Impossible to say. More data means a more reliable estimate all else equal.
That's about it.
On Jan 28, 2013 5:17 PM, "Zia mel" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Any thoughts of this ?
>
> On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Zia mel <[email protected]> wrote:
> > OK , in the precison when we reduce the size of sample to .1 or 0.05 ,
> > would the results be related when we check with all the data ? For
> > example, if we have data1 and data2 and test them using 0.1 and found
> > that data 1 is producing better results , would the same thing stand
> > when we check with all data?
> >
> >  IRStatistics stats = evaluator.evaluate(recommenderBuilder,
> >                                             null, model, null, 10,
> >
> > GenericRecommenderIRStatsEvaluator.CHOOSE_THRESHOLD,
> >                                             0.05);
> >
> > Many thanks
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 12:26 PM, Sean Owen <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> No, it takes a fixed "at" value. You can modify it to do whatever you
> want.
> >> You will see it doesn't bother with users with little data, like <
> >> 2*at data points.
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 6:23 PM, Zia mel <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >>> Interesting. Using
> >>>  IRStatistics stats = evaluator.evaluate(recommenderBuilder,
> >>>                                             null, model, null, 5,
> >>>
> >>> GenericRecommenderIRStatsEvaluator.CHOOSE_THRESHOLD,
> >>>                                             1.0);
> >>>
> >>> Can it be adjusted to each user ? In other words, is there a way to
> >>> select a threshold instead of using 5 ?  mm Something like selecting y
> >>> set , each set have a min of z user ?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Sean Owen <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> The way I do it is to set x different for each user, to the number of
> >>>> items in the user's test set -- you ask for x recommendations.
> >>>> This makes precision == recall, note. It dodges this problem though.
> >>>>
> >>>> Otherwise, if you fix x, the condition you need is stronger, really:
> >>>> each user needs >= x *test set* items in addition to training set
> >>>> items to make this test fair.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Zia mel <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >>>>> When selecting precision at x let's say 5 , should I check that all
> >>>>> users have 5 items or more? For example, if a user have 3 items and
> >>>>> they were removed as top items,  then how can the recommender suggest
> >>>>> items since there are no items to learn from?
> >>>>> Thanks !
>

Reply via email to