On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 3:05 AM, Fernando Fernández < [email protected]> wrote:
> > svd.r$d[1:10] [1] 640.63362 244.83635 217.84622 159.15360 158.21191 > 145.87261 126.57977 121.90770 106.82918 99.74794[1] "three runs with q=0" > [1] 640.63362 244.83613 217.84493 159.14512 158.20471 145.82572 126.42295 > 121.79764 105.99973 98.99649 [1] 640.63362 244.83592 217.84568 159.13914 > 158.19299 145.84226 126.46651 121.73629 106.22892 99.11622 [1] 640.63362 > 244.83590 217.84482 159.12955 158.19675 145.81728 126.47135 121.79920 > 106.45790 99.01242 > > [1] "three runs with q=1" [1] 640.63259 244.75889 217.66362 158.40002 > 157.61954 145.26448 125.25675 119.74266 104.16382 95.43547 [1] > 640.6327 244.7559 217.6805 158.6019 157.4059 144.9223 124.2859 > 119.1194 103.9104 96.6282 [1] 640.63313 244.62599 217.67781 158.72475 > 157.13394 145.08462 125.33024 120.20984 102.45867 95.37994 > > > I have repeated the runs several times with the same results... Maybe I'm > still missing something else but given these results I can't apply the rule > of q=1 improves accuracy. At least I have to experiment, my guess is it do > depends on the dataset. I would like also to repeat this comparison with > Mahout's SSVD and my dataset and see what happens. > > Dmitriy, thank you very much for your attention and sharing your thoughts > with me. I really appreciate it. > That is interesting. The results for q=0 and q=1 are remarkably similar which I wouldn't expect.
