-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 26.2k
[MRG] ENH Show split/candidate ids in verbose output of SearchCV #16935
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] ENH Show split/candidate ids in verbose output of SearchCV #16935
Conversation
The example in #8281: from sklearn import svm, datasets
from sklearn.model_selection import GridSearchCV
verbose=2
iris = datasets.load_iris()
parameters = {'kernel':('linear', 'rbf'), 'C':[1, 10]}
svr = svm.SVC()
clf = GridSearchCV(svr, parameters, n_jobs=8, verbose=verbose)
clf.fit(iris.data, iris.target) gives:
|
I have removed the old verbosity test because the verbose behavior has changed. Let me know if this is not correct. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
thanks @cmarmo , made a quick review but looks good
(IDK if you don't know or just forgot but you can use syntax highlighting in github using
```py
code here
```
)
Thanks! :) |
Personally I find showing both START and END (and params and score!) for each fit very verbose already. So I'm not sure that |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
but in terms of adding the feature, this is fine.
Please add an entry to the change log at doc/whats_new/v0.24.rst
. Like the other entries there, please reference this pull request with :pr:
and credit yourself (and other contributors if applicable) with :user:
I have removed the
verbose = 3 gives
Let me know if this is satisfying or I should revert. Thanks! |
I prefer no START. Undecided on candidate number. Might benefit from notes
in the user guide to help users choose.
|
The check failure does not depend on my changes. |
@NicolasHug maybe you are available to finalize this one? Thanks! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM as well. I think all comments by other reviewers have been addressed. Merging.
Thank you very much @cmarmo!
Finally! Thanks @cmarmo :)
|
Reference Issues/PRs
Continue and close #8281
What does this implement/fix? Explain your changes.
Address @TomDLT comments.
Any other comments?
This PR is in the 0.23 milestone, I don't know if this is still needed, I just like the idea that perhaps he would have been happy to see this PR merged.