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
Improve #1081 and Refine parallel TPE's code #1296
Conversation
…nto update_ga_squad
…nto xuehui1991-update_ga_squad
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/master'
@PurityFan please help review this pr. |
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.
Have you find the reason or solution of strange phenomenon raised by zejun?
if self.parallel and len(self.total_data)>20 and len(self.running_data): | ||
self.CL_rval = copy.deepcopy(self.rval) | ||
_constant_liar_y = 0 | ||
if self.constant_liar_type == 'mean' and self.optimal_y[1]: |
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.
could you make sure self.optimal_y must be an array here? and if self.optimal_y[1] is 0, assigning self.optimal_y to _constant_liar_y is not correct.
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.
I think in the original design :
when constant_liar_type == 'mean' --> self.optimal_y is a array
otherwise --> self.optimal is a value.
In one experiment only has one constant_liar_type.
@QuanluZhang
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.
I added two more comments which are the reason that I have concern here.
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.
discussed with @PurityFan , to fix this problem, you can simply add self.optimal_y is not None
in line 422
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.
can remove self.optimal_y[1]
from line 424
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.
@QuanluZhang I don't think we could remove sel.optimal_y[1] in line 424 because it will avoid /0 in line 425.
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.
@QuanluZhang Other comments fix in new PR.
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.
@xuehui1991 if self.optimal_y is not None, self.optimal_y[1] must be larger than 0.
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.
@QuanluZhang changed. Please review new PR.
closed. this pr is replaced with another pr #1373 |
Improve this PR: https://github.com/microsoft/nni/pull/1081/files
fix random state bug
refine code logic
refine doc and experiment log
Will update the doc and experiment log after PR #1242 merge.
Original TPE: http://172.23.234.85:9887
Updated code: http://172.23.234.85:9595
The trial code from @Crysple .