-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 42
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
Enable Pending Points #319
Conversation
74101aa
to
ca866e1
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hi @Scienfitz, thanks a lot for tackling the pending measurements issue. Here a first batch of comments, mostly regarding the user guide (thanks for writing this as well, btw). Will how have a look at the code
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There are no tests/examples of adding measurements for points that were declared pending, and I think this is absolutely necessary.
Other than that this looks really good :)
563349d
to
ccd3055
Compare
Co-authored-by: AdrianSosic <adrian.sosic@merckgroup.com>
Co-authored-by: AdrianSosic <adrian.sosic@merckgroup.com>
ccd3055
to
3195053
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hi @Scienfitz, again, thanks a lot for the PR. Have made some suggestions but the big elephant in the room is the decision on how to handle the points in the first place. Have mentioned one idea in a thread.
Co-authored-by: AdrianSosic <adrian.sosic@merckgroup.com>
093be43
to
f9c16b9
Compare
2bfe15a
to
56572f1
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Re-reviewing this PR now solved my confusion regarding the adding of pending points. All of my comments are only minor or already raised by Adrian, hence approving.
56572f1
to
74cf068
Compare
# Conflicts: # CHANGELOG.md # baybe/acquisition/base.py # baybe/campaign.py # baybe/recommenders/naive.py # baybe/recommenders/pure/base.py # baybe/recommenders/pure/bayesian/base.py # baybe/recommenders/pure/nonpredictive/clustering.py # baybe/recommenders/pure/nonpredictive/sampling.py # baybe/searchspace/continuous.py # baybe/searchspace/discrete.py
ea12979
to
69c95b3
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
User guide is much clearer now imo and I am happy with it.
Co-authored-by: AdrianSosic <adrian.sosic@merckgroup.com>
8a39254
to
ad0daa8
Compare
3d8106f
to
e8c9658
Compare
d04973b
to
5490a3e
Compare
# Conflicts: # CHANGELOG.md # README.md # baybe/acquisition/base.py # baybe/exceptions.py # baybe/recommenders/pure/bayesian/botorch.py # tests/conftest.py
5490a3e
to
9983981
Compare
This is an important step towards enabling asynchronous workflows, by allowing users to identify
pending_experiments
Added:
.recommend
fromRecommender
andCampaign
gets a new argumentpending_experiments
allow_recommending_pending_experiments
. If set toFalse
, pending experiments will be excluded from the candidates (this only holds for exact matches to the searchspace and is only relevant in purely discrete search spaces)X_pending
. This only works for mc-acqfs and an error is thrown in case of an incompatible acqf.recommend
calls and marking points as pending in the second call (keeping the randoms seed same for both calls) does not produce duplicated recommendations~~~
code block could benefit from thatNOT added:
Campaign
does not do any further handling of pending experiments, eg like storing them and so on. Providingpending_experiments
also invalidates cached recommendations