You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The current implementation of the weak label matrix for multi-label classifications is overcomplicated (3-dim), and the MajorityVoter does not take advantage of the format. I propose to simplify this, basically treating rules with x labels as x rules, and remove the WeakMultiLabels class.
Pros: reduce code complexity, get the extend_matrix functionality also for multi-label cases.
Cons: if at some point we find a label model that can take advantage of the 3-dim format, we must implement a method that transforms the 2-dim format.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I was looking into this in more detail, and I decided to keep the WeakMultiLabel class for now. It's harder than I thought to move it to a 2dim matrix, and I'm not sure anymore if it actually would reduce the complexity.
It was, however, relatively easy to bring the extend_matrix functionality to the 3d weak label matrix, see #1577 .
The current implementation of the weak label matrix for multi-label classifications is overcomplicated (3-dim), and the MajorityVoter does not take advantage of the format. I propose to simplify this, basically treating rules with x labels as x rules, and remove the
WeakMultiLabels
class.Pros: reduce code complexity, get the
extend_matrix
functionality also for multi-label cases.Cons: if at some point we find a label model that can take advantage of the 3-dim format, we must implement a method that transforms the 2-dim format.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: