Classification *is* regression.  You can always ask the result for the
index of the largest score.

On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 7:02 AM, Timothy Mann <[email protected]>wrote:

> It also seems strange that the classify method is being used for
> regression. To me classification is the act of selecting a category
> according to some rule. Here what classification does is calculate scores
> for an instance in each category. It may make sense to add a method, for
> example,
>
> public Vector scores(Vector); or maybe public Vector evaluate(Vector);,
> etc.
>
> Adding a method wouldn't break older code, but it also wouldn't resolve
> strange use of classifier.
>
> -Timothy Mann
>
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 5:32 AM, Grant Ingersoll <[email protected]
> >wrote:
>
> >
> > On Oct 22, 2012, at 12:20 AM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> >
> > > Yes.
> > >
> > > It seems stupid in retrospect.  Changing these things is very painful,
> > > however, because we have no idea how many people will be affected.
> >
> > That being said, we are still pre 1.0.  Better to change now than to bake
> > it in 1.0?
> >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 9:16 PM, Timothy Mann <[email protected]
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >> It seems strange to me that the classify method declared in
> > >> AbstractVectorClassifier returns a vector with n-1 scores, where n is
> > the
> > >> number of categories. I understand that this decision was made for
> > >> efficiency reasons, but it seems like classify is the first place
> where
> > >> people will look in the API. Instead classifyFull provides the
> > >> implementation that a user may find more intuitive. Furthermore,
> > >> classifyFull does not require the assumption that the scores over all
> > >> categories represent probabilities that sum to one, and is therefore
> > more
> > >> general. In fact, classify is not even implemented for the Naive Bayes
> > >> implementations but classifyFull is, which was initially confusing
> > until I
> > >> understood what classify actually does. Any thoughts on this?
> > >>
> > >> -Timothy Mann
> > >>
> >
> >
>

Reply via email to