Add X,y,Y to ignored list #69
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for adding this mention, @adrinjalali.
Based on the specification of SLEPs' "Review and Resolution" defined by SLEP000, shouldn't we change the status of SLEP006 to Provisional (or Provisionally Accepted) as it is still being slightly adapted?
|
I think it's not the SLEP which is changing, they're implementation details. I don't think it'd be healthy for this SLEP to go back to not being accepted. |
|
Yep, from my understanding of SLEP000, I not think |
| @@ -76,6 +76,10 @@ Note that in the core library nothing is requested by default, except | |||
| the time of writing this proposal, all metadata requested in the core library | |||
| are sample aligned. | |||
|
|
|||
| Also note that ``X``, ``y``, and ``Y`` input arguments are never automatically | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is the only mention of upper-case Y in this document. (I suspect it is for PLS) Do you think this will be confusing?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I mean, from the perspective of the SLEP and the implementation, we don't really care why it's here. These arguments never enter the routing scheme.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Small interjection to bring information: Y is also used as an argument for some pairwise_distances-based APIs.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In case of pairwise_distance, Y is a feature array. In the context of this SLEP, X and y are feature and target data, respectively.
In any case, I am okay with leaving this statement as is.
| @@ -76,6 +76,10 @@ Note that in the core library nothing is requested by default, except | |||
| the time of writing this proposal, all metadata requested in the core library | |||
| are sample aligned. | |||
|
|
|||
| Also note that ``X``, ``y``, and ``Y`` input arguments are never automatically | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In case of pairwise_distance, Y is a feature array. In the context of this SLEP, X and y are feature and target data, respectively.
In any case, I am okay with leaving this statement as is.
|
Then I'll merge this with 4 approvals. |
X,y,Yare automatically ignored in the routing mechanism when we infer routed parameters.xref: scikit-learn/scikit-learn#23342 (comment)
cc @thomasjpfan