henrikingo commented on PR #154: URL: https://github.com/apache/otava/pull/154#issuecomment-4640819497
> For the sake of discussion, I will assume that we are comparing the following methods Focusing on the three you listed makes sense, but that is not what I did, and that explains the different results. I did not compare against --orig-edivisive at all. I mean in the text I did, for the purpose of describing high level what ---deterministic-edivisive feels like. But I didn't run any tests on --orig-edivisive. It is obvious to me orig-edivisive it's identical to this PR except for minor variations due to the randomness in the significance test. Your explanation of the theory is again admirably layman understandable. But I would add to that the layman's law of large numbers: in practice natural phenomena can be approximated as being normally distributed, even if the "approximately" sometimes is very rough. But it is of course good that Alex did compare also --orig-edivisive. (Note: With my history, for me to call a variant "orig" it would actually require to reintroduce the bug where Kappa stays constant. :-) I compared against hunter/default behavior and two variations that are both introduced in this PR: * Same as orig but with deterministic t-test in the end * Same as above plus the idea of "weak change points" from hunter, but a new implementation that only requires a single pass. The second variant is already reverted, but still available in this PR. You would have to check out 6228b919b93d9090fe62f3981faa240fcfb86dc9 if you want to test it. But I felt it was a wrong direction so wanted to kill it early. (Also not add unnecessary cost to eventual reviews of the code.) -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
