> Is this necessary for new PCA methods as well? In other words, should I add an
> already deprecated constructor arg to IncrementalPCA as well, or just do the
> whitening inverse_transform the way it will be done in 0.16 and on?
The latter option, I believe.
G
--
Is this necessary for new PCA methods as well? In other words, should I add
an already deprecated constructor arg to IncrementalPCA as well, or just do
the whitening inverse_transform the way it will be done in 0.16 and on?
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Gael Varoquaux <
gael.varoqu...@normales
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 02:38:41PM +0200, Alexandre Gramfort wrote:
> I would be +1 adding an invert_whitening param to PCA that would
> default to False in 0.15 and move to True in 0.16 to eventually
> disappear later.
+1
--
hi,
I would be +1 adding an invert_whitening param to PCA that would
default to False in 0.15 and move to True in 0.16 to eventually
disappear later.
Alex
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 8:53 AM, Michael Eickenberg
wrote:
> Kyle is facing the same question for his incremental pca pr
> https://github.c
Kyle is facing the same question for his incremental pca pr
https://github.com/scikit-learn/scikit-learn/pull/3285
On Monday, June 30, 2014, Michael Eickenberg
wrote:
> Hi Sean,
>
> this has been mentioned in an issue
> https://github.com/scikit-learn/scikit-learn/pull/3107 along with the
> chan
Hi Sean,
this has been mentioned in an issue
https://github.com/scikit-learn/scikit-learn/pull/3107 along with the
changes necessary to invert the whitening properly (if you look at files
changed).
While we are at it, Alex Gramfort asked me to ask whether anybody sees good
reasons *not* to invert
Hi
Why doesn't PCA and Probabilistic PCA calculate the inverse transform
properly when whitening is enabled? AFAIK all that is required is to (in
addition) multiply by explained_variance?
sean
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 5:28 AM, <
[email protected]> wrote:
> Send
