ok. thanks very much.
srowen wrote: > > It's hard to guarantee since, if you switch in another implementation > that also uses the random number generator, then it will still change > the samples that are taken. > > If you're concerned about this I would suggest running tests over more > data, or running more iterations, in order to obtain a more reliable > result. The sampling shouldn't make a significant difference. > > On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 7:15 PM, jamborta <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> in this case i try to evaluate an algorithm and tune some parameters, but >> if >> I don't know that I use the same >> trainging/test set, it's hard to compare the results. I guess I could >> keep >> track of how many times I called >> the method, but that would make it complicated to administer. >> >> >> >> srowen wrote: >>> >>> No, do you really need to do this though? >>> It's possible to add a method to do this but I'm curious about the use >>> case, whether we can come up with another way to solve your issue. >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 6:23 PM, jamborta <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> thanks. so it's not possible to reset the seeds? or start with new >>>> ones? >>> >>> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://old.nabble.com/RandomUtils.useTestSeed%28%29---Taste-libraries-tp26799137p26800133.html >> Sent from the Mahout User List mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> > > -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/RandomUtils.useTestSeed%28%29---Taste-libraries-tp26799137p26800243.html Sent from the Mahout User List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
