-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 25.8k
ENH Allow sample_weight
and other fit_params
in RFE
#20380
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
Conversation
The current failure is due to the fact that you need an entry in the what's new. Please add an entry to the change log at |
Thanks, @glemaitre! I'll do that |
Co-authored-by: Guillaume Lemaitre <g.lemaitre58@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Guillaume Lemaitre <g.lemaitre58@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Guillaume Lemaitre <g.lemaitre58@gmail.com>
…to fit-params-for-rfe
#DataUmbrella LATAM sprint |
Alternatively, you could do what you see in this test: https://github.com/scikit-learn/scikit-learn/pull/20491/files#diff-54f1f33fb83821d84c45b02c34b247e231052da9380c79c6487a33a4d147ee72R499 @glemaitre I think the test I point to, runs faster and does the check as we want. WDYT? Also, could we also add the same support for |
@adrinjalali Yes I agree. The test that you propose is more readable because it directly tests the metadata instead of using the |
@fbidu Could you implement what @adrinjalali proposed? |
sample_weight
and other fit_params
in RFE
@glemaitre Just sent a reminder email to both @fbidu and @ijpulidos, in case GitHub notifications get buried. |
@glemaitre sure, I'll give it a try |
So, I've made a 'merge' of sorts with @adrinjalali's mods in the other PR and added him as co-author as well. Will solve those conflicts now |
Oh, I also removed the former test completely because I understood they are redundant to each other and @adrinjalali's is better. Let me know if I should keep them both |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
Co-authored-by: Guillaume Lemaitre <g.lemaitre58@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Guillaume Lemaitre <g.lemaitre58@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Guillaume Lemaitre <g.lemaitre58@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Guillaume Lemaitre <g.lemaitre58@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Guillaume Lemaitre <g.lemaitre58@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Guillaume Lemaitre <g.lemaitre58@gmail.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Other than the two minor changes, LGTM :)
Co-authored-by: Adrin Jalali <adrin.jalali@gmail.com>
Thanks @fbidu |
…#20380) Co-authored-by: Guillaume Lemaitre <g.lemaitre58@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Adrin Jalali <adrin.jalali@gmail.com>
…#20380) Co-authored-by: Guillaume Lemaitre <g.lemaitre58@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Adrin Jalali <adrin.jalali@gmail.com>
Reference Issues/PRs
This PR takes over the work from #7333 and fixes #7308
closes #7333
What does this implement/fix? Explain your changes.
This PR just continues the work from the original PR by implementing the changes on the current main branch
The original description reads:
c/c: @ijpulidos