Skip to content

Conversation

@Lewuathe
Copy link
Contributor

LBFGS uses convergence tolerance. This value should be written in document as an argument.

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Mar 15, 2015

Test build #28625 has started for PR 5033 at commit 6ccb304.

  • This patch merges cleanly.

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Mar 15, 2015

Test build #28625 timed out for PR 5033 at commit 6ccb304 after a configured wait of 120m.

@AmplabJenkins
Copy link

Test FAILed.
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed):
https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins//job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/28625/
Test FAILed.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If linking to Breeze, would be better to link straight to its LBFGS. However I don't know if we want to promise that implementation detail.

Should we also be updating the javadoc for LBFGS.scala and other similar places where this param is documented?

I'm not sure this text helps someone understand what the value is or how to set it -- what are adjusted values? You're right, it's fairly opaque beyond being something relative (rather than something that might need to change with the input). The thing to know is that lower values mean more iterations and the value must be nonnegative. So how about something more like:

Controls how much relative change is still allowed when L-BFGS is considered to converge. Must be nonnegative. Lower values are less tolerant and therefore generally cause more iterations to be run.

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Mar 16, 2015

Test build #28648 has started for PR 5033 at commit ac03c3a.

  • This patch merges cleanly.

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Mar 16, 2015

Test build #28648 timed out for PR 5033 at commit ac03c3a after a configured wait of 120m.

@AmplabJenkins
Copy link

Test FAILed.
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed):
https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins//job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/28648/
Test FAILed.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nit: works better as "Lower convergence values are less tolerant and therefore ..." as you have elsewhere. (I can get to this on merge if you don't first.) LGTM otherwise. I think we can ignore the Jenkins timeout. I will verify the docs build before merging.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm sorry for my unnatural expression. I modified to be more natural. Thank you.

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Mar 17, 2015

Test build #28722 has started for PR 5033 at commit e738b33.

  • This patch merges cleanly.

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Mar 17, 2015

Test build #28722 has finished for PR 5033 at commit e738b33.

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

@AmplabJenkins
Copy link

Test PASSed.
Refer to this link for build results (access rights to CI server needed):
https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins//job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/28722/
Test PASSed.

@mengxr
Copy link
Contributor

mengxr commented Mar 17, 2015

Merged into master and branch-1.3. Thanks!

@asfgit asfgit closed this in d9f3e01 Mar 17, 2015
asfgit pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 17, 2015
LBFGS uses convergence tolerance. This value should be written in document as an argument.

Author: lewuathe <[email protected]>

Closes #5033 from Lewuathe/SPARK-6336 and squashes the following commits:

e738b33 [lewuathe] Modify text to be more natural
ac03c3a [lewuathe] Modify documentations
6ccb304 [lewuathe] [SPARK-6336] LBFGS should document what convergenceTol means

(cherry picked from commit d9f3e01)
Signed-off-by: Xiangrui Meng <[email protected]>
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.

5 participants