gliphR vs. Jan's turboGliph vs. gliph's original versions vs. ting
Benchmarking to show
a) consistency: we should hope to find similar results given a simple sample
b) that choices in gliphR are biologically more suitable by examining clonaly expanded samples
on b) do we have an appropriate naive reference?
At first for us against ground truth for sanity checks
later on maybe included vignette in follow up version
gliphR vs. Jan's turboGliph vs. gliph's original versions vs. ting
Benchmarking to show a) consistency: we should hope to find similar results given a simple sample b) that choices in gliphR are biologically more suitable by examining clonaly expanded samples
on b) do we have an appropriate naive reference?