This is stacked on top of #378 and is my attempt to
a) tie together the "retrospective vs prospective" and "converting and eARG to a gARG" sections, which both talk about simplification / Hudson. I have tried to use the mention of "ancestral material" to act as a lead-in from the first to the second.
b) clarify that converting an eARG to a gARG does not have to involve sample-resolving (and in fact, we would normally simulate the sample-resolved form directly). I.e. eARG -> gARG is just one step. Sample resolving is a further (lossy) "option", which helps with efficiency. My previous worry was:
The conversion process from eARG to gARG is only the first of the two steps in the figure. The second step is a lossy one from a gARG to another sort of gARG (a sample resolved one) ...
As with #378, this is supposed to be food for general discussion rather than necessarily a polished suggestion.
This is stacked on top of #378 and is my attempt to
a) tie together the "retrospective vs prospective" and "converting and eARG to a gARG" sections, which both talk about simplification / Hudson. I have tried to use the mention of "ancestral material" to act as a lead-in from the first to the second.
b) clarify that converting an eARG to a gARG does not have to involve sample-resolving (and in fact, we would normally simulate the sample-resolved form directly). I.e. eARG -> gARG is just one step. Sample resolving is a further (lossy) "option", which helps with efficiency. My previous worry was:
As with #378, this is supposed to be food for general discussion rather than necessarily a polished suggestion.