Fix issue#42-(1) #44
Fix issue#42-(1) #44
Conversation
| x_data = rng.uniform(-1, 1, 100).reshape(50, 2) | ||
| y_true = x_data[:, 0] ** 2 + x_data[:, 1] ** 2 | ||
|
|
||
| est_gp = SymbolicRegressor(metric='mean absolute error', stopping_criteria=0.000001, random_state=415, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we reduce these line lengths to 79 chars or less for PEP8?
| c_formula = c_est_gp.__str__() | ||
|
|
||
| assert_equal("add(mul(X1, X1), mul(X0, X0))", c_formula, True) | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does this test fail on master?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just checked and it does. Might be a better test to ensure the formulas are equal to each other though?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@trevorstephens Sorry for my late feedback.. Maybe I should not compare the string of the formula considering other possible solutions. I will test whether the outputs of the formula given X almost equal to the right answer
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@trevorstephens Hi it just occurred to me that why would test failed anyway?Since I specify function call a fix random_state parameter, shouldn't it give the same result forever?Just curious...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No worries @eggachecat ... It's open source lol, happens when people have the time to work on it! I think checking the string is fine for a negative version of the same metric.
It's a regression check so its intention is to ensure the bug does not return in the future. So yes, it should always pass unless something changes later that brings the bug back. This check would ensure that the bug is detected before merging code later on that brings back the problem.
| if self._metric.greater_is_better: | ||
| self._program = self._programs[-1][np.argmax(fitness)] | ||
| else: | ||
| self._program = self._programs[-1][np.argmin(fitness)] | ||
|
|
||
| if isinstance(self, TransformerMixin): | ||
| # Find the best individuals in the final generation |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we expand the PR to cover the transformer as well? I think that the hall_of_fame = fitness.argsort()[:self.hall_of_fame] should be the place to do this. Should be adequate to cut the results in the opposite direction for the bottom end using hall_of_fame = fitness.argsort()[self.population_size - self.hall_of_fame:]
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Presumably all the existing tests should pass with this change, just add an additional regression test to keep this bug removed in the future as well.
|
Are you still going to work on this @eggachecat ? |
Fix the first bug in issue #42
Fix missing greater_is_better decision for regressor.