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

default for train/validation split in fit_class_random_forest #350

Closed
soxofaan opened this issue Mar 16, 2022 · 3 comments · Fixed by #351
Closed

default for train/validation split in fit_class_random_forest #350

soxofaan opened this issue Mar 16, 2022 · 3 comments · Fixed by #351
Labels
Milestone

Comments

@soxofaan
Copy link
Member

soxofaan commented Mar 16, 2022

"name": "training",
"description": "The amount of training data to be used in the classification, given as a fraction. The sampling will be chosen randomly through the data object. The remaining data will be used as test data for the validation.",
"schema": {
"type": "number",
"exclusiveMinimum": 0,
"maximum": 1
}

Maybe this has been discussed before, but can't we pick a sensible default for the training-validation split? e.g. 80% / 20%?

@m-mohr
Copy link
Member

m-mohr commented Mar 20, 2022

Sure, what is a sensible default?

@soxofaan
Copy link
Member Author

Python sklearn's train_test_split seems to default to a split of 75% train - 25% test/validation

But most articles I checked from a quick google suggest 80% train - 20% validation as good default.

@m-mohr m-mohr linked a pull request Mar 21, 2022 that will close this issue
@m-mohr m-mohr added the ML label Mar 21, 2022
@m-mohr m-mohr added this to the 1.3.0 milestone Mar 21, 2022
@m-mohr
Copy link
Member

m-mohr commented Mar 23, 2022

dev telco: Remove this parameter completely

@m-mohr m-mohr closed this as completed Mar 23, 2022
@m-mohr m-mohr modified the milestones: 1.3.0, 2.0.0 Feb 1, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants