Typo in online documentation on Matrix Factorization
Hi, First at all, I would like to warmly thank the scikit developer community with providing us with such a high quality ML library: it really became an amazing piece of scientific software. I have a comment concerning the online documentation on Matrix Factorization Problems. (I use this mailing list because I could not find in your online howto, what is the best channel to communicate documentation issues.Apologies if this email is considered as spam in this mailing list !) On the webpage 2.5. Decomposing signals in components (matrix factorization problems) — scikit-learn 0.18.2 documentation We can read at 2.5.1.5. Sparse principal components analysis but a bit further, at 2.5.3.2. Generic dictionary learning, we can read The notations are obviously inconsistent as U and V have been interchanged some how. Two extra (less important) corrections could probably improve even further the clarity for the reader:1. Sticking to a single upper bound limit (either n_components or n_atoms)2. Specifying whether V_k are columns or rows (maybe using a notation à la Matlab/Numpy: V_{:,k} or V_{k,:}) Kind regards, Axel BREUER
I think the documentation is correct. U, a.k.a. "the code" or "the activations" has shape (n_samples, n_components) and V a.k.a. "the dictionary" or "the components" has shape (n_components, n_features) in both case. We could use n_components uniformly instead of n_atoms for consistency's sake (and just make sure that the "components" is a synonym for "dictionary atoms" in the literature). I think V_k is fine because the dimension with size n_components is the first dimension of V. If you spot issues or other things that are unclear or incomplete in the doc, please feel free to open an issue on github. You can also directly submit a pull request if you are familiar with git. The website is built from the docs that live in the "doc/" subfolder of the repo. -- Olivier
2017-07-06 15:10 GMT+02:00 Olivier Grisel <olivier.grisel@ensta.org>:
(and just make sure that the "components" is a synonym for "dictionary atoms" in the literature).
Actually I meant: and just make sure that our documentation states explicitly that the "components" is a synonym for "dictionary atoms" in the literature. -- Olivier http://twitter.com/ogrisel - http://github.com/ogrisel
participants (2)
-
axel breuer -
Olivier Grisel