[MRG+1] allow callable kernels in cross-validation #8005
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
This seems more sensible... but I'd like to hear whether there are reasons other than computational cost that others can find for this restriction existing in the first place. |
|
In short, LGTM |
|
weird I didn't get the error locally... must have not run the test properly.. |
|
I have no idea why I put |
|
I had it put in metaestimator, because it began being used in multiple
places (OvO, I think) by metaestimatory things. Maybe it belongs in a
general utils module.
…On 8 December 2016 at 10:04, Andreas Mueller ***@***.***> wrote:
I have no idea why I put _safe_split into utils.meta_estimator, but I
don't really have a better idea now.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#8005 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAEz68MZc_9M7_7P0yw6eOs2RCos6JrEks5rFztqgaJpZM4LHN1t>
.
|
|
At least it's got an underscore before it so we can move it wherever we
like!
…On 8 December 2016 at 12:53, Joel Nothman ***@***.***> wrote:
I had it put in metaestimator, because it began being used in multiple
places (OvO, I think) by metaestimatory things. Maybe it belongs in a
general utils module.
On 8 December 2016 at 10:04, Andreas Mueller ***@***.***>
wrote:
> I have no idea why I put _safe_split into utils.meta_estimator, but I
> don't really have a better idea now.
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <#8005 (comment)>,
> or mute the thread
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAEz68MZc_9M7_7P0yw6eOs2RCos6JrEks5rFztqgaJpZM4LHN1t>
> .
>
|
|
(I wonder whether kallable kernels were outlawed at some point when joblib didn't check for picklability and things crashed??) |
|
for reference, from sklearn.model_selection import cross_val_score
from sklearn.svm import SVC
from sklearn.datasets import make_blobs
import numpy as np
X, y = make_blobs()
cross_val_score(SVC(kernel=lambda x, y: np.inner(x, y)), X, y)works, |
|
Thanks for the exemple @amueller. |
|
Maybe we can add something about that in what's new ? |
|
this is good for merge, right? |
sergeyf
pushed a commit
to sergeyf/scikit-learn
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 28, 2017
Closed
Sundrique
pushed a commit
to Sundrique/scikit-learn
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 14, 2017
NelleV
pushed a commit
to NelleV/scikit-learn
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 11, 2017
paulha
pushed a commit
to paulha/scikit-learn
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 19, 2017
maskani-moh
pushed a commit
to maskani-moh/scikit-learn
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 15, 2017
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This allows callable kernels in cross-validation.
This was forbidden in #649 but I don't understand why.
I kept it in #803 when I introduced
_pairwisefor some reason.Discussion in #7930 where @jnothman and me got kinda confused I think.
Removing the condition in
metaestimators.pydoes not break any tests.I checked all other occurrences of
_pairwiseand it only returnsTruefor"precomputed", never for callable.s