adding last figure

2 files changed, 1 insertions, 1 deletions

diff --git a/notes/images/greedy_sparse_comparison.png b/notes/images/greedy_sparse_comparison.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3fab5b0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/notes/images/greedy_sparse_comparison.png
diff --git a/notes/reportYaron.tex b/notes/reportYaron.tex
index bbde9dc..3f31ecd 100644
--- a/notes/reportYaron.tex
+++ b/notes/reportYaron.tex
@@ -300,7 +300,7 @@ The results of our findings on a very small social network (a subset of the famo
 \begin{figure}
 \centering
 \label{fig:comparison-with-greedy}
-\includegraphics[scale=.35]{images/greedy_sparse_comparison.pdf}
+\includegraphics[scale=.35]{images/greedy_sparse_comparison.png}
 \caption{Plot of the F1 score for different number of cascades for both the \textsc{greedy} algorithm and Algorithm~\ref{eq:optimization_program}. The cascades, graphs, and edge probabilities were identical for both algorithms. The dataset is a subset of 333 nodes and 5039 edges taken from the Facebook graph, made available by \cite{snap}. We chose $p_\text{init}=.05$, and the edge probability were chosen uniformly between $0$ and $0.8$. For Algorithm~\ref{eq:optimization_program}, we chose $\lambda=10$ and kept all edges with probability greater than $.1$ as true edges.}
 \end{figure}