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
Hi,
If I downsample with the ratio 1/16, the max value will also be as 1/16 fold as original matrix. However, the max value of Figure 2a in your paper is 210+, while the max value of downsampled matrix is 50+. The ratio is about 1/4, which is not consistent with 1/16.
Could you please help me? I'm confused a lot! Thanks!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hello, amssljc, All 'max value' actually are 99-percentiles, not the truly the max value in matrices. the max value of original matrix could be more than 10^5 (especially for values nearby the diagonal). And when we perform 1/16 downsampling process, we are sampling Hi-C read count without repeating. Considering that the whole matrix A is very sparse and long genome-distance read counts are very small values, some A{ij}s are easily downsampled to zero values. Above all, the 99-percentile could not be simply estimated by the downsampling ratio.
Hi,
If I downsample with the ratio 1/16, the max value will also be as 1/16 fold as original matrix. However, the max value of Figure 2a in your paper is 210+, while the max value of downsampled matrix is 50+. The ratio is about 1/4, which is not consistent with 1/16.
Could you please help me? I'm confused a lot! Thanks!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: