Displaying 8 results from an estimated 8 matches for "ivmarkp".
Did you mean:
ipmark
2016 Jul 25
3
Weighting Schemes: Evaluation results
Hi James,
> We probably don't want them committed in git where they're evaluation
> runs (because we can recreate them); a gist might be more appropriate.
Sorry, I have moved results files over to gist for each individual
weighting scheme.
Link: https://gist.github.com/ivmarkp/secret
> I can't tell, but are some of those files from FIRE? If so, they
> shouldn't be committed either; access to FIRE is via our usage
> agreement, and shouldn't be just public on the internet
> anywhere.
No, those files are generated each time a run is completed, and...
2016 Jul 29
2
Weighting Schemes: Implementing Piv+ Normalization
...(I'm not sure,
> because I don't know why you're incrementing it. Please push your code
> to github if you need further help so people can see the entire
> context of your changes.)
I've pushed all the changes I made so far
https://github.com/xapian/xapian/compare/master...ivmarkp:piv+?diff=split&name=piv%2B
Can you please add some comments on it? Support for normalization weighting
is complete -- just these issues with serialisation.
Meanwhile, I'm working on adding an overloaded constructor and pass
parameters s and delta to it. Thus, separating the normalization...
2017 Jun 09
6
Logging the click data
> The log command will be executed wherever it is in the template.
> By "current system user", what do you mean? There'll need to be
> write permission for the CGI process, which is probably the same
> identity as the web server process.
I basically changed the ownership of the /var/log/omega directory to
the current user using:
sudo chown `whoami` /var/log/omega
But I
2016 Jul 24
2
Weighting Schemes: Evaluation results
Hi all,
I have evaluated new weighting schemes along with their existing
counterparts in Xapian to compare and see which one does better job.
Also, I have put together all the results files for easy access here:
https://github.com/ivmarkp/xapian-evaluation/tree/evaluation/run
and a README for getting started with xapian-evaluation module. Hopefully,
it might be of help to those who are new to evaluating weighting schemes in
Xapian :)
Comparing the MAP to access the retrieval effectiveness, some interesting
results have emerged as f...
2016 Aug 07
2
Weighting Schemes: Evaluation results
...tion in wdfn, idfn and wtn component as "Pxx", "xPx" and "xxP"
normalization strings respectively to have a clear idea about which one
does better job of retrieving relevant documents.
All results of evaluation runs can be easily accessed here:
https://gist.github.com/ivmarkp
Comparing the MAP of "PPP" with that of "ntn" normalization, we get results
as follows:
PPP : 0.0607107
ntn : 0.109525
Clearly, the default normalization does a better job here than pivoted
normalization but since we intended to have support for pivoted
normalization in Xapia...
2016 Jul 27
2
Weighting Schemes: Implementing Piv+ Normalization
...ghting as
a separate weighting scheme in Xapian as it will make a way to add support
of different variations of pivoted normalization in the future?
Piv+ weighting formula:
https://trac.xapian.org/attachment/wiki/GSoC2016/Weighting/ProjectPlan/Piv%2B.png
)
Commit of Piv changes:
https://github.com/ivmarkp/xapian/commit/a02942fe3c3cf6cfbdd3c14685c2ff5f8a6b8b7c
Commit Piv+ changes:
https://github.com/ivmarkp/xapian/commit/e31a46e5a5ee1bdd3931de25e25722e46df056fe
Thanks,
Vivek
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.xapian.org/pipermail/xapian-d...
2016 Jul 28
2
Weighting Schemes: Evaluation results
Ah. If FIRE doesn't have something that can show this suitably, then
> maybe Parth can advise on access to TREC, as I know he's used some of
> them in the past.
>
?I can say FIRE is also a reliable source but INEX/TREC are better. INEX
can give you free access and TREC is not freely available. I had used INEX
for xapian in the past and some details are here:
2016 Jul 28
2
Weighting Schemes: Implementing Piv+ Normalization
> Two of those are compile errors, suggesting you aren't pulling in the
> right header file (it's in common/serialise-double.h I believe).
Thanks, fixed those errors.
> I can't tell for sure without seeing the diff. You may mean just
> `ptr++`? But it could be something else, depending on what you're
> trying to do.
I'm trying to unserialise normalization