HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
ajtulloch
sklearn-compiledtrees
Python2014–2015
ajtulloch / sklearn-compiledtrees

sklearn-compiledtrees

Compiled Decision Trees for scikit-learn

3Distinct people
4Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
230GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Compiled Decision Trees for scikit-learn

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 3:56:07 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by month4 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2014-03-23 00:03:51 UTC to 2015-09-22 18:19:42 UTC.

0122014-03-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2014-04-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 2 submissions, 0 commentsMar 20142014-04-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2014-05-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2014-05-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2014-06-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2014-06-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2014-07-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2014-07-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2014-08-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2014-08-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2014-09-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2014-09-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2014-10-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2014-10-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2014-11-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2014-11-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2014-12-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2014-12-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 commentsDec 20142015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-02-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2015-02-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-03-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2015-03-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-04-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2015-04-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-05-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2015-05-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-06-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2015-06-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-07-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2015-07-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-08-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2015-08-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-09-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2015-09-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-10-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 commentsSep 2015

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
Mar 20142014-03-01 00:00:00 UTC2014-04-01 00:00:00 UTC220
Apr 20142014-04-01 00:00:00 UTC2014-05-01 00:00:00 UTC000
May 20142014-05-01 00:00:00 UTC2014-06-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jun 20142014-06-01 00:00:00 UTC2014-07-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jul 20142014-07-01 00:00:00 UTC2014-08-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Aug 20142014-08-01 00:00:00 UTC2014-09-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Sep 20142014-09-01 00:00:00 UTC2014-10-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Oct 20142014-10-01 00:00:00 UTC2014-11-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 20142014-11-01 00:00:00 UTC2014-12-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 20142014-12-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 20152015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-02-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Feb 20152015-02-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-03-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 20152015-03-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-04-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 20152015-04-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-05-01 00:00:00 UTC000
May 20152015-05-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-06-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jun 20152015-06-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-07-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jul 20152015-07-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-08-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Aug 20152015-08-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-09-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Sep 20152015-09-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-10-01 00:00:00 UTC202

What Hacker News says

4 sources
I don't think overfitting will be an issue (at all!) on a 65TB dataset. A bigger CNN model should be more effective at this task than a DBN, (almost) regardless of the features added. If we can use convolutional generative models (from raw noise -> images) to make this kind of stuff [1][2] I see no reason why it shouldn't be super effective to classify with a CNN. The equivalent DBN-type generative model for CIFAR10 is pretty far behind [3], but not terrible. It is believable that a DBN could do well on this task, but it would be very, very surprising if a DBN beats a well trained CNN of the appropriate capacity in anything related to classification. All that said, some of the other comments have highlighted larger potential issues than model choice here - achieving up to 98% accuracy using single pixels, random forest, etc seems to point
Read the rest
to potential issues in the dataset that will block any kind of model evaluation or further research. I would look for data leakage, and reconsider CNNs in your future work - especially something using larger patches and VGG style features. With respect to your comment on scalability - if the model converges and can't really learn more (small/limited capacity network) processing more training data is just a waste of time. Convergence is not really epoch based, but update based, especially in big datasets like this. A small network will be very fast to apply but if that is the goal there are lots of papers on model approximation - a big ensemble of networks that are engineered and model approximated to fit your compute budget might work better than limiting the network capacity initially. All said - does it really matter much if you get 95% vs. 97% vs. 98% vs. 99.99%? Aren't there meta techniques like CRF to resolve occasional blips in model prediction for neighboring patches anyways? Maybe a linear model with decent features or random forest + follow-on cleanup will work better with the constraints necessary. I am all about neural networks for most things, but if you have a serious computational constraint linear models (or random forests) are stupid fast [4], and pretty good on many tasks. Adding on a "meta model" to resolve anomalous errors with this could be good enough for your task. Just something to consider. [1] https://twitter.com/AlecRad/status/645830923150299136 [2] http://soumith.ch/eyescream/ [3] http://www.icml-2011.org/papers/591_icmlpaper.pdf [4] https://github.com/ajtulloch/sklearn-compiledtrees/
In Deep Belief Networks at Heart of NASA Image Classification
The article mentions that "The main drawback of Random Forests is the model size. You could easily end up with a forest that takes hundreds of megabytes of memory and is slow to evaluate." A cool trick for speeding up trained random forests/gradient boosted decision trees is to dump the tree to C/ASM, compile it, and dlopen it as a function pointer. Depending on the model and the architecture, you can get an 8x speedup relative to an optimized C implementation that walks the tree. There's an implementation for scikit-learn with benchmarks at https://github.com/ajtulloch/sklearn-compiledtrees if you're interested in this technique.
In The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Random Forests

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.