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

Default tuning spaces vs. Bischl et al. 2021 article #50

Open
marineReg opened this issue Jul 4, 2024 · 0 comments
Open

Default tuning spaces vs. Bischl et al. 2021 article #50

marineReg opened this issue Jul 4, 2024 · 0 comments

Comments

@marineReg
Copy link

Hello,
I have a question. I've noticed that several default tuning spaces don't seem to correspond to those in the article by Bischl et al. 2021. Here are a few examples:

  • GLMNET
    s: [log(10^-4); log(10000)] instead of [2^-12; 2^12]

  • RPART
    minsplit: [log(2); log(128)] instead of [2^1; 2^7]
    minbucket: [log(1); log(64)] instead of [2^0; 2^6]
    cp: [log(10^-4); log(0.1)] instead of [10^-4; 10^-1]

  • KNN
    k: [log(1); log(50)] instead of [1; 50]

  • SVM
    cost and gamma: [log(10^-4); log(10000)] instead of [2^-12; 2^12]

  • XGBOOST
    eta: [log(10^-4); log(1)] instead of [10^-4; 10^0]
    lambda and alpha: [log(10^-3); log(1000)] instead of [2^-10; 2^10]

Is there a reason for this? Sorry if I misunderstood something. Thank you for your assistance.

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

No branches or pull requests

1 participant