What was the problem? On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Greg Sterijevski <gsterijev...@gmail.com>wrote:
> 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 > > > > >
