Yes. For example in the original directed network I have the triangle: (1)<--(2)<-->(3)-->(1) then I obtain the undirected network by means of g.set_directed(False) and evaluate the local clustering of node 1, finding C(1)=2 (instead of C(1)=1). This happens for all the nodes in this network, i.e. their local clustering is always between 0 and 2. Of course I could simply divide by two, but I would like to understand what is going wrong. I know that for directed/undirected network the normalization is different, hence I guess that something is not going on with the set_directed method.
Thank you. 2016-02-08 11:04 GMT+01:00 Tiago de Paula Peixoto <[email protected]>: > On 08.02.2016 10:28, Danilo Giuffrida wrote: > > I write to you because of a suspected bug in the local clustering > > coefficient, which results normalized in [0, 2] instead than in [0,1] > > for one of my datasets. This issue is probably due to the fact that > > the network was obtained by "simmetrization" of a previously directed > > one, by using g.set_directed(False). > > Could you please give us an example that shows the problem? > > Best, > Tiago > > -- > Tiago de Paula Peixoto <[email protected]> > > > _______________________________________________ > graph-tool mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.skewed.de/mailman/listinfo/graph-tool > >
_______________________________________________ graph-tool mailing list [email protected] http://lists.skewed.de/mailman/listinfo/graph-tool
