Pairwise comparison support is an important protocol to add.

Based on the mask discussion,  would it make sense to support sparse
matrices for mask matrices in pairwise protocols? The only issue may be
that sparse matrices have 0 as the default,  where as here we would want
the value that indicates 'ignore comparison' as the default. We would also
need a new sparse matrix object in BR to efficiently support large matrix
scenarios.

Just a thought for a longer term solution.
 On Nov 17, 2013 1:03 PM, "caotto" <notifications@github.com> wrote:

> In openbr/core/eval.cpp:
>
> > @@ -99,8 +99,12 @@ float Evaluate(const QString &simmat, const QString &mask, const QString &csv)
> >          File maskFile(mask);
> >          maskFile.set("rows", scores.rows);
> >          maskFile.set("columns", scores.cols);
> > -        QScopedPointer<Format> format(Factory<Format>::make(maskFile));
> > -        truth = format->read();
> > +        if (mask.endsWith(".mtx"))
>
> I didn't know about that convention. As far as it goes, I added this
> because I was saving mask files as .mtx, and then readSimmat was failing
> because it assumed elements were 4 bytes.
>
> Actually, since the .mtx format includes that 'B' vs. 'F' type character,
> do we really need separate readSimmat and readMask functions?
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<https://github.com/biometrics/openbr/pull/131/files#r7713430>
> .
>