Repository navigation
Replies: 5 comments 9 replies
|
Hi @paulvpop, I am not sure if this is a bug. It could well be that setting the class priors for SVM might tweak the model to produce this result. Do you see anything suspicious in the logfile? Have a look at the |
|
OK, I do not quite understand what the 13 classes are. From what I can see, you have 13 times 2 classes. And in each iteration, you have way more samples in the 1st class than in the 2nd. I suspect the first class is always the class with the black color in the images? Maybe, SVM is sensitive to that imbalance and hence produces a classification that mostly predicts the 1st class. However, I do not see any technical issues from this... |
|
From what I see here, it appears that you trained 13 separate models, rather than one with 13 classes. |
|
I am uploading the files from another model - Random Forest Four of the 13 log files from the force-train module are these: The 13 log files from the force-train module is coming because of the in the train parameter file: The parameter train file is this: Two files from the "no_mixtures_rfc_22" folder: |
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Hello everyone,
I have recently noticed that the 'PROPORTIONAL' option for FEATURE_WEIGHTS option (i.e. weight of each class) is not rendering predictions correctly for SVC models. I have tried several SVC models, by changing the FEATURE_WEIGHTS to EQUALIZED, PROPORTIONAL, ANTIPROPORTIONAL, and it worked for EQUALIZED and ANTIPROPORTIONAL, but not PROPORTIONAL in all cases. It renders most times as complete black with no prediction values in the model prediction output. There must be an issue with this option. All three options work for RFC models. I have tried this both in Windows (10) and Linux/GNU (Ubuntu 24.04)
Please check. Attaching some photographs of the failed model predictions and train parameter
parameter_train_svc_six.txt
](url)
All reactions