Re: [math] Improving numerics in OLSMultipleLinearRegression

2008-06-20 Thread Mauro Talevi
Phil Steitz wrote: Perhaps it would help if we had overloaded newData methods that accept different input strategies, but ultimately they will produce a n x m double array. That way we can provide users with choice. I was thinking the same thing. The bit that is troubling me is the omega matr

Re: [math] Improving numerics in OLSMultipleLinearRegression

2008-06-20 Thread Mauro Talevi
Phil, Phil Steitz wrote: I think R uses QR as described above. Comments or suggestions for other default implementations are most welcome. We should aim to provide a default implementation that is reasonably fast and provides good numerics across a broad range of design matrices. Got aroun

Re: [math] Improving numerics in OLSMultipleLinearRegression

2008-06-15 Thread Mauro Talevi
Phil Steitz wrote: No, just X. see the references here: http://apache.markmail.org/message/3aybm5emimg5da42 I think R uses QR as described above. Comments or suggestions for other default implementations are most welcome. We should aim to provide a default implementation that is reasonably

Re: [math] Improving numerics in OLSMultipleLinearRegression

2008-06-12 Thread Mauro Talevi
Phil Steitz wrote: Yes, and I would distinguish performance optimization from numerical accuracy. From my perspective, we can release a ".0" with room for performance improvement, but at least decent numerics are required. I agree that decent numerics are required. I'm still rather surpris

Re: [math] Improving numerics in OLSMultipleLinearRegression

2008-06-09 Thread Mauro Talevi
Hi Phil, thanks for reviewing the multiple linear regression implementations and setting up the R/NIST data tests. I finally got around to installing R and can now run them too. Phil Steitz wrote: While clear and elegant from a matrix algebra standpoint, the "nailve" implementation in OLSM

Re: [math] Multiple regression "addData" methods

2008-06-08 Thread Mauro Talevi
Phil Steitz wrote: I think these methods should be named "setData." They have a different contract from "addData" in SimpleRegression, which does not replace observations that have previously been added. If there are no objections, I will make that change. Yes - It makes sense to be consist

Re: [math] should version 2.0 be targeted to Java 5 ?

2008-05-16 Thread Mauro Talevi
Phil Steitz wrote: Here is my proposal, summarizing what has been discussed so far in this thread and adding my own bias: - commons-math 2.0 will target Java 1.5 as the minimal version - the maven groupId will be changed from commons-math to org.apache.commons (the artifactID is unchanged)

General linear regression

2008-04-27 Thread Mauro Talevi
Hi, after assessing privately the initial interest, I'd like to propose the addition of general linear regression https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-203 A well-tested and complete code for this already exists in http://jet.codehaus.org/javadoc/jet-regression/ and I'd be happy to use