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
Edit: I misunderstood the sampling, still I find it weird that the neighborhood is so big.
Hello, I have read issue #39, and was trying to replicate the behavior described with lime_tabular.
However, I've stumbled upon some very weird neighborhood for a circle dataset. The neighborhood does't seem to be on the area around the point I have chosen, but all over the place. I'm getting weird neighborhoods like this (the yellow stars are the neighborhood obtained by LimeTabular):
Am i'm doing something terribly wrong or this is actually an issue? If I understand correctly the issues are sampled at random and added some random noise, shouldn't the scaler make this less spread?
Cheers,
and btw @marcotcr, very cool paper, proud you are from UFMG too ;)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
As you probably understood by now, each of those samples will be weighted by how close they are to the original point, so the actual 'neighborhood' is not what you're plotting in the graph (if I understood correctly). In other words, the kernel should fix the fact that we generate samples in a way that does not try to be principled.
Edit: I misunderstood the sampling, still I find it weird that the neighborhood is so big.
Hello, I have read issue #39, and was trying to replicate the behavior described with lime_tabular.
However, I've stumbled upon some very weird neighborhood for a circle dataset. The neighborhood does't seem to be on the area around the point I have chosen, but all over the place. I'm getting weird neighborhoods like this (the yellow stars are the neighborhood obtained by LimeTabular):
This is better portrayed in this python notebook:
https://gist.github.com/manelhr/44c84b1580a8d1fa667309226a5d457b
Am i'm doing something terribly wrong or this is actually an issue? If I understand correctly the issues are sampled at random and added some random noise, shouldn't the scaler make this less spread?
Cheers,
and btw @marcotcr, very cool paper, proud you are from UFMG too ;)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: