Track removed matches by match index instead of offset#149
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Each assembly state (i.e., collection of fragments) keeps track of the matches (i.e., pairs of isomorphic, edge-disjoint subgraphs) that were removed from the original molecule to arrive at the current state. Before this PR, the
state::removal_ordervariable identified removed matches by their index in the state's list of compatible matches as returned bymatches::matches_to_remove. These identifiers are local to each state and depend on the (potentially nondeterministic) best assembly index found across all assembly states thus far.This PR changes the identifiers to use the match indices computed by
matches::matches_to_removedirectly, as suggested in #141. This ensures consistent references to matches across states, enabling, for example, pathway extraction as desired for #22.Benchmarks indicate that this is a unilateral improvement, especially for memoization:
Benchmark 1063655 (this PR) vs. af9f9b2 (current main) as a baseline