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
I am not sure if I've misunderstood the current implementation, but as far as I can see, it does not account for situations where there are multiple positive examples in one sample:
Furthermore, according to documentation the input should be Predicted labels, however, we are more interested in the ranking of the positive item in a given sample (MRR-wiki).
The original implementation seems correct if asked for the rankings, not the labels for the prediction. When assuming all items are positive, as in my example:
mrr_score([1, 1, 1], [3, 2, 1])
0.611111111111111
But then, y_true is not a needed input.
If I haven't misunderstood and you agree I would be happy to make a PR with suggested improvements.
Hi,
I was recently using the
mrr_score
implementation (link):I am not sure if I've misunderstood the current implementation, but as far as I can see, it does not account for situations where there are multiple positive examples in one sample:
Furthermore, according to documentation the input should be
Predicted labels
, however, we are more interested in the ranking of the positive item in a given sample (MRR-wiki).My suggestion is
The original implementation seems correct if asked for the rankings, not the labels for the prediction. When assuming all items are positive, as in my example:
But then,
y_true
is not a needed input.If I haven't misunderstood and you agree I would be happy to make a PR with suggested improvements.
I followed the example used in the Medium post: MRR vs MAP vs NDCG: Rank-Aware Evaluation Metrics And When To Use Them (behind paywall).
Thanks for the awesome repo!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: