[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAHOUT-1239?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13674099#comment-13674099
]
Hudson commented on MAHOUT-1239:
--------------------------------
Integrated in Mahout-Quality #2036 (See
[https://builds.apache.org/job/Mahout-Quality/2036/])
MAHOUT-1239 standardize form of log-likelihood (Revision 1489241)
Result = SUCCESS
srowen :
Files :
*
/mahout/trunk/math/src/main/java/org/apache/mahout/math/stats/LogLikelihood.java
*
/mahout/trunk/math/src/test/java/org/apache/mahout/math/stats/LogLikelihoodTest.java
> Standardize form of log-likelihood computation
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> Key: MAHOUT-1239
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MAHOUT-1239
> Project: Mahout
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Affects Versions: 0.7
> Reporter: Sean Owen
> Assignee: Sean Owen
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 0.8
>
> Attachments: MAHOUT-1239.patch
>
>
> [email protected] reported that LogLikelihood.logLikelihoodRatio() looked
> like its formula was incorrect, at least with respect to
> http://tdunning.blogspot.mx/2008/03/surprise-and-coincidence.html
> It appears that the calculation is correct but in a different form, that is
> not immediately recognizable as correct. The proposal here is to change the
> code to match the blog post and avoid confusion (and ends up avoiding 2
> method calls).
> (Along the way, I think this fixes a tiny other problem in a related test. We
> have a test case that detects when round-off would produce a negative LLR and
> should be clamped to 0, but the test asserts that the result is >0 not >=0.)
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
