Categorical Treatments for Metalearners Disabled, But Docs Imply Metaleaners Handle Categorical Treatments
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Jupyter Notebook
- Stars
- 4.8k
- Forks
- 827
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Description
There seems to be some inconsistency between the documentation and implementation of metalearners. Docs state that "all of these estimators are applicable to multiple treatment settings as well" and the detailed estimator comparison table lists treatment type for metalearners as "categorical"; however, docstrings for the T argument in the fit() method for metalearners state "only binary treatments are accepted as input." Moreover, the check_inputs() utility in the fit methods hard-code multi_output_T to False. The metalearners appear to handle categorical treatments fine after simply removing the check_inputs() step (it could also be moved to after the one-hot-encoding).
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start with the metalearners' fit() docstrings and their check_inputs() calls, then compare them with the estimator comparison table's treatment-type claims. Determine whether validation should allow categorical treatments before or after one-hot encoding; done means the implementation, documentation, and input checks consistently support the intended treatment types.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- python
- Domain
- machine-learning
- Issue type
- Bug
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 38/100