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

[Peer Review] Give feedback on potentially bad choices of settings #10

Closed
cthoyt opened this issue Oct 2, 2020 · 0 comments
Closed

Comments

@cthoyt
Copy link
Contributor

cthoyt commented Oct 2, 2020

It seems that the default setting of the command line client is PreComp. I tried putting in a network with ~500K nodes / ~ 9M edges and after it had been running for a while, I realized that I had made a poor choice based on your insights outlined in the manuscript. Instead, I should have probably chosen the SparseOTF mode. Since you already make suggestions in the manuscript on what the cutoffs for size and density are to go between each, it would be helpful to also output a warning after the graph has been loaded if the mode does not match the selected mode (especially since selecting the mode is an optional parameter, and people, like me, will try using the default parameters unless otherwise encouraged)

@RemyLau RemyLau closed this as completed in b95298c Feb 9, 2021
@cthoyt cthoyt changed the title Give feedback on potentially bad choices of settings [Peer Review] Give feedback on potentially bad choices of settings Aug 22, 2022
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