spark-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Hall <d...@cs.berkeley.edu>
Subject Re: MLLib - Thoughts about refactoring Updater for LBFGS?
Date Thu, 06 Mar 2014 03:51:04 GMT
I did not. They would be nice to have.


On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Debasish Das <debasish.das83@gmail.com>wrote:

> David,
>
> There used to be standard BFGS testcases in Professor Nocedal's
> package...did you stress test the solver with them ?
>
> If not I will shoot him an email for them.
>
> Thanks.
> Deb
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:00 PM, David Hall <dlwh@cs.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 1:57 PM, DB Tsai <dbtsai@alpinenow.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi David,
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 8:13 PM, dlwh <david.lw.hall@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I'm happy to help fix any problems. I've verified at points that the
> > > > implementation gives the exact same sequence of iterates for a few
> > > different
> > > > functions (with a particular line search) as the c port of lbfgs. So
> > I'm
> > > a
> > > > little surprised it fails where Fortran succeeds... but only a
> little.
> > > This
> > > > was fixed late last year.
> > > I'm working on a reproducible test case using breeze vs fortran
> > > implementation to show the problem I've run into. The test will be in
> > > one of the test cases in my Spark fork, is it okay for you to
> > > investigate the issue? Or do I need to make it as a standalone test?
> > >
> >
> >
> > Um, as long as it wouldn't be too hard to pull out.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Will send you the test later today.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > >
> > > DB Tsai
> > > Machine Learning Engineer
> > > Alpine Data Labs
> > > --------------------------------------
> > > Web: http://alpinenow.com/
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message