-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 240
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Dynamic lying factor #37
Comments
My only comment would be that there is quite some variance in the error values that you get between runs (because the optimization problem is non-convex). So to really determine what works better, you'd have to do 100s of runs with both settings and then compare their means (and variances). Moreover, you'd probably want to repeat the experiment on different datasets and with different dataset sizes. |
You are right. I forgot to mention that I use externally defined initialization for Y so that error and output is same for each run. |
Even if the Y is fixed in your experiment: who says the outcome of the experiment wouldn't be different if you had used on another initial Y? You'd have to repeat this experiments many times (for many different datasets) to confirm this is a statistically significant improvement. |
@lvdmaaten Have you tried to use dynamic lying factor instead of static 12.0?
Got little lower error (dropped from 1.428 to 1.394 ) by replacing static lying factor with dynamic value:
Output for bhtsne with static lying factor for input of 10000 x 200 samples:
Output for bhtsne with dynamic lying factor for input of 10000 x 200 samples:
Any opinions on this experiment?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: