QuickTopic (SM) free message boards QuickTopic (SM) free message boards
Skip to Messages
  Sign In to access your topic list  |New Topic |My Topics|Profile
Upgrade to Pro   Customize, show pictures, add an intro, and more:   QuickTopic Pro...and check out QuickThreadSM
Topic: A Generalization of PCA to the Exponential Family
Views: 1042, Unique: 630 
Subscribers: 0
What's
this?
Printer-Friendly Page
Subscribe to get & post, or stop messages by email Subscribe
All messages    << 2-11  1-1 of 11        
About these ads
Who | When
Messagessort recent-top   
Post a new message
 
Kristin BransonPerson was signed in when posted  1
10-01-2002 02:49 AM ET (US)
I think Sameer has quite a task to present all the background information necessary to understand this paper. I think the basic idea of the paper is clear, simple, and very nice, but I am getting very confused by the math, It would be helpful I think to know the meanings of all the parts of equation (2). I can see what functions G(theta) and Po(x) represent in specific examples, but I don't know what the meanings of these functions are in general. I feel like they have more meaning than just being a way to split up lg(P(x|theta)) into parts by their dependencies, but maybe I am wrong. I think this might help me understand why it can be easily verified that g(theta) = E[x|theta], as I do not understand the relationship between Po(x) and the expected value of x.

I am totally confused by the whole part in the last paragraph of 2.2 (as I have not looked at the Generalized Linear Models paper) and I think it would be helpful to hear some about that.

I was also wondering what the meaning of the Bregman distance is. It seems to fit conveniently into the minimization problem, but I am interested to hear its standard context.

Finally, does the actual algorithm for minimizing the loss function assume that the components v_i are mutually orthogonal? If it does not, then how is each minimization done separately -- it seems like we want the collection of l vectors v_i (and corresponding coefficients a_i) that minimize the loss function, but somehow we are able to divide this problem into finding each v_i separately. What stops you from getting the same v_i from each of these minimizations? Even if orthogonality is assumed, then how is it enforced?
RSS link What's this?
All messages    << 2-11  1-1 of 11        
QuickTopicSM message boards
Over 200,000 topics served
Learn more Frequently asked questions  Acknowledgements
What they're saying about QuickTopic
 Questions, comments, or suggestions? Contact Us
Read our use policy before beginning. We value your privacy; please read our privacy statement.
Copyright ©1999-2008 Internicity Inc. All rights reserved.