On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 4:53 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> strict anti-correlation between them. Yes, there is a sign change, but > they still are representing basically the same thing. Elevation and depth > Sure. This is basic knowledge. The reason i asked is because the original paper gives formulation without sign change in section 4.4 (e.g. cosine similarity and manhattan distance formulas) and bills it as a functional parameter to similarity calculation. Which would seem to result in an technical error as described there since they make no mention about this distinction at all. Just was wondering if this was compensated for somewhere else that i don't immediately see. > > > > On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Dmitriy Lyubimov <dlie...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > So, compared to original paper [1], similarity is now hardcoded and > always > > LLR? Do we have any plans to parameterize that further? Is there any > reason > > to parameterize it? > > > > > > Also, reading the paper, i am a bit wondering -- similarity and distance > > are functions that usually are moving into different directions (i.e. > > cosine similarity and angular distance) but in the paper distance scores > > are also considered similarities? How's that? > > > > I suppose in that context LLR is considered a distance (higher scores > mean > > more `distant` items, co-occurring by chance only)? > > > > [1] http://ssc.io/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/rec11-schelter.pdf > > > > -d > > >
