Hello, I clearly could have provided better documentation.
There was an issue I believe in the predict function when single.tree was set to TRUE. The first 6 trees of the model are printed out to show the the first two trees for each of the three classes. The first set of predictions are shown for using 1 and 2 trees. The maths show that the manual addition of values from each of the trees match the first set of predictions. The second set of predictions do not match the expected result from each tree. Example: search document for 0.1126044 shows that the value of a two-tree prediction matches arithmetically, but the addend to 0.1126044 is not found in results for single.tree prediction. search document for -0.04196866 shows that this value is found in predictions for two-tree sum and single.tree = TRUE result, and switches class position from prediction set 1 to prediction set1 (single.tree). David On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 8:08 AM, Andreas Tille <andr...@an3as.eu> wrote: > Hello Harry, > > On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 02:41:28PM +0100, Harry Southworth wrote: > > That post is about 2.5 years old and the version of gbm is 2.1.1. > > That's correct. The original maintainer seems to have lost interest and > I'm now trying to polish the list of bugs in any R package in Debian. > > > The version on CRAN is now 2.1.3 but has status ORPHANED. > > Thats the currently packaged version of gbm in Debian but I have no > sign that the issue has changed (bug reporter is in CC). > > > Since then, gbm maintenance got moved around a couple more times. You > > can find it's current page here: > > https://github.com/gbm-developers > > > > To address, the question: I don't understand it. > > Puh, that's relaxing for me since I do not understanding it as well. ;-) > > > However, I do recall > > that there were a number of known bugs in the multinomial > > functionality and that that functionality was dropped from gbm3 (a > > newer version, rewritten from the ground up, but whose development > > appears to have stalled). > > > > I've posted in GitHub, but don't know how likely it is that you'll get > > a helpful response. > > That's a very helpful response. I subscribed issue #21 and will wait > for a better answer. > > > Sorry not to be more helpful, > > Thanks a lot for the quick response > > Andreas. > > Control: forwarded -1 https://github.com/gbm-developers/gbm/issues/21 > > > On 27 March 2018 at 13:27, Andreas Tille <andr...@an3as.eu> wrote: > > > Hello Harry, > > > > > > the R packaging team is maintaining gbm in Debian. A user has filed a > > > bug report against version 2.1.1 which I would like to bring to your > > > attention. Please have a look here where the problem is explicitly > > > described: > > > > > > https://bugs.debian.org/805395 > > > > > > Could you please comment on this? I admit I do not fully understand > > > what exactly is incorrect here and what to expect. May be some test > > > case would help to confirm the integrity of the code. > > > > > > Kind regards > > > > > > Andreas. > > > > > > > > > Control: tags -1 help > > > Control: forwarded -1 Harry Southworth <harry.southwo...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > -- > > > http://fam-tille.de > > > > -- > http://fam-tille.de >
-- debian-science-maintainers mailing list debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
