You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
the code here
if(limit != Double.POSITIVE_INFINITY) { // check if there's a limit set
// if so then reverse engineer the max LCSS distance and replace the limit
// this is just the inverse of the return value integer rounded to an LCSS distance
limit = (int) ((1 - limit) * aLength) + 1; // must have plus 1 due to int rounding. Otherwise the value
// is potentially slightly too low, causing early early abandon
}
is causing a bug. It means that many distances that are in fact lower than "limit" are early abandonded/set to infinity. I am not sure if it misuse, and limit is meant to be a width parameter, or just incorrectly calculated.
Removing the limit as such before this code
limit = Double.POSITIVE_INFINITY;
makes the output match with the older LCSS, and without the limit the distances are identical
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
the code here
if(limit != Double.POSITIVE_INFINITY) { // check if there's a limit set
// if so then reverse engineer the max LCSS distance and replace the limit
// this is just the inverse of the return value integer rounded to an LCSS distance
limit = (int) ((1 - limit) * aLength) + 1; // must have plus 1 due to int rounding. Otherwise the value
// is potentially slightly too low, causing early early abandon
}
is causing a bug. It means that many distances that are in fact lower than "limit" are early abandonded/set to infinity. I am not sure if it misuse, and limit is meant to be a width parameter, or just incorrectly calculated.
Removing the limit as such before this code
limit = Double.POSITIVE_INFINITY;
makes the output match with the older LCSS, and without the limit the distances are identical
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: