-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9
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
[Question] A “raw” version of the tiny_dataset.zip #43
Comments
open-spaced-repetition/fsrs4anki#437 Keeping
|
Ah, thank for the link! I didn't see that there was already a discussion on the topic. I understand that the potential gains would be very small and there's a chance I'm overthinking this. |
https://huggingface.co/datasets/open-spaced-repetition/fsrs-dataset/tree/main/float-delta-t This dataset contain float delta_t. |
In #28 a link to a pre-processed small dataset was shared.
While testing different ways of converting review logs of different spacing algorithms
to FSRS, my evaluation on ~7000 reviews generated using an EmacsLisp implementation of py-fsrs
suggests that updating the difficulty and stability for reviews with an interval greater than 1 day
is slightly better than using the (re)learning/review states of the py-fsrs implementation.
To make sure I didn't make any mistake in my evaluation code and test on larger datasets,
I'd like to retry this experiment using the code and datasets of this benchmark
but I can't do so with the “tiny_dataset.zip” because the
delta_t
have been rounded to days.Would it be possible to get access to a similar dataset either in an unprocessed format
or with floating-point
delta_t
values?This seems to be related to a difference in how the benchmark and the optimizer
implement the FSRS algorithm (using the first review of each day, as I understand it) and how it's
implemented in e.g. py-fsrs (using states to decide when to update the parameters).
I'm not sure how to compare the two approaches other than using review logs from FSRS
and testing if the recall prediction would have been more accurate if we had included
reviews that occurred in the (re)learning state but after a sufficiently large interval or on a different day.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: