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

[WIP] raise warning f1_score_micro equals accuracy #513

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

ananyaganesh
Copy link
Contributor

Raises warning that micro-averaged F1 score is the same as accuracy for multi-class classification.
Addresses #491

@pep8speaks
Copy link

pep8speaks commented Sep 20, 2019

Hello @ananyaganesh! Thanks for updating this PR.

There are currently no PEP 8 issues detected in this Pull Request. Cheers! 🎉

Comment last updated at 2019-10-03 18:26:28 UTC

@desilinguist desilinguist changed the title raise warning f1_score_micro equals accuracy [WIP] raise warning f1_score_micro equals accuracy Sep 30, 2019
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Oct 3, 2019

Codecov Report

❗ No coverage uploaded for pull request base (master@42a9a99). Click here to learn what that means.
The diff coverage is 0%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##             master     #513   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage          ?   54.97%           
=========================================
  Files             ?       20           
  Lines             ?     2843           
  Branches          ?        0           
=========================================
  Hits              ?     1563           
  Misses            ?     1280           
  Partials          ?        0
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
skll/config.py 8.7% <0%> (ø)

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 42a9a99...729b446. Read the comment docs.

@ananyaganesh ananyaganesh requested review from a user and jbiggsets October 3, 2019 18:50
ghost
ghost previously approved these changes Oct 4, 2019
@mulhod
Copy link
Contributor

mulhod commented Oct 4, 2019

Should this still be WIP?

@desilinguist
Copy link
Member

Yes, this is still WIP since it's likely to change based on how we resolve #502

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Oct 4, 2019

I did not realize it is WIP. I saw that the build passed, and approved. I do not find how to unapprove it.

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Oct 4, 2019

The coverage is down though.

@desilinguist desilinguist dismissed ghost ’s stale review October 4, 2019 18:01

Accidental approval.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants