Skip to content

Conversation

@feynmanliang
Copy link
Contributor

@jkbradley Exposes bound (variational log likelihood bound) through public API as logLikelihood. Also adds unit tests, some DRYing of LDASuite, and includes unit tests mentioned in #7760

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Jul 30, 2015

Test build #39078 has finished for PR 7801 at commit f0996d8.

  • This patch passes all tests.
  • This patch merges cleanly.
  • This patch adds no public classes.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is a lower bound, not an upper bound, on the log likelihood.

@jkbradley
Copy link
Member

This looks good, but it made me realize that gensim defines log perplexity as the negation of the log perplexity in the Online LDA paper's Eq 15. I prefer the Online LDA paper way, since low perplexity sounds like a good thing to me (whereas with gensim, high perplexity is better). I checked Stanford NLP, and they also say lower perplexity is better. Can you please modify the logPerplexity code to negate the returned value?

@feynmanliang feynmanliang force-pushed the SPARK-9481-logLikelihood branch from f0996d8 to 6d1b2c9 Compare July 31, 2015 16:56
@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Jul 31, 2015

Test build #39238 has finished for PR 7801 at commit 6d1b2c9.

  • This patch passes all tests.
  • This patch merges cleanly.
  • This patch adds no public classes.

@jkbradley
Copy link
Member

LGTM, thanks! Merging with master

@asfgit asfgit closed this in a8340fa Jul 31, 2015
@feynmanliang feynmanliang deleted the SPARK-9481-logLikelihood branch August 3, 2015 19:38
@feynmanliang feynmanliang changed the title [SPARK-9481]Add logLikelihood to LocalLDAModel [SPARK-9481][MLlib]Add logLikelihood to LocalLDAModel Aug 10, 2015
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants