On 21.02.2017 10:54, P-M wrote: > Thank you for that clarification. I presume that I should not be using it to > calculate the likelihood of missing edges then?
Not if you want the probabilities to be correct; though they might still be approximately correct. > From what I gather implementing parallel MCDM is not straightforward (though > my knowledge of this is hazy). Is it on your list of future developments at > all? Or will this section of graph-tool stay large non-parallel for now? I don't think it is trivial to write a fully parallel code, since the model likelihood depends on the global state. So, threads that read it and modify it need to synchronize. -- Tiago de Paula Peixoto <[email protected]>
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ graph-tool mailing list [email protected] https://lists.skewed.de/mailman/listinfo/graph-tool
