-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 415
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
Fix/multiclass recall macro avg ignore index #2710
Draft
rittik9
wants to merge
15
commits into
Lightning-AI:master
Choose a base branch
from
rittik9:master
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Draft
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
15 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
176711d
Fix: Corrected MulticlassRecall macro average calculation when ignore…
rittik9 df36d0f
style: format code to comply with pre-commit hooks
rittik9 0773bab
test: Add test for MulticlassRecall with ignore_index+macro (fixes #2…
rittik9 78177ac
chlog
Borda 2365437
Merge branch 'master' into master
mergify[bot] 259c4bd
fix:Reference Metric in multiclass pecision recall unittests provides…
rittik9 447031e
refactor: compute.py
rittik9 42e395e
Merge branch 'master' into master
rittik9 58c0070
modify _reference_sklearn_precision_recall_multiclass
rittik9 7b1a09f
Update CHANGELOG.md
rittik9 f200da4
Merge branch 'master' into master
Borda 70b91c6
Merge branch 'master' into master
baskrahmer bf1c29f
Pass down ignore_index
baskrahmer 930fba3
Set weights only for the classes axis
baskrahmer 7e95696
Update precision_recall.py
rittik9 File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
Seems we are already testing various ignore_index with reference metric so if we had it wrong this did not pass already... it is possible that we also have a bug in the reference metric?
cc: @SkafteNicki
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.
looking to the code and the ignore index is already applied in
_multilabel_stat_scores_format
which reduces the preds/target size the same way as the reference metric so calling it with null weights in fact ignores additional indexThere 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.
The problem is we are using sklearn's
recall_score
as a reference for our unittests. So even if in_reference_sklearn_precision_recall_multiclass()
function we are usingremove_ignore_index
function for removing those predictions whose real values areignore_index
class before passing it torecall_score
function, it does not matter. Because wheneveraverage='macro'
sklearn'srecall_score
will always return mean cosidering the total no. of classes (as we are passing all the classes inrecall_score()
function'slabels
argument). That is the reason why unittests failed in the first place. I think we need to fix the unittests to take care of ignore_index using sklearn'srecall_score()
function'slabels
argument. I've prepared a notebook for explanation. cc:@Borda.