Repository navigation
Update EvalML section of tutorials - #198
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Note - I did get slightly different results from the original tut
around feature importance, and prediction results. But, unless I
missed a new randomness param, I think this may be because of
underlying changes in the evalml package. Not sure though.
|
|
jeff-hernandez
left a comment
jeff-hernandez
left a comment
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looking good! Lets clear the outputs in the notebooks so the build process can automatically run the notebooks.
wood work is a core dependency of evalml
this is so the build process can automatically run the notebooks
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #198 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00%
=========================================
Files 28 28
Lines 1259 1259
=========================================
Hits 1259 1259 |
jeff-hernandez
self-requested a review
January 20, 2021 15:45
jeff-hernandez
left a comment
jeff-hernandez
left a comment
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This looks great! I left one minor comment. Other than that, we'll be ready to merge after updating with main.
Contributor
Author
|
happy to squash or rebase if y'all do that, too |
jeff-hernandez
self-requested a review
January 21, 2021 15:40
jeff-hernandez
approved these changes
Jan 21, 2021
flowersw
changed the title
flowersw
changed the title
Contributor
Author
|
Fixes #197 |
Contributor
Author
|
Ok, I think we're good. I'm assuming you'll merge it, as I don't seem to be able to. Thanks |
|
Thanks @flowersw ! Yes, the difference in output you saw is due to updates we've made to EvalML, including adding more models and fixing bugs. |
Merged
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
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 simply updates the evalml section of the tutorial notebooks in the documentation, to be up to date with evalml 0.17, and pins evalml and woodwork higher and gte in the docs requirements.txt file.
I did want to note that in case these tutorials are benchmark or meant to be exactly reproducible in some way, I noticed a few slight differences in the output of the models, e.g. slightly different evaluation accuracy, slightly different feature importances, etc.. Unless I'm missing a new "randomness" parameter, I would guess that's due to the underlying changes in evalml, but am not sure.