Issue/285/som hc

[yanzastro]

I added hierarchical clustering function into the somoclu summarizer and add some example cells in the corresponding example notebook.

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

Base: 100.00% // Head: 100.00% // No change to project coverage :thumbsup:

Coverage data is based on head (3e87207) compared to base (57b84f2). Patch coverage: 100.00% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #287 +/- ## ========================================= Coverage 100.00% 100.00% ========================================= Files 38 38 Lines 2430 2454 +24 ========================================= + Hits 2430 2454 +24 ``` | Flag | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | unittests | `100.00% <100.00%> (ø)` | | Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=LSSTDESC#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more. | [Impacted Files](https://codecov.io/gh/LSSTDESC/RAIL/pull/287?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=LSSTDESC) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [src/rail/estimation/algos/somocluSOM.py](https://codecov.io/gh/LSSTDESC/RAIL/pull/287/diff?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=LSSTDESC#diff-c3JjL3JhaWwvZXN0aW1hdGlvbi9hbGdvcy9zb21vY2x1U09NLnB5) | `100.00% <100.00%> (ø)` | | | [src/rail/evaluation/evaluator.py](https://codecov.io/gh/LSSTDESC/RAIL/pull/287/diff?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=LSSTDESC#diff-c3JjL3JhaWwvZXZhbHVhdGlvbi9ldmFsdWF0b3IucHk=) | `100.00% <0.00%> (ø)` | | | [src/rail/evaluation/metrics/pit.py](https://codecov.io/gh/LSSTDESC/RAIL/pull/287/diff?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=LSSTDESC#diff-c3JjL3JhaWwvZXZhbHVhdGlvbi9tZXRyaWNzL3BpdC5weQ==) | `100.00% <0.00%> (ø)` | | | [src/rail/evaluation/metrics/brier.py](https://codecov.io/gh/LSSTDESC/RAIL/pull/287/diff?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=LSSTDESC#diff-c3JjL3JhaWwvZXZhbHVhdGlvbi9tZXRyaWNzL2JyaWVyLnB5) | `100.00% <0.00%> (ø)` | | Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us [how you rate us](https://about.codecov.io/nps?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=LSSTDESC). Have a feature suggestion? [Share it here.](https://app.codecov.io/gh/feedback/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=LSSTDESC)

:umbrella: View full report at Codecov.
:loudspeaker: Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[sschmidt23]

Oh, and one more thing, even though I approved this: do we actually need to include output_SOMoclu_model.pkl? RAIL is getting rather bloated, if the file is not needed then we should delete it from the repo before you merge this PR.

[yanzastro]

Hi @sschmidt23 and sorry for the late reply. I forgot to check my RAIL email folder again. Here I'll reply to all your comments:

1. I'll add the docstring defining n_eff, etc tomorrow;
2. I'll also check the memory issue and raise an issue for somoclu;
3. I don't think we need output_SOMoclu_model.pkl as it is the output of a trained SOM. I'll delete and push the repo

[sschmidt23]

I just noticed that a couple changes that I made to get the notebook running and some linting fixes did not actually get pushed to the repo for some reason, I'll test re-running the notebook and apply the needed changes now.