Sean, Remember my grumpiness about not having full injection of the random number generator?
That would help here. On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Sean Owen <[email protected]> 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. > > > > > -- Ted Dunning, CTO DeepDyve
