- Dec 07, 2018
-
-
Bas Nijholt authored
-
Bas Nijholt authored
-
Bas Nijholt authored
Resolve "(Learner1D) improve time complexity" Closes #126 and #104 See merge request !139
-
-
- Dec 05, 2018
-
-
Bas Nijholt authored
-
- Nov 28, 2018
-
-
- Nov 27, 2018
-
-
Bas Nijholt authored
-
- Nov 26, 2018
-
-
Bas Nijholt authored
test all the different loss functions in each test See merge request !135
-
Bas Nijholt authored
-
Bas Nijholt authored
-
Bas Nijholt authored
and have fewer xfailing tests
-
Bas Nijholt authored
-
Bas Nijholt authored
Then equal losses will be sorted on x-coordinates.
-
-
Bas Nijholt authored
-
Joseph Weston authored
make 'fname' a parameter to 'save' and 'load' only Closes #122 See merge request !133
- Nov 23, 2018
-
-
Bas Nijholt authored
-
Bas Nijholt authored
-
This simplifies the API by making sure that the filenames are only provided in one place (the calls to save and load). Closes #122
-
Bas Nijholt authored
-
- Nov 22, 2018
-
-
Bas Nijholt authored
* add 'curvature_loss_function' to the 'tutorial.custom_loss.rst' * fix header styling * fix doc-string
-
Bas Nijholt authored
-
Bas Nijholt authored
-
Bas Nijholt authored
-
Bas Nijholt authored
Resolve "(Learner1D) add possibility to use the direct neighbors in the loss" Closes #119 See merge request !131
-
-
-
-
Bas Nijholt authored
This abstracts the attribute 'nn_neighbors' away and makes it easier for the user, because one can now just set the 'loss_per_interval' and the 'nn_neighbors' will be set be default.
-
Bas Nijholt authored
-
Bas Nijholt authored
Because data is now in the 'BaseLearner'
-
Bas Nijholt authored
This makes the code work with any number of neighbors. Now the new triangle loss even works with nn_neigbors=0. I also added that we pass the neighbors in all loss_per_interval functions.
-
-
- Nov 14, 2018
-
-
Joseph Weston authored
Resolve "(LearnerND) allow any convex hull as domain" Closes #114 See merge request !127
-
- Nov 07, 2018
-
-
- Nov 05, 2018
-
-
Bas Nijholt authored
-
- Nov 02, 2018
-
-
Bas Nijholt authored
We were always dividing the total function execution time by the number of cores, however sometimes the user sets 'ntasks' so instead we should divide by '_get_max_tasks()'. Also the future start_time wasn't measured in the case where one uses a SequentialExecutor because the Future that is returned already contains the result.
-