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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Improve querying for measures #529

Closed
ablaom opened this issue Mar 25, 2021 · 2 comments
Closed

Improve querying for measures #529

ablaom opened this issue Mar 25, 2021 · 2 comments
Labels
design discussion measures

Comments

@ablaom
Copy link
Member

ablaom commented Mar 25, 2021 •
edited
Loading

There used to be measures(matching(y)) but that didn't really make sense because y doesn't tell you whether you want to running a probabilistic model or a deterministic one. @f0lie suggests basing the query on a ready-constructed machine, which makes more sense. See JuliaAI/MLJ.jl#753 (comment) .

Maybe something like measures(matching(mach))??
@ablaom ablaom mentioned this issue Mar 25, 2021
Closed
@ablaom
Copy link
Member Author

ablaom commented Apr 8, 2021

The problem with this, of course, is that measures should ideally be conceptualised as independent of MLJ altogether, and machines are an MLJ concept.

@ablaom
Copy link
Member Author

ablaom commented May 23, 2023

Closing as duplicate of JuliaAI/MLJ.jl#957

@ablaom ablaom closed this as completed May 23, 2023
@ablaom ablaom mentioned this issue May 26, 2023
Merged
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
design discussion measures
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
1 participant
@ablaom