[ENH, BUG] Test honest tree performance via quadratic simulation

[adam2392]

Fixes #157

Changes proposed in this pull request:

• Fixes API for calling n_estimators
• Adds additional testing towards fixing the honest tree power performance via quadratic simulation

Before submitting

• I've read and followed all steps in the Making a pull request
  section of the CONTRIBUTING docs.
• I've updated or added any relevant docstrings following the syntax described in the
  Writing docstrings section of the CONTRIBUTING docs.
• If this PR fixes a bug, I've added a test that will fail without my fix.
• If this PR adds a new feature, I've added tests that sufficiently cover my new functionality.

After submitting

• All GitHub Actions jobs for my pull request have passed.

[adam2392]

Migrating disc from #152 (comment) here.

Can you, @PSSF23 and I discuss to get a small example we can run?

This is my impression of how the power is computed

[sampan501]

The only difference here is that you are computing AUC and I'm computing MI. Otherwise, looks right to me

[adam2392]

Looks like both MI and AUC have the exact same scores up to 0.05 precision when set with the same random state, so this is leading me to believe there's some issue w/ randomness when running the power-curve simulation, or another bug that we're not thinking of.

[PSSF23]

I added another test on MI to see if the statistic method affects the test results.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: 6 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Comparison is base (030a064) 89.59% compared to head (c8f619a) 90.17%.

Files	Patch %	Lines
sktree/stats/forestht.py	73.91%	6 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #164      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   89.59%   90.17%   +0.58%     
==========================================
  Files          46       46              
  Lines        3710     3767      +57     
==========================================
+ Hits         3324     3397      +73     
+ Misses        386      370      -16     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[PSSF23]

@adam2392 I have doubts on these two lines:

https://github.com/neurodata/scikit-tree/blob/e4728fa9923103c9e219825a46a83b7ba86b483e/sktree/stats/forestht.py#L1071

https://github.com/neurodata/scikit-tree/blob/e4728fa9923103c9e219825a46a83b7ba86b483e/sktree/stats/forestht.py#L1133

Essentially if we set sample_dataset_per_tree and permute_forest_fraction to False, these two lines would result in potential conflicts, or the first line is unnecessary.

[adam2392]

@adam2392 I have doubts on these two lines:

https://github.com/neurodata/scikit-tree/blob/e4728fa9923103c9e219825a46a83b7ba86b483e/sktree/stats/forestht.py#L1071

https://github.com/neurodata/scikit-tree/blob/e4728fa9923103c9e219825a46a83b7ba86b483e/sktree/stats/forestht.py#L1133

Essentially if we set sample_dataset_per_tree and permute_forest_fraction to False, these two lines would result in potential conflicts, or the first line is unnecessary.

The first line can be removed.

Or rather more specifically these two lines: https://github.com/neurodata/scikit-tree/blob/e4728fa9923103c9e219825a46a83b7ba86b483e/sktree/stats/forestht.py#L818-L820

These lines shouldn't affect the issue described in this PR tho.