Yes. For example in the original directed network I have the triangle:
(1)<--(2)<-->(3)-->(1)
then I obtain the undirected network by means of g.set_directed(False) and evaluate the local clustering of node 1, finding C(1)=2 (instead of C(1)=1). This happens for all the nodes in this network, i.e. their local clustering is always between 0 and 2. Of course I could simply divide by two, but I would like to understand what is going wrong. I know that for directed/undirected network the normalization is different, hence I guess that something is not going on with the set_directed method.

Thank you.


2016-02-08 11:04 GMT+01:00 Tiago de Paula Peixoto <tiago@skewed.de>:
On 08.02.2016 10:28, Danilo Giuffrida wrote:
> I write to you because of a suspected bug in the local clustering
> coefficient, which results normalized in [0, 2] instead than in [0,1]
> for one of my datasets. This issue is probably due to the fact that
> the network was obtained by "simmetrization" of a previously directed
> one, by using g.set_directed(False).

Could you please give us an example that shows the problem?

Best,
Tiago

--
Tiago de Paula Peixoto <tiago@skewed.de>


_______________________________________________
graph-tool mailing list
graph-tool@skewed.de
http://lists.skewed.de/mailman/listinfo/graph-tool