Skip to content
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

[SPARK-6004][MLlib] Pick the best model when training GradientBoostedTrees with validation #4763

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

viirya
Copy link
Member

@viirya viirya commented Feb 25, 2015

Since the validation error does not change monotonically, in practice, it should be proper to pick the best model when training GradientBoostedTrees with validation instead of stopping it early.

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Feb 25, 2015

Test build #27948 has finished for PR 4763 at commit ea2fae2.

  • This patch passes all tests.
  • This patch merges cleanly.
  • This patch adds no public classes.

@jkbradley
Copy link
Member

Please see my comments on the JIRA; I think parts of this change need to be discussed. Thanks!

@viirya
Copy link
Member Author

viirya commented Feb 26, 2015

@jkbradley Modified based on our discussion on JIRA. Please take a look. Thanks!

@SparkQA
Copy link

SparkQA commented Feb 26, 2015

Test build #27979 has finished for PR 4763 at commit 452e049.

  • This patch passes all tests.
  • This patch merges cleanly.
  • This patch adds no public classes.

@jkbradley
Copy link
Member

LGTM Merging into master. Thanks for the PR!

Note for posterity: This doesn't have tests, but it would be difficult to create a good test for it. It might be possible by hand-constructing a dataset and using trees of depth 1, where we could judge exactly how much each new feature (= new tree) would help.

@asfgit asfgit closed this in cfff397 Feb 26, 2015
@viirya viirya deleted the gbt_record_model branch December 27, 2023 18:17
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants