I think this suggestion is more applicable to the prior versions, which didn’t include build conditions. If your main focus is in choosing the build conditions (i.e., constraints), then the build objectives – metrics to minimize or maximize – can be kept pretty simple. If that’s the case, I’m not sure a sensitivity analysis would reveal much about the relationship between in-sample metrics and out-of-sample results. In fact, relying on any correlations you might find could be misleading since, as we all know, correlation does not imply causation.
The premise of the build process is that the out-of-sample results will tend to improve with successive generations (up to a point) if the build process is valid. In other words, provided the build metrics (objectives and conditions) reflect your intent, you shouldn’t need to analyze your own choices. I discussed this process in a prior newsletter article, and a future version of Builder will directly incorporate the ideas in that article about build, test, and validation periods and the relationship between the build and test periods in particular.
Mike Bryant
Subject: Re: Suggestion: Metric Sets, Metric Set Library
I discussed this process in a prior newsletter article, and a future version of Builder will directly incorporate the ideas in that article about build, test, and validation periods and the relationship between the build and test periods in particular.Mike Bryant
My plans have not changed in that regard.
Mike Bryant
Subject: Re: Suggestion: Metric Sets, Metric Set Library
On Friday, March 1, 2013 4:41:02 PM UTC-6, MikeBryant wrote: