10000 Univariate fast_mcd: np.reshape(X, (-1, 1)) by ThatGeoGuy · Pull Request #4517 · scikit-learn/scikit-learn · GitHub
[go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to content

Univariate fast_mcd: np.reshape(X, (-1, 1)) #4517

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Closed
wants to merge 5 commits into from
Closed

Univariate fast_mcd: np.reshape(X, (-1, 1)) #4517

wants to merge 5 commits into from

Conversation

ThatGeoGuy
Copy link
Contributor

Fix issue #4512 as stated

@landscape-bot
Copy link

Code Health
Code quality remained the same when pulling 71d016f on ThatGeoGuy:master into f8102e5 on scikit-learn:master.

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 95.15% when pulling 71d016f on ThatGeoGuy:master into f8102e5 on scikit-learn:master.

@ThatGeoGuy ThatGeoGuy mentioned this pull request Apr 4, 2015
Closed
@agramfort
Copy link
Member

hum nothing breaks... it suggests that a test is missing...

@amueller don't we have common test for this?

@amueller
Copy link
Member
amueller commented Apr 5, 2015

#4511 should fix that for everything and introduce a common test.

@amueller
Copy link
Member
amueller commented Apr 5, 2015

I am planning to work on that today / tomorrow. I haven't looked at the issue yet, I'm 150 mails behind on sklearn today.

@landscape-bot
Copy link

Code Health
Code quality remained the same when pulling 2226a65 on ThatGeoGuy:master into f8102e5 on scikit-learn:master.

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 95.15% when pulling 2226a65 on ThatGeoGuy:master into f8102e5 on scikit-learn:master.

@ThatGeoGuy
Copy link
Contributor Author

As per issue #3367 I've made some modifications to allow MinCovDet to work in the "exact-fit" scenario. While the above shows that the code quality and coverage don't drop, I do notice some issues where the determinant of the final iteration ends up being significantly larger than the determinant from the previous iteration, spurring some warnings from the code.

For the time being, this PR can likely just be closed while I continue to iron this out.

@ThatGeoGuy ThatGeoGuy closed this Apr 6, 2015
@amueller
Copy link
Member
amueller commented Apr 6, 2015

Ok, thanks. Any help on #3367 would be appreciated.

@ThatGeoGuy ThatGeoGuy mentioned this pull request Feb 9, 2017
Merged
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
5 participants
@ThatGeoGuy @landscape-bot @coveralls @agramfort @amueller
0