Isolation Forest results do not match in sklearn 0.21.3
See original GitHub issueTo reproduce: run isolation forest tests with scikit-learn==0.21.3
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created 3 years ago
- Comments:5 (2 by maintainers)
Top Results From Across the Web
sklearn.ensemble.IsolationForest
Isolation Forest Algorithm. Return the anomaly score of each sample using the IsolationForest algorithm. The IsolationForest 'isolates' observations by randomly ...
Read more >Average path length in iForest is inaccurate for small sizes
IsolationForest ) gives quite inaccurate results for small sizes ... which is equal to the average path length of an unsuccessful BST search ......
Read more >No matching distribution found for Install - scikit learn
I know this is an old post, but this same issue kept bugging me for a long time so sharing this in case...
Read more >Isolation Forest and Spark - Towards Data Science
With the estimation of the average path length in the whole forest, we can deduce whether a point is anomalous or not. If...
Read more >incorrect results of IsolationForest - Cross Validated
Contamination in isolation forest is basically a hyperparameter. It is used to pick the threshold for the score to distinguish anomalies ...
Read more >
Top Related Medium Post
No results found
Top Related StackOverflow Question
No results found
Troubleshoot Live Code
Lightrun enables developers to add logs, metrics and snapshots to live code - no restarts or redeploys required.
Start Free
Top Related Reddit Thread
No results found
Top Related Hackernoon Post
No results found
Top Related Tweet
No results found
Top Related Dev.to Post
No results found
Top Related Hashnode Post
No results found
I can reproduce this, it only throws errors on “predict” but fine for “decision_function” and “score_samples”, so must be problem with the offset in “predict”. It’s due to in 0.21.3, the “behaviour” defaults to “old”, which cause the “predict” rely on the value “threshold” which is already removed in 0.22 onwards. To make it also work for 0.21.3, I think we can try to parse the threshold if exist, otherwise set 0.
We would love to have your help, thanks! 😃