Hello.
Le mar. 24 mars 2020 à 06:39, chentao...@qq.com <chentao...@qq.com> a écrit :
>
> Hi,
>
> I have started 2 PRs to solve the problem you metioned.
>
> About the "CentroidInitializer" I have a new idea:
> Move CentroidInitializers as inner classes of "KMeansPlusPlusCluster",
> and add a construct parameter and a property "useKMeansPlusPlus" to
> "KMeansPlusPlusCluster":
> ```java
> // Add "useKMeansPlusPlus" to "KMeansPlusPlusClusterer"
> public class KMeansPlusPlusClusterer<T extends Clusterable> extends
> Clusterer<T> {
> public KMeansPlusPlusClusterer(final int k, final int maxIterations,
> final DistanceMeasure measure,
> final UniformRandomProvider random,
> final EmptyClusterStrategy emptyStrategy,
> + final useKMeansPlusPlus) {
> // ...
> - // Use K-means++ to choose the initial centers.
> - this.centroidInitializer = new KMeansPlusPlusCentroidInitializer(measure,
> random);
> + this.useKMeansPlusPlus = useKMeansPlusPlus;
> }
What if one comes up with a third way to initialize the centroids?
If you can ensure that there is no other initialization procedure,
a boolean is fine, if not, we could still make the existing procedures
package-private (e.g. moving them in as classes defined within
"KMeansPlusPlusClusterer".
Also, in the current implementation of "KMeansPlusPlusClusterer", the
initialization is not configurable ("KMeansPlusPlusCentroidInitializer").
Perhaps we don't want to depart from the original (?) algorithm; if so,
the new constructor could be made protected (thus simplifying the API).
> public boolean isUseKMeansPlusPlus() {return this.useKMeansPlusPlus;}
Why should this method be defined?
Regards,
Gilles
> [...]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
