In general, commons math *is* the better choice for general mathematical
computing. Their mission is to provide a general mathematical substrate.
Apache Mahout's mission is to provide scalable data mining. Part of that
requires basic math which we took from Colt rather than from commons math
due to the compatibility constraints that commons math has.
So, if implementing autocorr on top of Commons Math is good for you, that
sounds like an excellent option (it is just a dot product with an offset,
after all).
IF that starts to require something that Commons Math can't easily provide,
Apache Mahout's math library (which is a separate jar, btw) may be better
since we are a bit more agile. If your time series work starts to involve
serious scaling pains, then Mahout may be a good substrate from that
standpoint as well.
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 8:15 AM, video axescon <video@axescon.com> wrote:
> Hello
>
> I'm a little confused now. I want to work on time series analysis, stuff
> like GARCH or VAR. Are you suggesting that Mahout can be the proper home
> for
> time series code? I guess it doesn't matter which library to start with as
> long as it has good basic stats, optimization and matrix code in it to
> start
> with. Commons math seemed to be more logical choice to me.
>
> cheers
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Commons math has a strict backwards compatibility constraint.
> >
> > Apache Mahout does not.
> >
> > For fixed lag, it should only require a few lines of code in Mahout and
> you
> > should be up and running in a week or so on the trunk version.
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 7:47 AM, video axescon <video@axescon.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > If you have a need for autocorrelation and would like to work with us
> to
> > > > rehabilitate and port the associated Colt code, I would
> > > > be happy to help by advising about our nascent conventions about how
> we
> > > are
> > > > organizing our code and what sort of testing and
> > > > porting is needed.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > I'm contemplating it. I'm a little bit concerned about the bureaucracy
> in
> > > this project, it could be easier for me to simply implement it for
> > myself.
> >
>
