Skip to content

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

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: john-development
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

john-halloran
Copy link

  • feat: Added random_state feature for reproducibility.

Copy link
Contributor

@sbillinge sbillinge left a 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
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

more descriptive name?

Copy link
Author

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,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

more descriptive name?

Copy link
Author

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):
Copy link
Contributor

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?

Copy link
Author

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)
Copy link
Contributor

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))
Copy link
Contributor

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.

@john-halloran
Copy link
Author

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?

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?

@john-halloran
Copy link
Author

For now, I will assume anything given as feedback in this PR could be in scope to include.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants