Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 19:00:59 04/16/04
Go up one level in this thread
On April 16, 2004 at 17:16:39, Dann Corbit wrote:
>On April 16, 2004 at 16:53:40, Dave Gomboc wrote:
>
>>On April 14, 2004 at 19:48:53, Dann Corbit wrote:
>>
>>>On April 14, 2004 at 19:46:18, Dave Gomboc wrote:
>>>
>>>>On April 14, 2004 at 18:17:07, Dann Corbit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I have downloaded the document and skimmed it.
>>>>>
>>>>>I will read it carefully this weekend.
>>>>
>>>>In that case you might as well re-download it when you sit down to read it.
>>>>I've already made some tweaks that aren't yet posted.
>>>
>>>I am curious about the "wandering" evaluation terms.
>>>
>>>I suspect two things about these terms:
>>>1. That [usually] the correlational coefficient will be much smaller for these
>>>2. That they occur in pairs {or vectors} (e.g. if wildly different sets can
>>>both have nearly optimal results, then likely there are interactions)
>>
>>I'm not sure what you mean by #1.
>
>The correlational coefficient is the goodness of the fit, for whatever gradient
>you are following.
You want to measure the fit for features individually? Yes, I suggest using tau
(the concordance measure) for feature selection in the future work section.
Dave
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.