Update dependency imbalanced_learn to v0.10.1

[renovate[bot]]

This PR contains the following updates:

Package	Change	Age	Adoption	Passing	Confidence
imbalanced_learn	==0.9.1 -> ==0.10.1

---

Release Notes

scikit-learn-contrib/imbalanced-learn

### [`v0.10.0`](https://togithub.com/scikit-learn-contrib/imbalanced-learn/releases/tag/0.10.0): imbalanced-learn 0.10.0 [Compare Source](https://togithub.com/scikit-learn-contrib/imbalanced-learn/compare/0.9.1...0.10.0) # Changelog ## Bug fixes - Make sure that Substitution is working with `python -OO` that replaces **doc** by None. [#​953](https://togithub.com/scikit-learn-contrib/imbalanced-learn/pull/953) bu [Guillaume Lemaitre](https://togithub.com/glemaitre). ## Compatibility - Maintenance release for being compatible with scikit-learn >= 1.0.2. [#​946](https://togithub.com/scikit-learn-contrib/imbalanced-learn/pull/946), [#​947](https://togithub.com/scikit-learn-contrib/imbalanced-learn/pull/947), [#​949](https://togithub.com/scikit-learn-contrib/imbalanced-learn/pull/949) by [Guillaume Lemaitre](https://togithub.com/glemaitre). - Add support for automatic parameters validation as in scikit-learn >= 1.2. [#​955](https://togithub.com/scikit-learn-contrib/imbalanced-learn/pull/955) by [Guillaume Lemaitre](https://togithub.com/glemaitre). - Add support for `feature_names_in_` as well as `get_feature_names_out` for all samplers. [#​959](https://togithub.com/scikit-learn-contrib/imbalanced-learn/pull/959) by [Guillaume Lemaitre](https://togithub.com/glemaitre). ## Deprecation - The parameter `n_jobs` has been deprecated from the classes [ADASYN](https://imbalanced-learn.org/dev/references/generated/imblearn.over_sampling.ADASYN.html#imblearn.over_sampling.ADASYN), [BorderlineSMOTE](https://imbalanced-learn.org/dev/references/generated/imblearn.over_sampling.BorderlineSMOTE.html#imblearn.over_sampling.BorderlineSMOTE), [SMOTE](https://imbalanced-learn.org/dev/references/generated/imblearn.over_sampling.SMOTE.html#imblearn.over_sampling.SMOTE), [SMOTENC](https://imbalanced-learn.org/dev/references/generated/imblearn.over_sampling.SMOTENC.html#imblearn.over_sampling.SMOTENC), [SMOTEN](https://imbalanced-learn.org/dev/references/generated/imblearn.over_sampling.SMOTEN.html#imblearn.over_sampling.SMOTEN), and [SVMSMOTE](https://imbalanced-learn.org/dev/references/generated/imblearn.over_sampling.SVMSMOTE.html#imblearn.over_sampling.SVMSMOTE). Instead, pass a nearest neighbors estimator where n_jobs is set. [#​887](https://togithub.com/scikit-learn-contrib/imbalanced-learn/pull/887) by [Guillaume Lemaitre](https://togithub.com/glemaitre). - The parameter `base_estimator` is deprecated and will be removed in version 0.12. It is impacted the following classes: [BalancedBaggingClassifier](https://imbalanced-learn.org/dev/references/generated/imblearn.ensemble.BalancedBaggingClassifier.html#imblearn.ensemble.BalancedBaggingClassifier), [EasyEnsembleClassifier](https://imbalanced-learn.org/dev/references/generated/imblearn.ensemble.EasyEnsembleClassifier.html#imblearn.ensemble.EasyEnsembleClassifier), [RUSBoostClassifier](https://imbalanced-learn.org/dev/references/generated/imblearn.ensemble.RUSBoostClassifier.html#imblearn.ensemble.RUSBoostClassifier). [#​946](https://togithub.com/scikit-learn-contrib/imbalanced-learn/pull/946) by [Guillaume Lemaitre](https://togithub.com/glemaitre). ## Enhancements - Add support to accept compatible NearestNeighbors objects by only duck-typing. For instance, it allows to accept cuML instances. [#​858](https://togithub.com/scikit-learn-contrib/imbalanced-learn/pull/858) by [NV-jpt](https://togithub.com/NV-jpt) and [Guillaume Lemaitre](https://togithub.com/glemaitre).

---

Configuration

📅 Schedule: Branch creation - At any time (no schedule defined), Automerge - At any time (no schedule defined).

🚦 Automerge: Disabled by config. Please merge this manually once you are satisfied.

♻ Rebasing: Whenever PR becomes conflicted, or you tick the rebase/retry checkbox.

🔕 Ignore: Close this PR and you won't be reminded about this update again.

---

• [ ] If you want to rebase/retry this PR, check this box

---

This PR has been generated by Mend Renovate. View repository job log here.

[viezly[bot]]

Pull request by bot. No need to analyze

[performance-testing-bot[bot]]

Unable to locate .performanceTestingBot config file

[guide-bot[bot]]

Thanks for opening this Pull Request! We need you to:

1. Fill out the description.

   Action: Edit description and replace <!- ... --> with actual values.

2. Complete the activities.

   Action: Complete If you want to rebase/retry this PR, check this box

   If an activity is not applicable, use '\~activity description\~' to mark it not applicable.

[difflens[bot]]

View changes in DiffLens

[pull-request-quantifier-deprecated[bot]]

This PR has 0 quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of upto 200 lines is ideal for the best PR experience!

---

Quantification details

``` Label : No Changes Size : +0 -0 Percentile : 0% Total files changed: 1 Change summary by file extension: .txt : +0 -0 ``` > Change counts above are quantified counts, based on the [PullRequestQuantifier customizations](https://github.com/microsoft/PullRequestQuantifier/blob/main/docs/prquantifier-yaml.md).

Why proper sizing of changes matters

Optimal pull request sizes drive a better predictable PR flow as they strike a balance between between PR complexity and PR review overhead. PRs within the optimal size (typical small, or medium sized PRs) mean: - Fast and predictable releases to production: - Optimal size changes are more likely to be reviewed faster with fewer iterations. - Similarity in low PR complexity drives similar review times. - Review quality is likely higher as complexity is lower: - Bugs are more likely to be detected. - Code inconsistencies are more likely to be detected. - Knowledge sharing is improved within the participants: - Small portions can be assimilated better. - Better engineering practices are exercised: - Solving big problems by dividing them in well contained, smaller problems. - Exercising separation of concerns within the code changes. #### What can I do to optimize my changes - Use the PullRequestQuantifier to quantify your PR accurately - Create a context profile for your repo using the [context generator](https://github.com/microsoft/PullRequestQuantifier/releases) - Exclude files that are not necessary to be reviewed or do not increase the review complexity. Example: Autogenerated code, docs, project IDE setting files, binaries, etc. Check out the `Excluded` section from your `prquantifier.yaml` context profile. - Understand your typical change complexity, drive towards the desired complexity by adjusting the label mapping in your `prquantifier.yaml` context profile. - Only use the labels that matter to you, [see context specification](./docs/prquantifier-yaml.md) to customize your `prquantifier.yaml` context profile. - Change your engineering behaviors - For PRs that fall outside of the desired spectrum, review the details and check if: - Your PR could be split in smaller, self-contained PRs instead - Your PR only solves one particular issue. (For example, don't refactor and code new features in the same PR). #### How to interpret the change counts in git diff output - One line was added: `+1 -0` - One line was deleted: `+0 -1` - One line was modified: `+1 -1` (git diff doesn't know about modified, it will interpret that line like one addition plus one deletion) - Change percentiles: Change characteristics (addition, deletion, modification) of this PR in relation to all other PRs within the repository.

---

Was this comment helpful? :thumbsup:  :ok_hand:  :thumbsdown: (Email) Customize PullRequestQuantifier for this repository.

[difflens[bot]]

View changes in DiffLens

[difflens[bot]]

View changes in DiffLens

[difflens[bot]]

View changes in DiffLens