-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 8
feat: Add random state feature. #150
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
base: john-development
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
john-halloran
commented
Jun 6, 2025
- feat: Added random_state feature for reproducibility.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is great!
We have to decide how much testing we will add. Ideal is 100% coverage, optimal is probably less.
Maybe write the docstrings so I can understand what the class does, then we can decide what to test?
components=None, | ||
random_state=None, | ||
): | ||
|
||
self.MM = MM |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
more descriptive name?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Changed to n_components, which is what sklearn.decomposition.NMF uses.
MM, | ||
Y0=None, | ||
X0=None, | ||
A=None, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
more descriptive name?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There are many different standards for what to name these matrices. Zero agreement between sources that use NMF. I'm inclined to eventually use what sklearn.decomposition.non_negative_factorization uses, which would mean MM->X, X->W, Y->H. But I'd like to leave this as is for the moment until there's a consensus about what would be the most clear or standard. If people will be finding this tool from the sNMF paper, there's also an argument for using the X, Y, and A names because that was used there.
@@ -4,8 +4,20 @@ | |||
|
|||
|
|||
class SNMFOptimizer: | |||
def __init__(self, MM, Y0=None, X0=None, A=None, rho=1e12, eta=610, max_iter=500, tol=5e-7, components=None): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
we need a docstring here and in the init. Please see scikit-package FAQ about how to write these. Also, look at Yucong's code or diffpy.utils?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Added one here. The package init dates back to the old codebase, but as soon as that is updated it will get a docstring as well.
@@ -15,23 +27,22 @@ def __init__(self, MM, Y0=None, X0=None, A=None, rho=1e12, eta=610, max_iter=500 | |||
# Capture matrix dimensions | |||
self.N, self.M = MM.shape | |||
self.num_updates = 0 | |||
self.rng = np.random.default_rng(random_state) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
can we have a more descriptive variable name? Is this a range? What is the range?
if self.A is None: | ||
self.A = np.ones((self.K, self.M)) + np.random.randn(self.K, self.M) * 1e-3 # Small perturbation | ||
self.A = np.ones((self.K, self.M)) + self.rng.normal(0, 1e-3, size=(self.K, self.M)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
K and M are probably good names if the matrix decomposition equation is in hte docstring, so they get defined there.
Thanks, will work on resolving these. To be clear, for things like the docstrings would you prefer I make new PRs, get those merged, then rebase this one, or just add to this existing PR? |
For now, I will assume anything given as feedback in this PR could be in scope to include. |