Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Recoded heuristic does not produce valid solutions on current log-ratio samples #21

Open
schrins opened this issue Apr 11, 2018 · 0 comments
Assignees

Comments

@schrins
Copy link
Collaborator

schrins commented Apr 11, 2018

The current state of the recoded heuristic (without k-clustifier and reduction rules) does not produce valid solutions for input graphs, which were created via the log-ratio scoring function.

Here is the critical output for samples sizes from 100 to 600 (50 has no errors, but the costs are zero, which is odd, too):
100: Could not verify the editing costs ... found :824.02 while it should be 824.02
Verifying that solution 0 is a valid solution for WCE ...
Solution validity verified!
200: Could not verify the editing costs ... found :3889.59 while it should be 3893.62
Verifying that solution 0 is a valid solution for WCE ...
Solution validity verified!
300: Could not verify the editing costs ... found :9034.73 while it should be 9034.73
Verifying that solution 0 is a valid solution for WCE ...
Solution validity verified!
400: Could not verify the editing costs ... found :13538 while it should be 13552.3
Verifying that solution 0 is a valid solution for WCE ...
Solution validity verified!
500: Could not verify the editing costs ... found :19216.7 while it should be 19229.4
Verifying that solution 0 is a valid solution for WCE ...
CONFLICT TRIPLE FOUND!!!
600: Could not verify the editing costs ... found :26625.3 while it should be 26690.1
Verifying that solution 0 is a valid solution for WCE ...
CONFLICT TRIPLE FOUND!!!

The algorithm was run with the following parameters: -v 3 -r 000000 -c -H
The ILP takes forever, even on the 100-sample, so I could not compare with it.

Here are the results for the old lemon implementation. There seem to be no errors, even though the checker says so:
100: Could not verify the editing costs ... found :817.71 while it should be 817.71
Verifying that solution 0 is a valid solution for WCE ...
Solution validity verified!
200: Could not verify the editing costs ... found :3821.19 while it should be 3821.19
Verifying that solution 0 is a valid solution for WCE ...
Solution validity verified!
300: Could not verify the editing costs ... found :8655.1 while it should be 8655.1
Verifying that solution 0 is a valid solution for WCE ...
Solution validity verified!
400: Could not verify the editing costs ... found :13746 while it should be 13746
Verifying that solution 0 is a valid solution for WCE ...
Solution validity verified!
500: Could not verify the editing costs ... found :18772.2 while it should be 18772.2
Verifying that solution 0 is a valid solution for WCE ...
Solution validity verified!
600: Could not verify the editing costs ... found :24973.4 while it should be 24973.4
Verifying that solution 0 is a valid solution for WCE ...
Solution validity verified!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant