Thanks Patrick. I'll await resumption of the master tree's nightly builds.
-Bharath
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Patrick Wendell wrote:
> Hey Bharath,
>
> There was actually an incompatible change to the build process that
> broke several of the Jenkins builds. This should be patched up in
If I read the code correctly, that error message came
from CoarseGrainedSchedulerBackend.
There may be existing / future error messages, other than the one cited
below, which are useful. Maybe change the log level of this message to
DEBUG ?
Cheers
On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Mridul Muralid
Simply customize your log4j confit instead of modifying code if you don't
want messages from that class.
Regards
Mridul
On Sunday, July 26, 2015, Sea <261810...@qq.com> wrote:
> This exception is so ugly!!! The screen is full of these information when
> the program runs a long time, and they
Given that 2.11 may be more stringent with respect to warnings, we might
consider building with 2.11 instead of 2.10 in the pull request builder.
This would also have some secondary benefits in terms of letting us use
tools like Scapegoat or SCoverage highlighting.
On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 8:52 AM,
Hi All,
I have a problem when writing streaming data to cassandra. Or existing
product is on Oracle DB in which while wrtiting data, locks are maintained
such that duplicates in the DB are avoided.
But as spark has parallel processing architecture, if more than 1 thread is
trying to write same d
This exception is so ugly!!! The screen is full of these information when the
program runs a long time, and they will not fail the job.
I comment it in the source code. I think this information is useless because
the executor is already removed and I don't know what does the executor id mean
You can tune alpha like any other hyperparam, and measuring whatever
metric makes most sense -- AUC, etc. I don't think there's a general
guidelines that's more specific than that. I also have not applied
this to document retrieval / recommendation before
I don't think you need to modify counts or
In your experience with using implicit factorization for document
clustering, how did you tune alpha ? Using perplexity measures or just
something simple like 1 + rating since the ratings are always positive in
this case
On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 1:23 AM, Sean Owen wrote:
> It sounds like you'
We got good clustering results from Implicit factorization using alpha =
1.0 since I thought to have a confidence of 1 + rating to observed entries
and 1 to unobserved entries. I used positivity / sparse coding basically to
force sparsity on document / topic matrix...But then I got confused because
It sounds like you're describing the explicit case, or any matrix
decomposition. Are you sure that's best for count-like data? "It
depends," but my experience is that the implicit formulation is
better. In a way, the difference between 10,000 and 1,000 count is
less significant than the difference
I will think further but in the current implicit formulation with
confidence, looks like I am factorizing a 0/1 matrix with weights 1 +
alpha*rating for observed (1) values and 1 for unobserved (0) values. It's
a bit different from LSA model.
>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 6:45 AM, Debasish Das
>> w
Yeah, I think the idea of confidence is a bit different than what I am
looking for using implicit factorization to do document clustering.
I basically need (r_ij - w_ih_j)^2 for all observed ratings and (0 -
w_ih_j)^2 for all the unobserved ratings...Think about the document x word
matrix where r_
confidence = 1 + alpha * |rating| here (so, c1 means confidence - 1),
so alpha = 1 doesn't specially mean high confidence. The loss function
is computed over the whole input matrix, including all missing "0"
entries. These have a minimal confidence of 1 according to this
formula. alpha controls how
13 matches
Mail list logo
