Skip to content

Non-standard naming in L-BFGS Learners (LogisticRegression, PoissonRegression) #2882

Closed

Description

@rogancarr

In LogisticRegression and PoissonRegression (which use the same L-BFGS base), we have a parameter IterationsToRemember that refers to the number of gradients to accumulate in the history. While this terminology makes sense, it's not what we usually encounter in the field.

In the literature, we see this referred to as the "history size" (see e.g. wikipedia).

In the various toolkits that expose an L-BFGS solver, they use:
Scikit Learn: Doesn't expose it.
Spark: NumberOfCorrections
TensorFlow: num_correction_pairs
PyTorch: history_size

I would vote for HistorySize, with the docs explaining what it is.

What do you all think? Any big feelings around this?

Activity

  1. self-assigned this
    on Mar 7, 2019
  2. rogancarr commented on Mar 7, 2019

    @rogancarr
    ContributorAuthor
  3. changed the title [-]Non-standard naming in LogisticRegression[/-] [+]Non-standard naming in L-BFGS Learners (LogisticRegression, PoissonRegression)[/+] on Mar 7, 2019
  4. Ivanidzo4ka commented on Mar 7, 2019

    @Ivanidzo4ka
    Contributor

    Just to protect myself from pitchforks, before it was MemorySize. :D

  5. rogancarr commented on Mar 7, 2019

    @rogancarr
    ContributorAuthor

    Oh, I don't think IterationsToRemember is necessarily bad, just not standard :)

  6. TomFinley commented on Mar 7, 2019

    @TomFinley
    Contributor

    Just to protect myself from pitchforks, before it was MemorySize. :D

    I don't remember that. 😉

    Jokes aside, yes totally sounds fine with me. Memory size is a bad name since that could be misinterpreted. The idea of "corrections" is a bit weird; I mean, I guess if all the toolkits call it that, it's just weird to name it something so different from the literature which I seem to recall just being history.

    I would also be fine with leaving it as is. I can't say I consider "correction size" fundamentally easier to remember than "iterations to remember," considering how L-BFGS uses that parameter. If anything that makes it more obscure, but I can't say I care very much.

  7. rogancarr commented on Mar 7, 2019

    @rogancarr
    ContributorAuthor

    @TomFinley HistorySize or IterationsToRemember?

  8. shauheen commented on Mar 7, 2019

    @shauheen
    Contributor

    HistorySize +1

  9. added this to the 0319 milestone on Mar 7, 2019
  10. added a commit that references this issue on Mar 11, 2021
  11. ghost locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators on Mar 23, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

No labels
No labels

Type

No type

Projects

No projects

    Milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions