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
Would you consider adding GaussianMixture regressors GMMRegressor and BayesianGMMRegressor? GMM regressors have interesting applications as multi-output probabilistic regression models. I've used different configurations of them using the flexmix and condMVNorm R packages.
In python, the gmr package implements GMM regression and several interesting conditioning and sampling methods, though it is not yet fully compatible with other scikit-learn tools. I've recently submitted a pull request to address this.
I've developed a prototype for a more tightly connected scikit-learn mixin for scikit-lego. An example of it's proposed usage is seem bellow:
If your tools will already be added to the GMR package, wouldn't it be overkill to also add here? I think there's certainly utility in your method but it seems preferable to only host the tool in one package.
I guess it might. The gmr package uses an internal numerical method for fitting GMMs. That's why I thought it might be interesting to have a less specialized but more similar to sklearn implementation, using the same parameters/options and making it easy to incorporate other sklearn methods, such as BayesianGMMs.
Hi!
Would you consider adding GaussianMixture regressors GMMRegressor and BayesianGMMRegressor? GMM regressors have interesting applications as multi-output probabilistic regression models. I've used different configurations of them using the flexmix and condMVNorm R packages.
In python, the gmr package implements GMM regression and several interesting conditioning and sampling methods, though it is not yet fully compatible with other scikit-learn tools. I've recently submitted a pull request to address this.
I've developed a prototype for a more tightly connected scikit-learn mixin for scikit-lego. An example of it's proposed usage is seem bellow:
Do you think it would be a good addition?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: