Sklearn 'Seed' Not Working Properly In a Section of CodePosterior covariance of Normal-Inverse-Wishart not converging properlyLogistic Regression not quite workingWhy is Python's scikit-learn LDA not working correctly and how does it compute LDA via SVD?K-Means Clustering Not Working As ExpcectedEmploying cross_validation to to develop a reasonable linear regression model using scikit learnWhy does sklearn Ridge not accept warm start?Working between sklearn and scipy for convex optimizationPCA principal components in sklearn not matching eigen-vectors of covariance calculated by numpySklearn BaggingRegressor does not work with LightGBMRegressor & MAE objective

How does a computer interpret real numbers?

What does routing an IP address mean?

How can Trident be so inexpensive? Will it orbit Triton or just do a (slow) flyby?

What was this official D&D 3.5e Lovecraft-flavored rulebook?

The probability of Bus A arriving before Bus B

Is preaching recommended or mandatory to a temple priest?

Does Doodling or Improvising on the Piano Have Any Benefits?

Count the occurrence of each unique word in the file

Yosemite Fire Rings - What to Expect?

Why a symmetric relation is defined: ∀x∀y( xRy⟹yRx) and not ∀x∀y (xRy⟺yRx)?

Freedom of speech and where it applies

Biological Blimps: Propulsion

What is going on with 'gets(stdin)' on the site coderbyte?

A social experiment. What is the worst that can happen?

Closed-form expression for certain product

What does "Scientists rise up against statistical significance" mean? (Comment in Nature)

Strong empirical falsification of quantum mechanics based on vacuum energy density

Is the U.S. Code copyrighted by the Government?

Why can Carol Danvers change her suit colours in the first place?

Terse Method to Swap Lowest for Highest?

Aragorn's "guise" in the Orthanc Stone

If a character has darkvision, can they see through an area of nonmagical darkness filled with lightly obscuring gas?

How to create ADT in Haskell?

Removing files under particular conditions (number of files, file age)



Sklearn 'Seed' Not Working Properly In a Section of Code


Posterior covariance of Normal-Inverse-Wishart not converging properlyLogistic Regression not quite workingWhy is Python's scikit-learn LDA not working correctly and how does it compute LDA via SVD?K-Means Clustering Not Working As ExpcectedEmploying cross_validation to to develop a reasonable linear regression model using scikit learnWhy does sklearn Ridge not accept warm start?Working between sklearn and scipy for convex optimizationPCA principal components in sklearn not matching eigen-vectors of covariance calculated by numpySklearn BaggingRegressor does not work with LightGBMRegressor & MAE objective













2












$begingroup$


I have written an ensemble using Scikit Learn VotingClassifier.



I have set a seed in the cross validation section. However, it does not appear to 'hold'. Meaning, If I re-run the code block I get different results. (I can only assume each run of the code block is dividing the dataset into folds with different constituents instead of 'freezing' the random state.



Here is the code:



#Voting Ensemble of Classification
#Create Submodels
num_folds = 10
seed =7
kfold = KFold(n_splits=num_folds, random_state=seed)
estimators = []
model1 =LogisticRegression()
estimators.append(('LR',model1))
model2 = KNeighborsClassifier()
estimators.append(('KNN',model2))
model3 = GradientBoostingClassifier()
estimators.append(('GBM',model3))
#Create the ensemble
ensemble = VotingClassifier(estimators,voting='soft')
results = cross_val_score(ensemble, X_train, Y_train,cv=kfold)
print(results)


The results printed are the results of the 10 CV fold training. If I run this code block several times I get the following results:



1:



[0.70588235 0.94117647 1. 0.82352941 0.94117647 0.88235294
0.8125 0.875 0.8125 0.9375 ]


2:



[0.76470588 0.94117647 1. 0.82352941 0.94117647 0.88235294
0.8125 0.875 0.8125 0.875 ]


3:



[0.76470588 0.94117647 1. 0.82352941 0.94117647 0.88235294
0.8125 0.875 0.8125 0.875 ]


4:



[0.76470588 0.94117647 1. 0.82352941 1. 0.88235294
0.8125 0.875 0.625 0.875 ]


So it appears my random_state=seed isn't holding.



What is incorrect?



Thanks in advance.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$
















    2












    $begingroup$


    I have written an ensemble using Scikit Learn VotingClassifier.



    I have set a seed in the cross validation section. However, it does not appear to 'hold'. Meaning, If I re-run the code block I get different results. (I can only assume each run of the code block is dividing the dataset into folds with different constituents instead of 'freezing' the random state.



    Here is the code:



    #Voting Ensemble of Classification
    #Create Submodels
    num_folds = 10
    seed =7
    kfold = KFold(n_splits=num_folds, random_state=seed)
    estimators = []
    model1 =LogisticRegression()
    estimators.append(('LR',model1))
    model2 = KNeighborsClassifier()
    estimators.append(('KNN',model2))
    model3 = GradientBoostingClassifier()
    estimators.append(('GBM',model3))
    #Create the ensemble
    ensemble = VotingClassifier(estimators,voting='soft')
    results = cross_val_score(ensemble, X_train, Y_train,cv=kfold)
    print(results)


    The results printed are the results of the 10 CV fold training. If I run this code block several times I get the following results:



    1:



    [0.70588235 0.94117647 1. 0.82352941 0.94117647 0.88235294
    0.8125 0.875 0.8125 0.9375 ]


    2:



    [0.76470588 0.94117647 1. 0.82352941 0.94117647 0.88235294
    0.8125 0.875 0.8125 0.875 ]


    3:



    [0.76470588 0.94117647 1. 0.82352941 0.94117647 0.88235294
    0.8125 0.875 0.8125 0.875 ]


    4:



    [0.76470588 0.94117647 1. 0.82352941 1. 0.88235294
    0.8125 0.875 0.625 0.875 ]


    So it appears my random_state=seed isn't holding.



    What is incorrect?



    Thanks in advance.










    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$














      2












      2








      2





      $begingroup$


      I have written an ensemble using Scikit Learn VotingClassifier.



      I have set a seed in the cross validation section. However, it does not appear to 'hold'. Meaning, If I re-run the code block I get different results. (I can only assume each run of the code block is dividing the dataset into folds with different constituents instead of 'freezing' the random state.



      Here is the code:



      #Voting Ensemble of Classification
      #Create Submodels
      num_folds = 10
      seed =7
      kfold = KFold(n_splits=num_folds, random_state=seed)
      estimators = []
      model1 =LogisticRegression()
      estimators.append(('LR',model1))
      model2 = KNeighborsClassifier()
      estimators.append(('KNN',model2))
      model3 = GradientBoostingClassifier()
      estimators.append(('GBM',model3))
      #Create the ensemble
      ensemble = VotingClassifier(estimators,voting='soft')
      results = cross_val_score(ensemble, X_train, Y_train,cv=kfold)
      print(results)


      The results printed are the results of the 10 CV fold training. If I run this code block several times I get the following results:



      1:



      [0.70588235 0.94117647 1. 0.82352941 0.94117647 0.88235294
      0.8125 0.875 0.8125 0.9375 ]


      2:



      [0.76470588 0.94117647 1. 0.82352941 0.94117647 0.88235294
      0.8125 0.875 0.8125 0.875 ]


      3:



      [0.76470588 0.94117647 1. 0.82352941 0.94117647 0.88235294
      0.8125 0.875 0.8125 0.875 ]


      4:



      [0.76470588 0.94117647 1. 0.82352941 1. 0.88235294
      0.8125 0.875 0.625 0.875 ]


      So it appears my random_state=seed isn't holding.



      What is incorrect?



      Thanks in advance.










      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      I have written an ensemble using Scikit Learn VotingClassifier.



      I have set a seed in the cross validation section. However, it does not appear to 'hold'. Meaning, If I re-run the code block I get different results. (I can only assume each run of the code block is dividing the dataset into folds with different constituents instead of 'freezing' the random state.



      Here is the code:



      #Voting Ensemble of Classification
      #Create Submodels
      num_folds = 10
      seed =7
      kfold = KFold(n_splits=num_folds, random_state=seed)
      estimators = []
      model1 =LogisticRegression()
      estimators.append(('LR',model1))
      model2 = KNeighborsClassifier()
      estimators.append(('KNN',model2))
      model3 = GradientBoostingClassifier()
      estimators.append(('GBM',model3))
      #Create the ensemble
      ensemble = VotingClassifier(estimators,voting='soft')
      results = cross_val_score(ensemble, X_train, Y_train,cv=kfold)
      print(results)


      The results printed are the results of the 10 CV fold training. If I run this code block several times I get the following results:



      1:



      [0.70588235 0.94117647 1. 0.82352941 0.94117647 0.88235294
      0.8125 0.875 0.8125 0.9375 ]


      2:



      [0.76470588 0.94117647 1. 0.82352941 0.94117647 0.88235294
      0.8125 0.875 0.8125 0.875 ]


      3:



      [0.76470588 0.94117647 1. 0.82352941 0.94117647 0.88235294
      0.8125 0.875 0.8125 0.875 ]


      4:



      [0.76470588 0.94117647 1. 0.82352941 1. 0.88235294
      0.8125 0.875 0.625 0.875 ]


      So it appears my random_state=seed isn't holding.



      What is incorrect?



      Thanks in advance.







      python scikit-learn ensemble






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked 4 hours ago









      Windstorm1981Windstorm1981

      1455




      1455




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          2












          $begingroup$

          Random seed of models (LogisticRegression, GradientBoostingClassifier) needs to be fixed too, so that their random behavior becomes reproducible. Here is a working example that produces the same result over multiple runs:



          import sklearn
          from sklearn.model_selection import KFold, cross_val_score
          from sklearn.linear_model import LogisticRegression
          from sklearn.neighbors import KNeighborsClassifier
          from sklearn.ensemble import GradientBoostingClassifier, VotingClassifier
          import numpy as np

          #Voting Ensemble of Classification
          #Create Submodels
          num_folds = 10
          seed =7

          # Data
          np.random.seed(seed)
          feature_1 = np.random.normal(0, 2, 10000)
          feature_2 = np.random.normal(5, 6, 10000)
          X_train = np.vstack([feature_1, feature_2]).T
          Y_train = np.random.randint(0, 2, 10000).T

          kfold = KFold(n_splits=num_folds, random_state=seed)
          estimators = []
          model1 =LogisticRegression(random_state=seed)
          estimators.append(('LR',model1))
          model2 = KNeighborsClassifier()
          estimators.append(('KNN',model2))
          model3 = GradientBoostingClassifier(random_state=seed)
          estimators.append(('GBM',model3))
          #Create the ensemble
          ensemble = VotingClassifier(estimators,voting='soft')
          results = cross_val_score(ensemble, X_train, Y_train,cv=kfold)
          print('sklearn version', sklearn.__version__)
          print(results)


          Output:



          sklearn version 0.19.1
          [0.502 0.496 0.483 0.513 0.515 0.508 0.517 0.499 0.515 0.504]





          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            Thanks for your quick reply. Not sure I follow completely. random_state=seed fixes my cross validation. I note your line np.random.seed(seed). Intuitively it suggests to me it is ensuring repeatable generation of toy data. I already have a data set. How does that apply to 'fixing seed of models'?
            $endgroup$
            – Windstorm1981
            2 hours ago











          • $begingroup$
            @Windstorm1981 My bad. Updated.
            $endgroup$
            – Esmailian
            2 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            ha! Clear now. So fixing the cv fixes the data splits. Fixing the models fixes how the models handle the (fixed) data splits?
            $endgroup$
            – Windstorm1981
            2 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @Windstorm1981 Exactly!
            $endgroup$
            – Esmailian
            2 hours ago










          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          );
          );
          , "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "65"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader:
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          ,
          onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );













          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstats.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f399026%2fsklearn-seed-not-working-properly-in-a-section-of-code%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          2












          $begingroup$

          Random seed of models (LogisticRegression, GradientBoostingClassifier) needs to be fixed too, so that their random behavior becomes reproducible. Here is a working example that produces the same result over multiple runs:



          import sklearn
          from sklearn.model_selection import KFold, cross_val_score
          from sklearn.linear_model import LogisticRegression
          from sklearn.neighbors import KNeighborsClassifier
          from sklearn.ensemble import GradientBoostingClassifier, VotingClassifier
          import numpy as np

          #Voting Ensemble of Classification
          #Create Submodels
          num_folds = 10
          seed =7

          # Data
          np.random.seed(seed)
          feature_1 = np.random.normal(0, 2, 10000)
          feature_2 = np.random.normal(5, 6, 10000)
          X_train = np.vstack([feature_1, feature_2]).T
          Y_train = np.random.randint(0, 2, 10000).T

          kfold = KFold(n_splits=num_folds, random_state=seed)
          estimators = []
          model1 =LogisticRegression(random_state=seed)
          estimators.append(('LR',model1))
          model2 = KNeighborsClassifier()
          estimators.append(('KNN',model2))
          model3 = GradientBoostingClassifier(random_state=seed)
          estimators.append(('GBM',model3))
          #Create the ensemble
          ensemble = VotingClassifier(estimators,voting='soft')
          results = cross_val_score(ensemble, X_train, Y_train,cv=kfold)
          print('sklearn version', sklearn.__version__)
          print(results)


          Output:



          sklearn version 0.19.1
          [0.502 0.496 0.483 0.513 0.515 0.508 0.517 0.499 0.515 0.504]





          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            Thanks for your quick reply. Not sure I follow completely. random_state=seed fixes my cross validation. I note your line np.random.seed(seed). Intuitively it suggests to me it is ensuring repeatable generation of toy data. I already have a data set. How does that apply to 'fixing seed of models'?
            $endgroup$
            – Windstorm1981
            2 hours ago











          • $begingroup$
            @Windstorm1981 My bad. Updated.
            $endgroup$
            – Esmailian
            2 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            ha! Clear now. So fixing the cv fixes the data splits. Fixing the models fixes how the models handle the (fixed) data splits?
            $endgroup$
            – Windstorm1981
            2 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @Windstorm1981 Exactly!
            $endgroup$
            – Esmailian
            2 hours ago















          2












          $begingroup$

          Random seed of models (LogisticRegression, GradientBoostingClassifier) needs to be fixed too, so that their random behavior becomes reproducible. Here is a working example that produces the same result over multiple runs:



          import sklearn
          from sklearn.model_selection import KFold, cross_val_score
          from sklearn.linear_model import LogisticRegression
          from sklearn.neighbors import KNeighborsClassifier
          from sklearn.ensemble import GradientBoostingClassifier, VotingClassifier
          import numpy as np

          #Voting Ensemble of Classification
          #Create Submodels
          num_folds = 10
          seed =7

          # Data
          np.random.seed(seed)
          feature_1 = np.random.normal(0, 2, 10000)
          feature_2 = np.random.normal(5, 6, 10000)
          X_train = np.vstack([feature_1, feature_2]).T
          Y_train = np.random.randint(0, 2, 10000).T

          kfold = KFold(n_splits=num_folds, random_state=seed)
          estimators = []
          model1 =LogisticRegression(random_state=seed)
          estimators.append(('LR',model1))
          model2 = KNeighborsClassifier()
          estimators.append(('KNN',model2))
          model3 = GradientBoostingClassifier(random_state=seed)
          estimators.append(('GBM',model3))
          #Create the ensemble
          ensemble = VotingClassifier(estimators,voting='soft')
          results = cross_val_score(ensemble, X_train, Y_train,cv=kfold)
          print('sklearn version', sklearn.__version__)
          print(results)


          Output:



          sklearn version 0.19.1
          [0.502 0.496 0.483 0.513 0.515 0.508 0.517 0.499 0.515 0.504]





          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            Thanks for your quick reply. Not sure I follow completely. random_state=seed fixes my cross validation. I note your line np.random.seed(seed). Intuitively it suggests to me it is ensuring repeatable generation of toy data. I already have a data set. How does that apply to 'fixing seed of models'?
            $endgroup$
            – Windstorm1981
            2 hours ago











          • $begingroup$
            @Windstorm1981 My bad. Updated.
            $endgroup$
            – Esmailian
            2 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            ha! Clear now. So fixing the cv fixes the data splits. Fixing the models fixes how the models handle the (fixed) data splits?
            $endgroup$
            – Windstorm1981
            2 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @Windstorm1981 Exactly!
            $endgroup$
            – Esmailian
            2 hours ago













          2












          2








          2





          $begingroup$

          Random seed of models (LogisticRegression, GradientBoostingClassifier) needs to be fixed too, so that their random behavior becomes reproducible. Here is a working example that produces the same result over multiple runs:



          import sklearn
          from sklearn.model_selection import KFold, cross_val_score
          from sklearn.linear_model import LogisticRegression
          from sklearn.neighbors import KNeighborsClassifier
          from sklearn.ensemble import GradientBoostingClassifier, VotingClassifier
          import numpy as np

          #Voting Ensemble of Classification
          #Create Submodels
          num_folds = 10
          seed =7

          # Data
          np.random.seed(seed)
          feature_1 = np.random.normal(0, 2, 10000)
          feature_2 = np.random.normal(5, 6, 10000)
          X_train = np.vstack([feature_1, feature_2]).T
          Y_train = np.random.randint(0, 2, 10000).T

          kfold = KFold(n_splits=num_folds, random_state=seed)
          estimators = []
          model1 =LogisticRegression(random_state=seed)
          estimators.append(('LR',model1))
          model2 = KNeighborsClassifier()
          estimators.append(('KNN',model2))
          model3 = GradientBoostingClassifier(random_state=seed)
          estimators.append(('GBM',model3))
          #Create the ensemble
          ensemble = VotingClassifier(estimators,voting='soft')
          results = cross_val_score(ensemble, X_train, Y_train,cv=kfold)
          print('sklearn version', sklearn.__version__)
          print(results)


          Output:



          sklearn version 0.19.1
          [0.502 0.496 0.483 0.513 0.515 0.508 0.517 0.499 0.515 0.504]





          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          Random seed of models (LogisticRegression, GradientBoostingClassifier) needs to be fixed too, so that their random behavior becomes reproducible. Here is a working example that produces the same result over multiple runs:



          import sklearn
          from sklearn.model_selection import KFold, cross_val_score
          from sklearn.linear_model import LogisticRegression
          from sklearn.neighbors import KNeighborsClassifier
          from sklearn.ensemble import GradientBoostingClassifier, VotingClassifier
          import numpy as np

          #Voting Ensemble of Classification
          #Create Submodels
          num_folds = 10
          seed =7

          # Data
          np.random.seed(seed)
          feature_1 = np.random.normal(0, 2, 10000)
          feature_2 = np.random.normal(5, 6, 10000)
          X_train = np.vstack([feature_1, feature_2]).T
          Y_train = np.random.randint(0, 2, 10000).T

          kfold = KFold(n_splits=num_folds, random_state=seed)
          estimators = []
          model1 =LogisticRegression(random_state=seed)
          estimators.append(('LR',model1))
          model2 = KNeighborsClassifier()
          estimators.append(('KNN',model2))
          model3 = GradientBoostingClassifier(random_state=seed)
          estimators.append(('GBM',model3))
          #Create the ensemble
          ensemble = VotingClassifier(estimators,voting='soft')
          results = cross_val_score(ensemble, X_train, Y_train,cv=kfold)
          print('sklearn version', sklearn.__version__)
          print(results)


          Output:



          sklearn version 0.19.1
          [0.502 0.496 0.483 0.513 0.515 0.508 0.517 0.499 0.515 0.504]






          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited 2 hours ago

























          answered 3 hours ago









          EsmailianEsmailian

          31115




          31115











          • $begingroup$
            Thanks for your quick reply. Not sure I follow completely. random_state=seed fixes my cross validation. I note your line np.random.seed(seed). Intuitively it suggests to me it is ensuring repeatable generation of toy data. I already have a data set. How does that apply to 'fixing seed of models'?
            $endgroup$
            – Windstorm1981
            2 hours ago











          • $begingroup$
            @Windstorm1981 My bad. Updated.
            $endgroup$
            – Esmailian
            2 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            ha! Clear now. So fixing the cv fixes the data splits. Fixing the models fixes how the models handle the (fixed) data splits?
            $endgroup$
            – Windstorm1981
            2 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @Windstorm1981 Exactly!
            $endgroup$
            – Esmailian
            2 hours ago
















          • $begingroup$
            Thanks for your quick reply. Not sure I follow completely. random_state=seed fixes my cross validation. I note your line np.random.seed(seed). Intuitively it suggests to me it is ensuring repeatable generation of toy data. I already have a data set. How does that apply to 'fixing seed of models'?
            $endgroup$
            – Windstorm1981
            2 hours ago











          • $begingroup$
            @Windstorm1981 My bad. Updated.
            $endgroup$
            – Esmailian
            2 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            ha! Clear now. So fixing the cv fixes the data splits. Fixing the models fixes how the models handle the (fixed) data splits?
            $endgroup$
            – Windstorm1981
            2 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @Windstorm1981 Exactly!
            $endgroup$
            – Esmailian
            2 hours ago















          $begingroup$
          Thanks for your quick reply. Not sure I follow completely. random_state=seed fixes my cross validation. I note your line np.random.seed(seed). Intuitively it suggests to me it is ensuring repeatable generation of toy data. I already have a data set. How does that apply to 'fixing seed of models'?
          $endgroup$
          – Windstorm1981
          2 hours ago





          $begingroup$
          Thanks for your quick reply. Not sure I follow completely. random_state=seed fixes my cross validation. I note your line np.random.seed(seed). Intuitively it suggests to me it is ensuring repeatable generation of toy data. I already have a data set. How does that apply to 'fixing seed of models'?
          $endgroup$
          – Windstorm1981
          2 hours ago













          $begingroup$
          @Windstorm1981 My bad. Updated.
          $endgroup$
          – Esmailian
          2 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          @Windstorm1981 My bad. Updated.
          $endgroup$
          – Esmailian
          2 hours ago




          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          ha! Clear now. So fixing the cv fixes the data splits. Fixing the models fixes how the models handle the (fixed) data splits?
          $endgroup$
          – Windstorm1981
          2 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          ha! Clear now. So fixing the cv fixes the data splits. Fixing the models fixes how the models handle the (fixed) data splits?
          $endgroup$
          – Windstorm1981
          2 hours ago




          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          @Windstorm1981 Exactly!
          $endgroup$
          – Esmailian
          2 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          @Windstorm1981 Exactly!
          $endgroup$
          – Esmailian
          2 hours ago

















          draft saved

          draft discarded
















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Cross Validated!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid


          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstats.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f399026%2fsklearn-seed-not-working-properly-in-a-section-of-code%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Bett Inhaltsverzeichnis Geschichte | Bettformen | Bettgrößen | Andere Bezeichnungen | Bettenmangel | Betten in der bildenden Kunst | Schlafmedizinische Gesichtspunkte | Siehe auch | Literatur | Weblinks | Einzelnachweise | NavigationsmenüBett, Bettstatt, BettstelleCommons: BettBabybetten: Anwendung, Ausstattungsmerkmale und VergleichskriterienWasserbetten. Vorurteile im TestHapfnNursch10.1007/s11818-012-0584-74006250-8AKS4329276-8

          Luksemburg Sisukord Nimi | Asend | Loodus | Riigikord | Haldusjaotus | Rahvastik | Riigikaitse | Majandus | Taristu | Ajalugu | Eesti ja Luksemburgi suhted | Haridus | Kultuur | Vaata ka | Viited | Välislingid | Navigeerimismenüü50° N, 6° EÜlevaade Luksemburgi kaitsealadest.Luksemburgi rahvaarv. Statistikaamet.World Bank'i andmebaasÜlevaade Luksemburgi loodusest.Ülevaade Luksemburgi metsadest.Guy Colling. "Red List of the Vascular Plants of Luxembourg." Travaux scientifiques du Musée national d’histoire naturelle Luxembourg. 2005.Luxembourg’s biodiversity at risk.Maailma kahepaiksete andmebaas.Denis Lepage. "Luxembourg." Avibase.Ülevaade temperatuuridest. Luksemburgi meteoroloogiateenistus.Ülevaade Luksemburgist. Euroopa Liidu esinduse koduleht.Système politique. TerritoireÜlevaade Luksemburgi rahvastikust. Luksemburgi statistikaamet.Luksemburgi rahvastik. Luksemburgi statistikaamet.The World FactbookMonique Borsenberger, Paul Dickes. "Religions au Luxembourg. Quelle évolution entre 1999-2008". Luksemburgi statistikaamet. 2011.Luksemburgi peapiiskopkond. Catholic-Hierarchy.Luksemburgi armee koduleht.Luksemburgi armee relvastus.Eesti Välisministeerium.Luksemburgi rahvastik. Luksemburgi statistikaamet.Luksemburgi Eesti Seltsi koduleht.Helen Eelrand. "Raadio, mis muutis maailma." Eesti Päevaleht. 13. märts 2004.Ülevaade Luksemburgi haridussüsteemist.Ülevaade Luksemburgi keskkoolidest.Luksemburgr

          Valle di Casies Indice Geografia fisica | Origini del nome | Storia | Società | Amministrazione | Sport | Note | Bibliografia | Voci correlate | Altri progetti | Collegamenti esterni | Menu di navigazione46°46′N 12°11′E / 46.766667°N 12.183333°E46.766667; 12.183333 (Valle di Casies)46°46′N 12°11′E / 46.766667°N 12.183333°E46.766667; 12.183333 (Valle di Casies)Sito istituzionaleAstat Censimento della popolazione 2011 - Determinazione della consistenza dei tre gruppi linguistici della Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano-Alto Adige - giugno 2012Numeri e fattiValle di CasiesDato IstatTabella dei gradi/giorno dei Comuni italiani raggruppati per Regione e Provincia26 agosto 1993, n. 412Heraldry of the World: GsiesStatistiche I.StatValCasies.comWikimedia CommonsWikimedia CommonsValle di CasiesSito ufficialeValle di CasiesMM14870458910042978-6