#metabrainz

cool!

so we can provide users with an option to choose which method they use, we can save that to options, and then in the method that you linked to, we can look at the option and choose the correct training process

do you think it is proper to created a new function that works with the sklearn, like evaluate_dataset_sklearn()?

create*

some of the code here would be shared, though

ok

I think that we should move this into a separate method for gaia: https://github.com/metabrainz/acousticbrainz-se...

and make another similar one for sklearn

that was what i was thinking too.

let's say evaluate_sklearn.py?

a separate python file

?

mmm, so gaia_wrapper.train_model is in a separate file

I'm just thinking

what's the main entrypoint to your train method for sklearn?

exaclty. We could make a sklearn_wrapper

keep in mind that the gaia wrapper only exists because the interface to gaia was a little bit verbose

it's the file called `create_classification_project.py`

we can load it directly

because we control all of the code for the sklearn model training process, we should be able to just include a single method there that we can call

in fact, all we need is a single method like `train_model` in the code that you've already added, and a new method like `save_history_file` which saves the sklearn model

train_model can be in create_classification_project or similar

great. Thus, a separate method inside the evaluate.py would be preferable?

save_sklearn_model (for example) could be be in evaluate.py

for now I'm not too worried if we put the method in evaluate.py or create_classification_project.py, we can change it if we think it should be moved

great. That was what I was thinking too

Hi ruaok! Were you able to have a look at adding a time_range parameter to the user/XXX/listens API endpoint?

Too more questions

two*

this should be a good start. once this is done, we will be able to build a dataset and train its model with sklearn! that's the second part of closing the loop

Mr_Monkey: hi! sorry, that hasn't made to the top of the list yet.

Some of the functionality I'll want to implement on the React side (if there are less listens than the expected count and my oldest ts is older than tha, fetch listens again with a bigger time_range)

I saw in the create dataset from AB API, that I can download a csv file, which contains the MBIDs from a dataset for evaluation

but, I have 4 hours left, and not that much work I can do with this shit connection.

No problem. I don't think this is a huge rsh, but I do wonder what it's looking like for users at the moment.

how could I load to localhost AB the relevant low-level

in order to experiment later on with the evaluation

?

Mr_Monkey: I'll do it now. should I make a new branch or add to an existing branch?

ahhh

that's https://github.com/metabrainz/acousticbrainz-se... :)

do you need a bunch of files to load to localhost for testing?

Mr_Monkey: > my oldest ts is older than tha,

can you expand on that, please?

https://zenodo.org/record/2553414 you could download one of these archives, they have a lot of files in them that you could then upload to the server

@alastairp: exactly

I keep around this basic submit script that will take a directory of files named [uuid].json and submit them to a local server

great! This would be really helpful

What I mean is that the front end needs to determine wether it should fetch more listens or not. If I get less than the 25 listens i fetched for, I'll compare the ts for the oldest of those with the oldest ts for that user, which I have access to. If it's higher than the oldest ts that means there are more listens to fetch.

I thought if could be any script that can read the MBIDs from a dataset csv file

like this one

Mr_Monkey: ok, I think I understand.

Basically the same check we were doing in python (/me looks for the line)

and then download the data from acousticbrainz and then submit to a local server?

yeah

that should be a very small modification to the above file

ok, I'll check it

my final question is related to the sklearn, and gaia processsing steps

I see that mfcc preprocessing step is really slow during the training of the gridsearch model

Mr_Monkey: so, we will no longer be passing in the time_range function to the listenstore, yes?

and this step was also excluded from the PR you sent me above

ruaok: https://github.com/metabrainz/listenbrainz-serv...

Although it doesn't look like we were comparing timestamps at all

makes sense to

As for time_range and listenstore, I'm not sure. Not in user.py I don't think

@alastairp: could we remove it from the pre-processing steps? I started a train for a really large dataset in a computer that has 48 cores, wears a CUDA GPU of 7000 dollars and it runs two days in row 😂

But we'll want to implement it in the API instead

jmp_music_: sure, for now if it takes too long with sklearn then we should remove it to make the training process faster

as an argument for the API endpoint*

also the mfcc step never returns good results

if we have time, we should look into it in more detail, because obviously gaia is doing something with that data

Mr_Monkey: but the idea is that the concept of looking for more listens completely disappears from the javascript/html side of things, right?

cool

No. On the contrary, we let the front-end decide when it should request a bigger time_range from the API.

ok, now I am really confused.

@alastairp: thanks a lot! I 'll start working on the evaluate scripts

That way, we don't make the initial call to load the user page longer by looking for bigger time range, and only do so when the user decides to (click a button to load more)

jmp_music_: great, I'll try and get these interface changes made soon so that you can extend this work. let me know if you have any questions or need me to do something

of course! thanks again. Oh, one final question. Do I have to make a readme file inside the folder of the sklearn tool, in the purposes of the GSoC? I just saw an email they sent to me earlier toaday

today*

Mr_Monkey: which branch should I be looking at? I think I need to see what the current code is that we're going for.

So we previously used to load the default time range, and passed a flag to react if there were more listens to fetch. User could then click a button to reload the page with a flag to load a bigger time_range. All we want to do now is move that mechanism to the front-end only, but instead of reloading the page we call the API (which is where a time_range arg is currently missing)

master

ok, so the task list is: remove the time_range arguments from the profile view and instead add a time_range argument to the API. do I have that right then?

Yes

ok, thanks for clarifying.

jmp_music_: yes, that was in fact one of the things that I was going to add to the review of your PR

it would be good to have a readme in that folder that briefly explains what the module does, along with some examples of how to use each part

In the same way we decided to fetch the listens count after page load to not make the page load longer than necessary, we figured it would be better to let the user decide to load more data if they wish. The alternative is making page loads potentially longer for user's profiles you might be visiting, but only care to see the latest listens or stats, but don't necessarily care about having a full page of listens)

ok totally makes sense. I had understood something completely differently when it was explained at first. hence my confusion.

but with the dynamic loading it makes sense.

heh, the train crew is rather sassy. making all sorts of comments about how not to wear a mask. lol

@alastairp: OK, I'll be waiting for the review

👍

thanks again :)

All aboard the sassy train!

Mr_Monkey: the prop for the user view will no longer receive search_larger_time_range, can you confirm that.

Confirmed

k. what is the name of the argument to the API that specifies range?

In fact that's already been removed on the React side

There is currently no argument for range on the API

and also, search_larger_time_range will no longer be a valid option for the profile view, right?

Correct

gah! we're currently passing through the 100km section where its nothing but tunnel-bridge-tunnel-bridge connectivity sucks!

try the move-range-to-api branch -- does that look like what you are expecting?

[listenbrainz-server] mayhem opened pull request #1015 (master…move-range-to-api): Move range to api https://github.com/metabrainz/listenbrainz-serv...

Mr_Monkey: hey

Halo

I wanted to ask something for search_larger_time_range

Shoot

So currently what user feedback we got was to remove the trouble of clicking a button

Rather the users wanted to wait for 2 sec more

ruaok: looks pretty good to me. I'll check

Rather having to click that button

Ah?

I think that could work. Maybe show a special "loading more…" text

I was also thinking to add a text below the loader

I was woring on in 1000 PR

Mr_Monkey: I'm slowly fixing tests...

Something user friendly and intrresting like... Please wait... Digging more into your listens

So shall I extend the support for loader

I'd say we put that loading more text below the listens (considering we have less listens than usual in that case)