Open tonyliang19 opened 4 months ago
Hi @tonyliang19!
Thank you for your message. Would you prefer a new argument type
to change the prediction output into probabilities, or would a new output probs
with the probabilities when relevant or empty otherwise be enough? We might be a bit far from the regular S3 predict for the 1st option. What do you think?
Hi @tonyliang19! Thank you for your message. Would you prefer a new argument
type
to change the prediction output into probabilities, or would a new outputprobs
with the probabilities when relevant or empty otherwise be enough? We might be a bit far from the regular S3 predict for the 1st option. What do you think?
Thanks for your consideration on this matter, I would say if the first option deviates a lot from regular S3 predict, then adding a new output probs would be adequate and enough. As it complements by your other standard output of a rgcca predict.
You can try the branch: https://github.com/rgcca-factory/RGCCA/tree/add_probs_in_predict; we'll merge it if it suits your needs!
Amazing, I will try this as soon as possible and you let you know!
You can try the branch: https://github.com/rgcca-factory/RGCCA/tree/add_probs_in_predict; we'll merge it if it suits your needs!
Thats exactly what I needed! I liked that you provided the probability for each class predicted. This works for now, although I have not tested with the case of multi-class classifications. Again, thanks for you work on this
Hello, I was testing the
rgcca_predict
functionality with my data on classifcation problem. I think it's very awesome to just have a string to change the underlying model to use. But I noticed the returned output is simply just the predicted class and not the probabilities itself.So, I wonder if you have implemented a way that you just pass like an additional parameter to your
rgcca_predict
like a normal S3 predict(..., type = "probs"), whereas you could pass thattype
arg to return either probability or link function output etc. Thanks!