Your code seems very fast on Epinions. I don't know which parameters you used to generate random graphs, but I assume that you have generated qui dense graphs. Such graphs have low diameter, and so are worse cases for iFUB and DiFUB.
You can of course open a ticket for DiFUB. Sincerely, Le vendredi 27 mars 2020 08:12:32 UTC+1, Madhav Wagle a écrit : > > Hi, > I have implemented the diFUB (directed iterative fringe bound) algorithm. > It is performing very well on all the real directed graphs which I tried: > > For Eg . > Epinions social network graph > <https://snap.stanford.edu/data/soc-Epinions1.html> (32223 nodes in > largest SCC) > sage: %time m.diameter(algorithm="DiFUB") > CPU times: user 304 ms, sys: 4.02 ms, total: 308 ms > Wall time: 305 ms > 16 > > sage: %time m.diameter() > CPU times: user 28min 55s, sys: 35.4 ms, total: 28min 55s > Wall time: 28min 55s > 16 > > > but* DIFUB isn't performing* well on random graphs( in the worst case may > take *twice* the number of BFS calls as the naive method) > > Even though my code is complete, I still plan on adding details to my > comments > Shall I open a ticket for this algorithm and open it for review? > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-gsoc" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-gsoc/1c411669-78b7-4ea9-9e43-8899d8429e6a%40googlegroups.com.
