Ok, so the conclusion is let's add classifyScalarNoLink and make it optional as well by throwing an exception.
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Daniel McEnnis <[email protected]> wrote: > All of this assumes classifiers supply a score. Nearest Neighbor > classification can not provide a meaningful score, only the result. > So there is at least one algorithm where whole sets of the classify > interface makes absolutely no sense. > > Daniel. > > On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Ted Dunning <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 6:49 PM, Hector Yee <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> I was concerned about classifyScalar because it enforces the contract > that > >> the scores be in the 0..1 range. There doesn't seem to be a function > that > >> returns the raw score for the scalar case. > >> > > > > Yes. There should be. The only reason that there isn't is that there > had > > not been any users of this yet. > > > > > >> ... > >> I was proposing that we have all classifiers support classifyNoLink as > >> well, > >> especially for the case of non-probabilistic based ones where reducing > >> scores to probabilities would be bad. > >> > > > > Why? > > > > This is the part that I don't understand. Why force this implementation? > > > -- Yee Yang Li Hector http://hectorgon.blogspot.com/ (tech + travel) http://hectorgon.com (book reviews)
