We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
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
It doesn't seem that feature importances change. Using "lightgbm==2.3.0" I get the following;
`xval, yval = make_classification(n_samples = 1000, n_features=10) model = lgb.LGBMClassifier(n_estimators=100, learning_rate = 0.05, verbose = -1)
for i in range(10): model.fit(xval, yval) print(model.feature_importances_) [244 537 213 214 183 222 282 264 175 648] [244 537 213 214 183 222 282 264 175 648] [244 537 213 214 183 222 282 264 175 648] [244 537 213 214 183 222 282 264 175 648] [244 537 213 214 183 222 282 264 175 648] [244 537 213 214 183 222 282 264 175 648] [244 537 213 214 183 222 282 264 175 648] [244 537 213 214 183 222 282 264 175 648] [244 537 213 214 183 222 282 264 175 648] [244 537 213 214 183 222 282 264 175 648]`
If this is "correct" LightGBM behaviour, then there is obviously no need to average the feature_importances_ over multiple iterations.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
No branches or pull requests
It doesn't seem that feature importances change. Using "lightgbm==2.3.0" I get the following;
`xval, yval = make_classification(n_samples = 1000, n_features=10)
model = lgb.LGBMClassifier(n_estimators=100, learning_rate = 0.05, verbose = -1)
for i in range(10):
model.fit(xval, yval)
print(model.feature_importances_)
[244 537 213 214 183 222 282 264 175 648]
[244 537 213 214 183 222 282 264 175 648]
[244 537 213 214 183 222 282 264 175 648]
[244 537 213 214 183 222 282 264 175 648]
[244 537 213 214 183 222 282 264 175 648]
[244 537 213 214 183 222 282 264 175 648]
[244 537 213 214 183 222 282 264 175 648]
[244 537 213 214 183 222 282 264 175 648]
[244 537 213 214 183 222 282 264 175 648]
[244 537 213 214 183 222 282 264 175 648]`
If this is "correct" LightGBM behaviour, then there is obviously no need to average the feature_importances_ over multiple iterations.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: