You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Currently our SVM classifier does not follow the same layout as Sklearn / LibSVM while exposing the model parameters through the following attributes:
n_support_ we have total number of SVs while Sklearn has number per class
support_idx_ we store it in ascending order, while Sklearn has it sorted by class then ascending order by idx
support_ sorted as support_idx_
dual_coefs_ sorted as support_idx_
These differences have no effect on making predictions with SVM, but it is inconvenient if someone wants to explore the parameters of the fitted model.
Describe the solution you'd like
Make our SVM parameter layout compatible with Sklearn.
Additional context
The layout of the parameters becomes more complex once we have multi-class classification in place. This issue should probably be addressed when we implement multi-class classification.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Currently our SVM classifier does not follow the same layout as Sklearn / LibSVM while exposing the model parameters through the following attributes:
These differences have no effect on making predictions with SVM, but it is inconvenient if someone wants to explore the parameters of the fitted model.
Describe the solution you'd like
Make our SVM parameter layout compatible with Sklearn.
Additional context
The layout of the parameters becomes more complex once we have multi-class classification in place. This issue should probably be addressed when we implement multi-class classification.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: