Thanks for the clarification and the quick modification. Snehal
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Tiago de Paula Peixoto <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]> > > > _______________________________________________ > graph-tool mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.skewed.de/mailman/listinfo/graph-tool > > -- Snehal M. Shekatkar Pune India
_______________________________________________ graph-tool mailing list [email protected] https://lists.skewed.de/mailman/listinfo/graph-tool
