On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Olivier Grisel
wrote:
> 2012/10/5 Gael Varoquaux :
>>> I agree with James, in the greater scheme that PR doesn't really add
>>> much to the divergence and directly improves usability.
>>
>> I agree.
>
> +1 too. The error message when reaching max_iter could be to t
2012/10/5 Gael Varoquaux :
>> I agree with James, in the greater scheme that PR doesn't really add
>> much to the divergence and directly improves usability.
>
> I agree.
+1 too. The error message when reaching max_iter could be to try to
standardize the data with StandardScaler or MinMaxScaler as
> I agree with James, in the greater scheme that PR doesn't really add
> much to the divergence and directly improves usability.
I agree.
--
Don't let slow site performance ruin your business. Deploy New Relic APM
Deploy
On 10/04/2012 09:48 PM, James Bergstra wrote:
> Nothing so far.
>
I'm +1 on merge.
I agree with James, in the greater scheme that PR doesn't really add
much to the divergence
and directly improves usability.
--
Don't let
Well naturally, the most hilarious solution to this is to fork into a
project called libsvm2.
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 4:48 PM, James Bergstra wrote:
> Nothing so far.
>
> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Joseph Turian wrote:
>> What happened when you contacted the libsvm people?
>>
>> On Thu, Oct
Nothing so far.
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Joseph Turian wrote:
> What happened when you contacted the libsvm people?
>
> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 3:41 PM, James Bergstra
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Andreas Mueller
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
Why do you want to rewrite the predi
What happened when you contacted the libsvm people?
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 3:41 PM, James Bergstra wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Andreas Mueller
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Why do you want to rewrite the predict code, which seems to be already
>>> working?
>>> (Doesn't this further divergenc
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Andreas Mueller
wrote:
>
>
>> Why do you want to rewrite the predict code, which seems to be already
>> working?
>> (Doesn't this further divergence from the libsvm code base just
>> increase the sklearn maintenance burden?)
>>
>> The key thing seems to be how hea
> Why do you want to rewrite the predict code, which seems to be already
> working?
> (Doesn't this further divergence from the libsvm code base just
> increase the sklearn maintenance burden?)
>
> The key thing seems to be how heavily patched is the svm.cpp already?
> If it's completely rewritt
2012/9/26 Andreas Mueller :
>
> Can you give some insights into why this check is necessary and in
> what kind of situations LibSVM fails to converge? I guess it uses
> the duality gap for convergence. Is is the case that this is not
> a good measure sometimes?
I guess this user on stackoverflow w
2012/9/27 James Bergstra :
> Right, but just so we're clear, there are different levels of
> upstream? If sklearn maintains a modified version of libsvm, then
> "contributing upstream" is simply a matter of committing to this
> modified branch. There is a further-upstream branch (author's
> offic
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 12:21 PM, James Bergstra
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Lars Buitinck wrote:
>> 2012/9/27 Doug Coleman :
>>> 1) scikit's libsvm checkin is currently version 300. The last release
>>> was in April and the version is 312. Are there plans to use the newer
>>> versi
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Lars Buitinck wrote:
> 2012/9/27 Doug Coleman :
>> 1) scikit's libsvm checkin is currently version 300. The last release
>> was in April and the version is 312. Are there plans to use the newer
>> version? The svm_node struct changed, so it's not as trivial as
>> d
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Doug Coleman wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm trying to figure out the best way to proceed. Here are some things
> I noticed.
>
> 1) scikit's libsvm checkin is currently version 300. The last release
> was in April and the version is 312. Are there plans to use the ne
2012/9/27 Doug Coleman :
> 1) scikit's libsvm checkin is currently version 300. The last release
> was in April and the version is 312. Are there plans to use the newer
> version? The svm_node struct changed, so it's not as trivial as
> dropping in the files.
What are the major benefits?
> 2) lib
Hi everyone,
I'm trying to figure out the best way to proceed. Here are some things
I noticed.
1) scikit's libsvm checkin is currently version 300. The last release
was in April and the version is 312. Are there plans to use the newer
version? The svm_node struct changed, so it's not as trivial a
2012/9/27 Lars Buitinck :
> And hack in direct support for CSR matrices?
Never mind, I was confusing LibSVM and LibLinear again...
--
Lars Buitinck
Scientific programmer, ILPS
University of Amsterdam
--
Everyone hates s
2012/9/27 Mathieu Blondel :
> Since our copy of libsvm is quite heavily patched already (dense data,
> sample weight, label order, ...), I wonder if it wouldn't be easier to
> maintain our own libsvm copy directly in scikit-learn (which is basically
> what we are currently doing already).
And hack
Some parts which are not relevant for inclusion in scikit-learn have also
been removed (command line, libsvm file parsing, ...).
Since our copy of libsvm is quite heavily patched already (dense data,
sample weight, label order, ...), I wonder if it wouldn't be easier to
maintain our own libsvm cop
I am afraid that managing a git submodule inside the scikit-learn main
repo will add some burden to our users, most of those are not familiar
with git already (and the windowsians out there won't be able to use
the Makefile). Getting to install scikit-learn from source will get
even more complicate
Hi Doug, thanks for this!
I'm still a little shaky with git, I was wondering if people could
advise how to manage the set of libsvm patches? The thing that comes
to my mind is:
1. Fork Doug Coleman's libsvm tree for now into the scikit-learn
organization (If we hear from Chih-Jen Lin, we can edit
Indeed, thanks!
Gael
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 09:57:33PM -0700, Joseph Turian wrote:
> Well stated.
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 2:47 PM, James Bergstra
> wrote:
> > Hi Chih-Jen Lin (as well as the scikit-learn mailing list)
> > I've pushed a small change to libsvm today to sklearn
> > (https://g
Well stated.
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 2:47 PM, James Bergstra
wrote:
> Hi Chih-Jen Lin (as well as the scikit-learn mailing list)
>
> I've pushed a small change to libsvm today to sklearn
> (https://github.com/scikit-learn/scikit-learn/pull/1184) where a copy
> of the libsvm source is mirrored in
Much appreciated James :)
--
How fast is your code?
3 out of 4 devs don\\\'t know how their code performs in production.
Find out how slow your code is with AppDynamics Lite.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;262219672;1350303
Hi Chih-Jen Lin (as well as the scikit-learn mailing list)
I've pushed a small change to libsvm today to sklearn
(https://github.com/scikit-learn/scikit-learn/pull/1184) where a copy
of the libsvm source is mirrored in sklearn's git project. We were
wondering how to proceed. We do not want to di
I put up a copy of the libsvm-3.12 release on my github. For some
reason, ``make lib`` in the main directory or ``make`` in python/
doesn't work out of the box, so I made a patch that works on my
system.
https://github.com/erg/libsvm
This is not a hostile fork, just a way to get some version cont
Hey Joseph,
Fair enough with regards to your points about a fork being considered as
aggressive. Thanks a lot raising this point. I guess that I was more
thinking of fork in terms of version control rather than in terms of
creating a parallel project. I have grown used to fork being useful
things
>> If sklearn will be maintaining a patch set against libsvm, this patch set
>> should be available to non sklearn users too.
>
> I reckon you are volonteering to maintain a fork of libsvm? That's very
> good news, the community definitely needs this badly.
I was considering the idea of a fork, b
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 03:53:17PM -0400, Frédéric Bastien wrote:
> I would still suggest trying to get it upstream in case it work this time :)
+1. I guess the policy should be to try to get it upstream, and if it
fails, merge it in sklearn.
Thanks a lot, James!
Gaël
--
> If sklearn will be maintaining a patch set against libsvm, this patch set
> should be available to non sklearn users too.
I reckon you are volonteering to maintain a fork of libsvm? That's very
good news, the community definitely needs this badly.
Gael ;o
PS: this little pique was only t
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Andreas Mueller
wrote:
> Hi James.
> Thanks for the PR.
> I thinks so far we avoided changing LibSVM and tried to get patches
> in upstream. Afaik, this hasn't succeeded so far.
> The cases I am thinking of is me trying to get the chi2 kernel in and
> Lars cleaning
If sklearn will be maintaining a patch set against libsvm, this patch set
should be available to non sklearn users too.
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
On Sep 26, 2012, at 12:49 PM, Andreas Mueller wrote:
> Hi James.
> Thanks for the PR.
> I thinks so far we avoided changing LibSVM and tried to get
Hi James.
Thanks for the PR.
I thinks so far we avoided changing LibSVM and tried to get patches
in upstream. Afaik, this hasn't succeeded so far.
The cases I am thinking of is me trying to get the chi2 kernel in and
Lars cleaning up some of the code.
As LibSVM seems to be very conservative wrt. f
Hi list,
I submitted a libsvm-related PR on github to add a new parameter. It
addresses an infinite loop in libsvm's solver, but in doing so, it
required a non-trivial patch of the libsvm source code, in addition to
the cython bindings and the classes in the svm submodule. Are changes
to libsvm we
34 matches
Mail list logo
