-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 90
Multiclass pipeline #21
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
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Left some comments.
Based on our in person discussion we may need to revisit feature importances for some model types as well
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looking good. just a few last comments and suggestions for issues for later
…evalml into multiclass_pipeline
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM. Nice job!
Added multiclass functionality for classification models, updated metrics and included tests.
Does not include changes for feature-importance
However, I don't think we would need to change the feature_importance functions for logistic regression, RF or XGClassifier as they're are not one. vs all classifiers. For LR, the loss function is changed to multinomial logistic loss for multiclass classification, RF inherently works with multiple classes, and XGClassifier uses softmax loss.Upon further review, there will need to be changes for feature importance.Feature importance has been added for LR. Changes will not be needed for RF or XGClassifier.
Metrics
Currently for classification metrics, I am using themicro
parameter which uses the global count to define metrics. In the case of precision, the total count of FP etc is used. Themacro
parameter would calculate FP etc. per label and then use the average. I think either parameter could work and its more of a design choice.Separate metrics have been created for each type of averaging.