On 04.10.2017 14:26, Snehal Shekatkar wrote: > Thanks for the quick reply. It is indeed true that variance should be NaN > but assortativity would be zero if I understand it correctly.
No, that is not correct. The variance is not NaN, it is zero. Just look at the formula for scalar assortativity: If the variance is zero, the value of the coefficient is undefined, as I explained. > Now, when > instead of 'float', I use 'int' as the type for the property map, I do get 0 > value for the assortativity. Thus I guess that the values are wrong and it > is a bug. Am I right? From your reply, it isn't clear to me if this is a bug. It is not a bug. The reason why you get different answers is due to numerical instability. Instead of a variance of zero, what ends up computed instead is a very small number due to limited numerical precision. I've modified the version in git to always return NaN in such cases, instead of this unstable behavior. -- 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
