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

Should mixture models have a clusterer-compatible interface #10336

Closed
jnothman opened this Issue Dec 18, 2017 · 6 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
6 participants
@jnothman
Member

jnothman commented Dec 18, 2017

Mixture models are currently a bit different. They are basically clusterers, except they are probabilistic, and are applied to inductive problems unlike many clusterers. But they are unlike clusterers in API:

  • they have an n_components parameter, with identical purpose to n_clusters
  • they do not store the labels_ of the training data
  • they do not have a fit_predict method

And they are almost entirely documented separately.

Should we make the MMs more like clusterers?

@spinicist

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@spinicist

spinicist Jan 11, 2018

In my opinion, yes.

I wanted to compare K-Means, GMM and HDBSCAN and was very disappointed that GMM does not have a fit_predict method. The HDBSCAN examples use fit_predict, so I was expecting GMM to have the same interface.

spinicist commented Jan 11, 2018

In my opinion, yes.

I wanted to compare K-Means, GMM and HDBSCAN and was very disappointed that GMM does not have a fit_predict method. The HDBSCAN examples use fit_predict, so I was expecting GMM to have the same interface.

@amueller

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@amueller

amueller May 22, 2018

Member

I think we should add fit_predict at least. I wouldn't rename n_components.

Member

amueller commented May 22, 2018

I think we should add fit_predict at least. I wouldn't rename n_components.

@Eight1911

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Eight1911

Eight1911 May 22, 2018

I would like to work on this!

Eight1911 commented May 22, 2018

I would like to work on this!

@amueller

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@amueller

amueller May 24, 2018

Member

@Eight1911 go for it. It is probably relatively simple but maybe not entirely trivial.

Member

amueller commented May 24, 2018

@Eight1911 go for it. It is probably relatively simple but maybe not entirely trivial.

@g-walsh

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@g-walsh

g-walsh Jun 15, 2018

@Eight1911 Mind if I take a look at this?

g-walsh commented Jun 15, 2018

@Eight1911 Mind if I take a look at this?

@haoranShu

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@haoranShu

haoranShu Jun 15, 2018

Contributor

@Eight1911 Do you mind if I jump in as well?

Contributor

haoranShu commented Jun 15, 2018

@Eight1911 Do you mind if I jump in as well?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment