Closed fgvieira closed 8 months ago
Or, alternatively, create an output file for each method (specified on the command line).
Im not sure if the gaussian is so bad that we should discard them. @lz398 suggested a different way to compute bootstrap. For now let us keep both.
Hello, Thorfinn, i am not sure which is the way you believe i suggested. And i am not against gaussian, to be precise, the way christian used was wrong but the reason is not only gaussian.
在 2023年12月18日,20:22,ANGSD @.***> 写道:
Im not sure if the gaussian is so bad that we should discard them. @lz398https://github.com/lz398 suggested a different way to compute bootstrap. For now let us keep both.
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/metaDMG-dev/metaDMG-cpp/issues/17#issuecomment-1860351614, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ASEXBF7W5RT6IDMA573O62DYKAYQJAVCNFSM6AAAAABAUYCTO6VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTQNRQGM2TCNRRGQ. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>
I did not mean to discard the gaussian, but just to separate both results. Right now, when running the bootstrap version it is not clear from which of them the results come from; (e.g.) fwdxi
.
Right now, when specifying bootstrap,
metadmg
calculates damage using both methods (A
andA_b
). It would make more sense to only do one of them, for example,A
by default andA_b
if bootstrap specified.