-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 179
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
ENH: Add serialization for incremental linear models #2211
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
/intelci: run |
@@ -103,6 +103,13 @@ class IncrementalLinearRegression( | |||
n_features_in_ : int | |||
Number of features seen during ``fit`` or ``partial_fit``. | |||
|
|||
Note |
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.
Since this note will appear in multiple classes, perhaps it could be moved into a common variable and the docstrings modified programmatically for all the classes that will have the note.
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.
It is good idea. I think it could be done in a separate PR moving some common things for all incremental algorithms to separate classes/variables.
/intelci: run |
/intelci: run |
Description
__getstate__
method toIncrementalLinearRegression
andIncrementalRidge
onedal/datatypes/data_conversion.cpp
. It is necessary because partial result for linear models contains column-major tables on C++ side. Serialization tests confirm conversion actually works well for column-major tables as well.__getstate__
method_need_to_finalize
flag is added to avoid unnecessary call of finalization backend.PR should start as a draft, then move to ready for review state after CI is passed and all applicable checkboxes are closed.
This approach ensures that reviewers don't spend extra time asking for regular requirements.
You can remove a checkbox as not applicable only if it doesn't relate to this PR in any way.
For example, PR with docs update doesn't require checkboxes for performance while PR with any change in actual code should have checkboxes and justify how this code change is expected to affect performance (or justification should be self-evident).
Checklist to comply with before moving PR from draft:
PR completeness and readability
Testing
Performance