Skip to content

Add clarification on random forest regressor default params #5862

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

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

jonoleson
Copy link

Add clarification about random forest regressor actually being an ensemble of bagged trees with its default max_features parameter (whereby max_features=n_features by default).

…emble of bagged trees with its default max_features parameter
@@ -133,7 +133,7 @@ built from a sample drawn with replacement (i.e., a bootstrap sample)
from the training set. In addition, when splitting a node during the
construction of the tree, the split that is chosen is no longer the
best split among all features. Instead, the split that is picked is the
best split among a random subset of the features. As a result of this
best split among a random subset of the features (although this is not necessarily true for RandomForestRegressor, see :ref:`Parameters <ensemble_parameters>`). As a result of this
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

please break lines at 79 characters.

@amueller
Copy link
Member

ping @glouppe @arjoly

@amueller amueller added Easy Well-defined and straightforward way to resolve Documentation good first issue Easy with clear instructions to resolve help wanted labels Sep 27, 2018
@amueller
Copy link
Member

I think this is actually a useful addition, though there is still line break issues and this is now way out of date.

@ltcguthrie
Copy link

I will work on the line break issue.

@abenbihi
Copy link
Contributor

abenbihi commented Feb 25, 2019

I am merging the documentation. Continued in #13248.

@glemaitre
Copy link
Member

closing in favor of #13248

@glemaitre glemaitre closed this Jun 20, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Documentation Easy Well-defined and straightforward way to resolve good first issue Easy with clear instructions to resolve help wanted
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants