Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merge DyHPO #60

Draft
wants to merge 8 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

Merge DyHPO #60

wants to merge 8 commits into from

Conversation

karibbov
Copy link
Contributor

@karibbov karibbov commented Feb 23, 2024

Merge work from a private repo on DyHPO, DPL surrogates, and related acquisition functions. Version without refactoring. All the further changes should be made under this branch.

Added Surrogates:

Added Acquisition functions:

  • MFEI: Multi-Fidelity Expected Improvement
  • MFPI: Multi-Fidelity Probability of Improvement
  • MFUCB: Multi-Fidelity Upper Confidence Bound
  • MF{EI, UCB, PI}AtMax: versions of each where the incumbent value is the best value at the highest fidelity
  • MF{EI, UCB, PI}Dyna: versions of each where the incumbent value is the best global value and model extrapolate till the highest seen fidelity + 1
  • MF(EI, PI)Random: versions of each with extrapolation at random horizons with random thresholds

Added Optimizers:

  • MFEIBO: DyHPO, DPL and many similar optimizers can be obtained by combining corresponding surrogates with acquisition functions above

@Neeratyoy
Copy link
Contributor

Could we squash commits?

MFPI_Random_HiT,
in_fill="best",
augmented_ei=False,
)
}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

For this file, not sure we should be bloating what is exposed to the main user with all possible acquisition functions exposed. What do you think?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Agree with the idea, but currently, I don't see any easy solutions without bloating the file. I commented out a few unnecessary ones. A few more can be commented out, but currently our main form of usage explicitly refers to this dict.

@Neeratyoy
Copy link
Contributor

Also we should probably add some basic unit tests to check for freeze-thaw sampler and MF-EI.
As a second stage, dyhpo and dpl surrogate fitting (okay if this is not part of this PR).

@karibbov karibbov requested a review from Neeratyoy March 18, 2024 15:08
@karibbov karibbov removed the request for review from Neeratyoy April 13, 2024 10:31
@eddiebergman
Copy link
Contributor

We decided that this has diverged quite a bit from the existing codebase and will likely diverge further. Can you move this PR to draft to save as a reference and we can eventually rework it into what we will have?

@karibbov karibbov marked this pull request as draft September 27, 2024 14:36
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants