Skip to content

Remove estimators #166

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

Merged
merged 25 commits into from
Mar 12, 2025
Merged

Conversation

lionelkusch
Copy link
Collaborator

@lionelkusch lionelkusch commented Mar 7, 2025

For the moment, the estimator are not necessary, they can be added latter.
See #57 and #167

Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 7, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 97.77%. Comparing base (fff131f) to head (b12f917).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #166       +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage   75.08%   97.77%   +22.69%     
===========================================
  Files          24       23        -1     
  Lines        1533     1126      -407     
===========================================
- Hits         1151     1101       -50     
+ Misses        382       25      -357     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@bthirion
Copy link
Collaborator

bthirion commented Mar 7, 2025

I'm a bit confused: PR #167 only restaures a small fraction of the code... maybe it would be gould to already include the next bits ?

@bthirion
Copy link
Collaborator

bthirion commented Mar 7, 2025

LGTM otherwise

@lionelkusch
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I'm a bit confused: PR #167 only restaures a small fraction of the code... maybe it would be gould to already include the next bits ?

I separate the modified random forest and the DNN estimator in 2 pull requests. PR #167 is only about the modified random forest and requires a small modification of the random forest from scitkit learn.
We can talk about their utility in the associate PR.

@bthirion
Copy link
Collaborator

bthirion commented Mar 8, 2025

I think it would make sense to prepare the second PR on the DNN estimator before merging that one ?

@lionelkusch
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I think it would make sense to prepare the second PR on the DNN estimator before merging that one ?

This is done in the PR #57.

Copy link
Collaborator

@jpaillard jpaillard left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The file examples_not_exhibited/plot_residuals_sampling.py contains an example showing how to use the modified random forest for conditional sampling. I suggest removing it from the main and adding it to the PR related to the modified RF estimator.

Copy link
Collaborator

@bthirion bthirion left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM, thx.

@lionelkusch lionelkusch force-pushed the PR_remove_estimator branch from 933275c to b12f917 Compare March 12, 2025 14:10
@lionelkusch lionelkusch merged commit d2bc080 into mind-inria:main Mar 12, 2025
14 checks passed
@lionelkusch lionelkusch deleted the PR_remove_estimator branch March 12, 2025 15:37
@lionelkusch lionelkusch added the management of project question regarding the policy of the project label Apr 11, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
management of project question regarding the policy of the project
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants