-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 25.8k
TST Adjust learning rate to compare with LightGBM 3.X #21082
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
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.
@thomasjpfan Thanks for tackling this one!
# TODO: Used decimal=2 when seed=0. acc_sklearn is 0.02 higher than | ||
# acc_lightgbm with seed=0 | ||
decimal = 1 if seed == 0 else 2 | ||
np.testing.assert_almost_equal(acc_lightgbm, acc_sklearn, decimal=decimal) |
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.
In principle, I'm against seed dependent test tolerances. Can this situation be improved?
Co-authored-by: Christian Lorentzen <lorentzen.ch@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.
Very nice fix, thanks!
We might want to backport this for 1.0.1. |
…1082) Co-authored-by: Christian Lorentzen <lorentzen.ch@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Christian Lorentzen <lorentzen.ch@gmail.com>
…1082) Co-authored-by: Christian Lorentzen <lorentzen.ch@gmail.com>
Reference Issues/PRs
Closes #18316 (comment)
What does this implement/fix? Explain your changes.
Adds the scaling factor for
learning_rate
when comparing with lightgbm and multiclass tasks.Any other comments?
This PR will enable us to compare interaction constraints in the CI in PR #21020 (as stated in #18316 (comment)).
CC @lorentzenchr @ogrisel