Phil, Got it! I fit longley to all printed values. I have not broken anything... I need to type up a few loose ends, then I will send a patch.
-Greg On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/12/11 12:12 PM, Greg Sterijevski wrote: > > All, > > > > So I included the wampler data in the test suite. The interesting thing, > is > > to get clean runs I need wider tolerances with OLSMultipleRegression than > > with the version of the Miller algorithm I am coding up. > This is good for your Miller impl, not so good for > OLSMultipleRegression. > > Perhaps we should come to a consensus of what good enough is? How close > do > > we want to be? Should we require passing on all of NIST's 'hard' > problems? > > (for all regression techniques that get cooked up) > > > The goal should be to match all of the displayed digits in the > reference data. When we can't do that, we should try to understand > why and aim to, if possible, improve the impls. As we improve the > code, the tolerances in the tests can be improved. Characterization > of the types of models where the different implementations do well / > poorly is another thing we should aim for (and include in the > javadoc). As with all reference validation tests, we need to keep > in mind that a) the "hard" examples are designed to be numerically > unstable and b) conversely, a handful of examples does not really > demonstrate correctness. > > Phil > > -Greg > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >
