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

[MRG+1] Add a note in coverage_error doc to highlight the difference from original coverage formula #7915

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Nov 22, 2016

Conversation

neerajgangwar
Copy link
Contributor

Reference Issue

#7698

What does this implement/fix? Explain your changes.

Add a note in coverage_error documentation to highlight the difference from original coverage formula

Any other comments?

No

@neerajgangwar
Copy link
Contributor Author

One AppVeyor job failed with the following error

Build started
git clone -q https://github.com/scikit-learn/scikit-learn.git C:\projects\scikit-learn
fatal: early EOF
fatal: The remote end hung up unexpectedly
fatal: index-pack failed
error: RPC failed; curl 18 transfer closed with outstanding read data remaining
Command exited with code 128

Is it possible to restart the job somehow? @jnothman

@jnothman
Copy link
Member

There's no concern that the test failure is due to your work, so don't worry about it.

Copy link
Member

@jnothman jnothman left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks

@@ -1133,6 +1133,14 @@ are predicted. This is useful if you want to know how many top-scored-labels
you have to predict in average without missing any true one. The best value
of this metrics is thus the average number of true labels.

.. note::

This definition of coverage error differs from the standard one, which describes
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

refer "(Tsoumakas et al., 2010).

I think the description isn't helpful. Just say that "Our implementation's score is 1 greater than theirs. This extends it to handle the degenerate case in which an instance has 0 true labels."

I think it's worth repeating this note in the function's docstring.

Copy link
Member

@jnothman jnothman left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@jnothman jnothman changed the title [MRG] Add a note in coverage_error doc to highlight the difference from original coverage formula [MRG+1] Add a note in coverage_error doc to highlight the difference from original coverage formula Nov 22, 2016
@tguillemot
Copy link
Contributor

+1

@tguillemot
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks @neerajgangwar

@lesteve
Copy link
Member

lesteve commented Nov 22, 2016

Merging, thanks a lot!

@lesteve lesteve merged commit dc4255f into scikit-learn:master Nov 22, 2016
@neerajgangwar
Copy link
Contributor Author

Yay! :)

sergeyf pushed a commit to sergeyf/scikit-learn that referenced this pull request Feb 28, 2017
Sundrique pushed a commit to Sundrique/scikit-learn that referenced this pull request Jun 14, 2017
NelleV pushed a commit to NelleV/scikit-learn that referenced this pull request Aug 11, 2017
paulha pushed a commit to paulha/scikit-learn that referenced this pull request Aug 19, 2017
maskani-moh pushed a commit to maskani-moh/scikit-learn that referenced this pull request Nov 15, 2017
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.

None yet

4 participants