(I don't know anything spark specific, so I'm going to treat it like a
Breeze question...)
As I understand it, Spark uses ARPACK via Breeze for SVD, and presumably
the same approach can be used for EVD. Basically, you make a function that
multiplies your "matrix" (which might be represented
.
Thanks.
Deb
On Mar 15, 2015 9:39 PM, David Hall david.lw.h...@gmail.com wrote:
snapshot is pushed. If you verify I'll publish the new artifacts.
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 1:14 AM, Yu Ishikawa
yuu.ishikawa+sp...@gmail.com
wrote:
David Hall who is a breeze creator told me that it's a bug
ping?
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 9:38 PM, David Hall david.lw.h...@gmail.com wrote:
snapshot is pushed. If you verify I'll publish the new artifacts.
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 1:14 AM, Yu Ishikawa yuu.ishikawa+sp...@gmail.com
wrote:
David Hall who is a breeze creator told me that it's a bug
snapshot is pushed. If you verify I'll publish the new artifacts.
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 1:14 AM, Yu Ishikawa yuu.ishikawa+sp...@gmail.com
wrote:
David Hall who is a breeze creator told me that it's a bug. So, I made a
jira
ticket about this issue. We need to upgrade breeze from 0.11.1
yeah, breeze.storage.Zero was introduced in either 0.8 or 0.9.
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Xiangrui Meng men...@gmail.com wrote:
Did you add a different version of breeze to the classpath? In Spark
1.0, we use breeze 0.7, and in Spark 1.1 we use 0.9. If the breeze
version you used is
that += is not thread safe but + is? I'm assuming +
allocates a new object for the write, while += doesn't.
Thanks!
RJ
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 2:50 PM, David Hall d...@cs.berkeley.edu wrote:
In general, in Breeze we allocate separate work arrays for each call to
lapack, so it should be fine
I have no ideas on benchmarks, but breeze has a CG solver:
https://github.com/scalanlp/breeze/tree/master/math/src/main/scala/breeze/optimize/linear/ConjugateGradient.scala
: https://www.dbtsai.com
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dbtsai
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 3:06 PM, David Hall d...@cs.berkeley.edu wrote:
Lbfgs and other optimizers would not work immediately, as they require
vector spaces over double. Otherwise it should work.
On May 5, 2014 3:03 PM, DB
AM, David Hall d...@cs.berkeley.edu wrote:
That's right.
FWIW, caching should be automatic now, but it might be the version of
Breeze you're using doesn't do that yet.
Also, In breeze.util._ there's an implicit that adds a tee method to
iterator, and also a last method. Both are useful
/in/dbtsai
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 3:10 PM, David Hall d...@cs.berkeley.eduwrote:
LBFGS will not take a step that sends the objective value up. It might
try a step that is too big and reject it, so if you're just logging
everything that gets tried by LBFGS, you could see that. The iterations
method
LBFGS will not take a step that sends the objective value up. It might try
a step that is too big and reject it, so if you're just logging
everything that gets tried by LBFGS, you could see that. The iterations
method of the minimizer should never return an increasing objective value.
If you're
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 9:30 PM, Evan Sparks evan.spa...@gmail.com wrote:
What is the number of non zeroes per row (and number of features) in the
sparse case? We've hit some issues with breeze sparse support in the past
but for sufficiently sparse data it's still pretty good.
Any chance you
Was the weight vector sparse? The gradients? Or just the feature vectors?
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 10:08 PM, DB Tsai dbt...@dbtsai.com wrote:
The figure showing the Log-Likelihood vs Time can be found here.
,
DB Tsai
---
My Blog: https://www.dbtsai.com
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dbtsai
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 10:16 PM, David Hall d...@cs.berkeley.edu
wrote:
Was the weight vector sparse? The gradients? Or just the feature
Another usage that's nice is:
logDebug {
val timeS = timeMillis/1000.0
sTime: $timeS
}
which can be useful for more complicated expressions.
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Michael Armbrust mich...@databricks.comwrote:
BTW...
You can do calculations in string interpolation:
sTime:
://alpinenow.com/
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:00 PM, David Hall d...@cs.berkeley.edu
wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 1:57 PM, DB Tsai dbt...@alpinenow.com
wrote:
Hi David,
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 8:13 PM, dlwh david.lw.h...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm happy to help fix any problems. I've
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Pascal Voitot Dev
pascal.voitot@gmail.com wrote:
The problem I was talking about is when you try to use typeclass converters
and make them contravariant/covariant for input/output. Something like:
Reader[-I, +O] { def read(i:I): O }
Doing this, you soon
, diff 0.0
Iteration 29: loss 0.30788249908237314, diff 0.23885980452569502
Sincerely,
DB Tsai
Machine Learning Engineer
Alpine Data Labs
--
Web: http://alpinenow.com/
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:00 PM, David Hall d...@cs.berkeley.edu wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5
). From the experiments in
their paper, it's likely to not work as well for bound constraints, but
can
do things that lbfgsb can't.
Again, let me know what I can help with.
-- David Hall
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 3:52 PM, DB Tsai lt;dbtsai@gt; wrote:
Hi Deb,
a. OWL-QN
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 1:57 PM, DB Tsai dbt...@alpinenow.com wrote:
Hi David,
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 8:13 PM, dlwh david.lw.h...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm happy to help fix any problems. I've verified at points that the
implementation gives the exact same sequence of iterates for a few
.
Thanks.
Deb
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:00 PM, David Hall d...@cs.berkeley.edu wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 1:57 PM, DB Tsai dbt...@alpinenow.com wrote:
Hi David,
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 8:13 PM, dlwh david.lw.h...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm happy to help fix any problems. I've verified
21 matches
Mail list logo
