commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: (MATH-607) Current Multiple Regression Object
Date Wed, 06 Jul 2011 16:54:02 GMT
It isn't really necessary to commingle approaches at all.  It is just nice
to think about the alternatives at once to get better designs.

It is conceivable that the interface you designed could be a facade over a
lower level linear operator interface where that makes sense.  If so, that
is great.

If not, the question that is interesting is whether it could be slightly
adjusted to fit that style.

On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Greg Sterijevski <gsterijevski@gmail.com>wrote:

> I see. Why would it be a good reason to commingle functionality? Aside from
> diagnostics like condition numbers and maybe eigenvalues, these approaches
> don't seem to share much commonality. I could be wrong since my knowledge
> of
> Mahout style problems is a bit spotty.
>
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The other way that regression is done at scale is with a linear operator.
> >  This linear operator is often defined by the behavior of some external
> > system that is not susceptible to incremental construction.  A good
> example
> > is a large text retrieval system.
> >
> > It would be useful to support that style interface as well.
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Greg Sterijevski <gsterijevski@gmail.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > Borrowing liberally from the SimpleRegressionClass,  the above
> > > functionality
> > > describes most of what a user would expect from a classical regression
> > > analysis. What the interface buys us is the ability to support the many
> > > ways
> > > to generate the results above: QR factorizations, in place gaussian
> > > elimination, incremental SVD and so forth.
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message