at all. The measurements were reclassified using exactly the same ore type and the densities are unchanged. Here are the two tables for comparison - the measurements are identical and the data are identical other than the difference in the wt% mineral data.

image image

Matt-Power commented 1 year ago

Btw, one was processed using a batch and the other by reclassifying as a measurement.

MarkGuo7 commented 1 year ago

@Matt-Power This may caused by value roundup. I would like to take a look if you can show me how to see it. Otherwise, I will move it to next release.

AlexeiDolgolyov commented 2 weeks ago

@ChiLyMan , can you recheck this, please, I cannot reproduce it with my sample data.

ChiLyMan commented 2 weeks ago

@AlexeiDolgolyov I'll check but its interesting it only affects the wt% and not area%, it is as if the calculation used in batch and normal export is rounding or doing something different. Would it be easy just to see the calc used to convert from are% to wt% in batch mode and normal export mode to see if they are using the same process.

AlexeiDolgolyov commented 2 weeks ago

@ChiLyMan , they seem to use the same calculation backend.

ChiLyMan commented 2 weeks ago

@AlexeiDolgolyov OK given the age of this issue Mark might have fixed

Matt-Power commented 2 weeks ago

@ChiLyMan @AlexeiDolgolyov I think that this may be due to clean up and other post-processing steps. It also depends on which layer you extract the data from (I think segment and grain give slightly different results to the particle layer but I'm not certain). Manifests itself the most with mapped measurements with some clean-up steps applied. Don't think it has been fixed but Mark has put in some code to force you to switch to the particle layer when batch extracting data (although mapped measurements don't actually have a particle layer so I'm not entirely sure what it is doing....). Hope this helps.

AlexeiDolgolyov commented 2 weeks ago

@Matt-Power , probably you have some samples which show stable reproduction of that bug?

Matt-Power commented 2 weeks ago

@AlexeiDolgolyov @ChiLyMan I've uploaded two examples of this bug. I've investigated a little bit further and the data change when you select the Particle Layer. After this is done, the data for all layers changes. Here are some example results where I start with the segment layer selected, then switch to the grain layer (no change), then to the particle layer (big change). After this, switching between layers makes no difference. As you can see, the number of segments and grains decreases substantially after the particle layer is selected - I believe this is related to the disappearing gold bug.

<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">

Selection | Layer | Name | Wt% | Area% | Area (μ2) | Density | Seg / Grain / Particle Number -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- 1 | Segment | Quartz | 72.80414 | 82.06358 | 6554566 | 2.70434 | 417120 2 | Grain | Quartz | 72.80414 | 82.06358 | 6554566 | 2.70434 | 189851 3 | Particle | Quartz | 73.88923 | 82.9024 | 6160334 | 2.705427 | 112540 4 | Grain | Quartz | 73.8894 | 82.90251 | 6160404 | 2.705429 | 115528 5 | Segment | Quartz | 73.8894 | 82.90251 | 6160404 | 2.705429 | 329671 6 | Grain | Quartz | 73.8894 | 82.90251 | 6160404 | 2.705429 | 115528 7 | Particle | Quartz | 73.88923 | 82.9024 | 6160334 | 2.705427 | 112540

AlexeiDolgolyov commented 2 weeks ago

@Matt-Power , thank you for the information. Can you share access with my primary email, please: alexei.dolgolyov@atomicus-software.com