Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
Might be better to do this via point hashing, like Evangelia's peptide assembly.
This would allow potentially faster checks.
Original comment by chad.a.davis@gmail.com
on 7 Apr 2009 at 9:46
But, a proper volume-based clash detection would make it easier to quantify the
extent of the overlap.
Of course, that would also be possible with a point hashing approach, if the
resolution is high enough that at point occupies multiple cells and the hits are
added up. Might be overkill.
Original comment by chad.a.davis@gmail.com
on 7 Apr 2009 at 9:47
And save the overlaps.
NB this somehow broke the clash-detection logic.
Original comment by chad.a.davis@gmail.com
on 7 Apr 2009 at 10:27
Support weighting, based on size of spherical representation.
Original comment by chad.a.davis@gmail.com
on 7 Apr 2009 at 10:27
Original comment by chad.a.davis@gmail.com
on 17 Jun 2009 at 3:06
Weighting: fraction of max possible overlap, which is the volume of the smaller
domain
Original comment by chad.a.davis@gmail.com
on 23 Jun 2009 at 8:24
Original comment by chad.a.davis@gmail.com
on 23 Jun 2009 at 9:05
Original comment by chad.a.davis@gmail.com
on 20 Jul 2009 at 8:28
Also could be accomplished using the GeometricHash, which is also a more general
solution, as it's based on points, not spheres.
Original comment by chad.a.davis@gmail.com
on 15 Nov 2009 at 1:04
Benchmark sphere-based clash vs Geometric Hashing of Domain CofMs
Original comment by chad.a.davis@gmail.com
on 7 Dec 2009 at 1:24
Don't need to check dom being added against each existing dom.
The existing doms never move.
The complex should just (geometrically) hash existing doms. Hash the dom to
be added and look for a hit.
Original comment by chad.a.davis@gmail.com
on 7 Dec 2009 at 1:25
Original comment by chad.a.davis@gmail.com
on 25 Oct 2010 at 11:20
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
chad.a.davis@gmail.com
on 5 Apr 2009 at 12:54