Open Salonijain27 opened 4 years ago
This issue has been marked rotten due to no recent activity in the past 90d. Please close this issue if no further response or action is needed. Otherwise, please respond with a comment indicating any updates or changes to the original issue and/or confirm this issue still needs to be addressed.
This issue has been marked stale due to no recent activity in the past 30d. Please close this issue if no further response or action is needed. Otherwise, please respond with a comment indicating any updates or changes to the original issue and/or confirm this issue still needs to be addressed. This issue will be marked rotten if there is no activity in the next 60d.
This issue has been labeled inactive-90d
due to no recent activity in the past 90 days. Please close this issue if no further response or action is needed. Otherwise, please respond with a comment indicating any updates or changes to the original issue and/or confirm this issue still needs to be addressed.
It would be nice to update the thresholds used in RF tests (both single GPU and MNMG) to a more realistic value. It seems like the RF accuracy has improved from what it was before and the old thresholds do not make sense now.
While analyzing a recent variation seen in centos MNMG tests, it was seen that the thresholds set to check the models, ie. assert condition is low compared to how the model performs. ex. In RF MNMG binary classification tests currently the assert condition is :
However, the RF MNMG model obtains an accuracy anywhere between 0.965 to 0.98 on different OS (tested on centos7 and ubuntu18.04 nightly containers). with cuml 0.15