No, the question was why total number of trials sent to LLR is considered to be m where M is m x n is a user/item matrix.
ok i got it. i made some incorrect assumption about previous code steps, hence my inference derailed. On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote: > If you binarize the original occurrence matrix then it seems to me that the > values in the cooccurrence matrix *are* user counts. > > Perhaps I misunderstand your original question. > > > > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Dmitriy Lyubimov <dlie...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > sorry rather total occurrences of a pair should be sum(a_i) + sum(a_j) - > > a_ij (not 1norm of course) > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Dmitriy Lyubimov <dlie...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Why coocurrence code takes number of users as total interactions? > > > shouldn't that be 1-norm of the co-occurrence matrix? > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 4:21 PM, Dmitriy Lyubimov <dlie...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> So, compared to original paper [1], similarity is now hardcoded and > > >> always LLR? Do we have any plans to parameterize that further? Is > there > > any > > >> reason to parameterize it? > > >> > > >> > > >> Also, reading the paper, i am a bit wondering -- similarity and > distance > > >> are functions that usually are moving into different directions (i.e. > > >> cosine similarity and angular distance) but in the paper distance > scores > > >> are also considered similarities? How's that? > > >> > > >> I suppose in that context LLR is considered a distance (higher scores > > >> mean more `distant` items, co-occurring by chance only)? > > >> > > >> [1] http://ssc.io/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/rec11-schelter.pdf > > >> > > >> -d > > >> > > > > > > > > >
