I haven't yet compared against scipy's implementation. The main reason for
this is that they are different types of clusterers (with the MSTCluster
here generating flat clusters). That said, they are easily convertible.
Perhaps we should just drop the separate class altogether, and add an
ability
On 09/08/2013 06:51 PM, Olivier Grisel wrote:
> I just had a look at the results section and it looks very
> interesting, in particular in its ability to bring noise robustness to
> single linkage. Have you tried to compare it with ward?
FYI the output of "examples.py" for the smaller datasets.
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 05:41:08PM +1000, Robert Layton wrote:
>3) Gael's PR can either use this class, or replace it if he comes up with
>something better/faster/stronger. If the second case, remove this class
>then.
Ideally, I'd like a function in addition to the class. And the more
*SingleLinkageClustering
On 9 September 2013 17:41, Robert Layton wrote:
> Thanks for the comments everyone, and the praise Jake.
>
> Based on this conversation, I think a good avenue would be:
>
> 1) Rename MSTCluster to SingleLinkageCluster
> 2) Merge (after checks, I still need to rebase aga
Thanks for the comments everyone, and the praise Jake.
Based on this conversation, I think a good avenue would be:
1) Rename MSTCluster to SingleLinkageCluster
2) Merge (after checks, I still need to rebase again)
3) Gael's PR can either use this class, or replace it if he comes up with
something
