Integrate ensemble methods in AutoML#1253
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1253 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 99.95% 99.95% +0.01%
==========================================
Files 213 213
Lines 13436 13555 +119
==========================================
+ Hits 13429 13548 +119
Misses 7 7
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
|
@dsherry Okay! I kicked off a test last night. Seems like there aren't errors now, but I am getting a lot of warnings based on the update:
Are we curious and want to wait for tests to complete to see how performance changes with LightGBM? Or is that a nice to have, but not necessary for merging? |
angela97lin
requested review from
bchen1116,
christopherbunn,
dsherry,
eccabay,
freddyaboulton and
jeremyliweishih
jeremyliweishih
left a comment
jeremyliweishih
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM on my end - just a couple things to clean up.
…nto 1130_ensemble_in_automl
freddyaboulton
left a comment
freddyaboulton
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@angela97lin I think this is great! I have some questions (mainly for my understanding lol)
| if self.batch_number == 1: | ||
| self._first_batch_results.append((score_to_minimize, pipeline.__class__)) | ||
|
|
||
| if pipeline.model_family not in self._best_pipeline_params and score_to_minimize is not None: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How come we check None and not np.nan (the score that AutoML uses when a pipeline fails)?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Haha I think this came out of the test_pipelines_in_batch_return_none test which checks what if the pipeline returns None 😅 When None is returned, we get an TypeError: '<' not supported between instances of 'NoneType' and 'int'; np.nan doesn't throw this error since you can compare (though score_to_minimize < current_best_score will always be False so we never update the value to np.nan)
dsherry
left a comment
dsherry
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@angela97lin so exciting that we're ready to 🚢 this, nice going!
As discussed, let's change the automl default to ensembling=False. Other than that, all that's blocking: one comment in iterative algo, log message in _compute_cv_scores
It would be great to add the missing docstrings as well, and I left a couple other suggestions.
| ensemble = _make_stacked_ensemble_pipeline(input_pipelines, input_pipelines[0].problem_type) | ||
| next_batch.append(ensemble) | ||
| else: | ||
| idx = (self._batch_number - 1) % len(self._first_batch_results) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I believe this should be updated to (self._batch_number - 1) % (len(self._first_batch_results) + 1), to match the other modular arithmetic you added in the elif above.
This selects which pipeline class we should tune in the current batch, when we're not in the 0th batch or in a stacked ensemble batch.
This is an aside, but in the future I hope we can figure out how to represent the state here in a less confusing way! I think our requirements for this code have grown a little beyond its means, haha.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ahh, really good catch. We have to update it if self.ensembling is True:
num_pipeline_classes = (len(self._first_batch_results) + 1) if self.ensembling else len(self._first_batch_results)
idx = (self._batch_number - 1) % num_pipeline_classes
| assert any([p != dummy_binary_pipeline_classes[0]({}).parameters for p in all_parameters]) | ||
|
|
||
| for i in range(1, 5): | ||
| for _ in range(len(dummy_binary_pipeline_classes)): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is totally a style nit-pick / me just confusing myself, haha, but why the double-for here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah, the for i in range(1, 5) is every cycle of batches (goes through every pipeline class) so it tests that the ensemble is called at the end of every cycle. And then the inner for loop is for each pipeline class. Really confusing stuff 😂
…nto 1130_ensemble_in_automl
|
@dsherry @freddyaboulton Thanks for all of the great feedback! I've addressed all of the comments you guys made, so this PR should be good to merge :D If there's anything to follow up on, we can open a separate PR after! |
4 participants
Closes #1130