Introduce SurrogateTestFunction
#2953
Open
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
facebook-github-bot
added
the
CLA Signed
|
This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D64899032 |
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2953 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 95.65% 95.66% +0.01%
==========================================
Files 486 486
Lines 48796 48868 +72
==========================================
+ Hits 46676 46751 +75
+ Misses 2120 2117 -3 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
esantorella
added a commit
to esantorella/Ax
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 25, 2024
Summary: **Context**: This next diff will cut over uses of `SurrogateRunner` to use `ParamBasedTestProblemRunner` with a `test_problem` that is the newly introduced `SurrogateTestFunction`, and the following diff after that will bring us down to only one runner class for benchmarking by merging `ParamBasedTestProblemRunner` into `BenchmarkRunner`. Having only one runner will make it easier to enable asynchronous benchmarks. Currently, SurrogateRunner had its own logic for tracking when trials are completed, which would make it difficult to work in with asynchronicity. **Note on naming**: Some names have become non-intuitive in the process of benchmarking. To accord with some future changes I hope to make, I called a new class SurrogateTestFunction, whereas SurrogateParamBasedTestProblem would be more in line with the old naming. The name changes I hope to make: * ParamBasedTestProblemRunner -> nothing, absorbed into BenchmarkRunner * ParamBasedTestProblem -> TestFunction, to emphasize that all it does is generate data (rather than more generally specify the problem we are solving) and that it is deterministic, and to differentiate it from BenchmarkProblem. BenchmarkTestFunction would also be a candidate. * BoTorchTestProblem -> BoTorchTestFunction **Changes in this diff**: * Introduces SurrogateTestFunction, a ParamBasedTestProblem for surrogates, giving it the surrogate-related logic from SurrogateRunner Reviewed By: saitcakmak Differential Revision: D64899032
esantorella
force-pushed
the
export-D64899032
branch
from
1aca872 to
1e10699
Compare
|
This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D64899032 |
esantorella
added a commit
to esantorella/Ax
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 25, 2024
Summary: **Context**: This next diff will cut over uses of `SurrogateRunner` to use `ParamBasedTestProblemRunner` with a `test_problem` that is the newly introduced `SurrogateTestFunction`, and the following diff after that will bring us down to only one runner class for benchmarking by merging `ParamBasedTestProblemRunner` into `BenchmarkRunner`. Having only one runner will make it easier to enable asynchronous benchmarks. Currently, SurrogateRunner had its own logic for tracking when trials are completed, which would make it difficult to work in with asynchronicity. **Note on naming**: Some names have become non-intuitive in the process of benchmarking. To accord with some future changes I hope to make, I called a new class SurrogateTestFunction, whereas SurrogateParamBasedTestProblem would be more in line with the old naming. The name changes I hope to make: * ParamBasedTestProblemRunner -> nothing, absorbed into BenchmarkRunner * ParamBasedTestProblem -> TestFunction, to emphasize that all it does is generate data (rather than more generally specify the problem we are solving) and that it is deterministic, and to differentiate it from BenchmarkProblem. BenchmarkTestFunction would also be a candidate. * BoTorchTestProblem -> BoTorchTestFunction **Changes in this diff**: * Introduces SurrogateTestFunction, a ParamBasedTestProblem for surrogates, giving it the surrogate-related logic from SurrogateRunner Reviewed By: saitcakmak Differential Revision: D64899032
esantorella
added a commit
to esantorella/Ax
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 25, 2024
Summary: **Context**: This next diff will cut over uses of `SurrogateRunner` to use `ParamBasedTestProblemRunner` with a `test_problem` that is the newly introduced `SurrogateTestFunction`, and the following diff after that will bring us down to only one runner class for benchmarking by merging `ParamBasedTestProblemRunner` into `BenchmarkRunner`. Having only one runner will make it easier to enable asynchronous benchmarks. Currently, SurrogateRunner had its own logic for tracking when trials are completed, which would make it difficult to work in with asynchronicity. **Note on naming**: Some names have become non-intuitive in the process of benchmarking. To accord with some future changes I hope to make, I called a new class SurrogateTestFunction, whereas SurrogateParamBasedTestProblem would be more in line with the old naming. The name changes I hope to make: * ParamBasedTestProblemRunner -> nothing, absorbed into BenchmarkRunner * ParamBasedTestProblem -> TestFunction, to emphasize that all it does is generate data (rather than more generally specify the problem we are solving) and that it is deterministic, and to differentiate it from BenchmarkProblem. BenchmarkTestFunction would also be a candidate. * BoTorchTestProblem -> BoTorchTestFunction **Changes in this diff**: * Introduces SurrogateTestFunction, a ParamBasedTestProblem for surrogates, giving it the surrogate-related logic from SurrogateRunner Reviewed By: saitcakmak Differential Revision: D64899032
esantorella
force-pushed
the
export-D64899032
branch
from
1e10699 to
7de4467
Compare
|
This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D64899032 |
…nstraints (facebook#2963) Summary: Context: In theory, a `BenchmarkRunner` should not have to know what metrics are objectives or constraints, and a test function should not have to be aware of that, either. They are just generating data. A `BenchmarkProblem` should only store knowledge of objectives and constraints on the `OptimizationConfig`, so that various `OptimizationConfigs` can be used without changing the runner and test function. For historical reasons, runners track objectives and constraints separately and add noise to them separately, because this mimics how BoTorch test functions handle this. However, we now can and should isolate the quirks of BoTorch test functions to `BoTorchTestProblem`. This diff: * Updates `ParamBasedTestFunction.evaluate_true` to return all outcomes, not just objectives, and gets rid of `ParamBasedTestFunction.evaluate_true`, which was for constraints * Removes `num_objectives` from `ParamBasedTestProblem`, leaving `ParamBasedTestProblem` with nothing but an `evaluate_true` method * Removes the argument `constraint_noise_std` from `create_problem_from_botorch` and from `ParamBasedTestProblemRunner`, in favor of just using `noise_std`. * Updates argument validation Tangentially related changes: * For simplicity, makes `get_noise_stds` always return a dict * Stops allowing `noise_std` to be `None` and defaults it to zero (it was eventually set to zero when it was None in the past) Reviewed By: saitcakmak Differential Revision: D64919207
Summary: **Context**: This next diff will cut over uses of `SurrogateRunner` to use `ParamBasedTestProblemRunner` with a `test_problem` that is the newly introduced `SurrogateTestFunction`, and the following diff after that will bring us down to only one runner class for benchmarking by merging `ParamBasedTestProblemRunner` into `BenchmarkRunner`. Having only one runner will make it easier to enable asynchronous benchmarks. Currently, SurrogateRunner had its own logic for tracking when trials are completed, which would make it difficult to work in with asynchronicity. **Note on naming**: Some names have become non-intuitive in the process of benchmarking. To accord with some future changes I hope to make, I called a new class SurrogateTestFunction, whereas SurrogateParamBasedTestProblem would be more in line with the old naming. The name changes I hope to make: * ParamBasedTestProblemRunner -> nothing, absorbed into BenchmarkRunner * ParamBasedTestProblem -> TestFunction, to emphasize that all it does is generate data (rather than more generally specify the problem we are solving) and that it is deterministic, and to differentiate it from BenchmarkProblem. BenchmarkTestFunction would also be a candidate. * BoTorchTestProblem -> BoTorchTestFunction **Changes in this diff**: * Introduces SurrogateTestFunction, a ParamBasedTestProblem for surrogates, giving it the surrogate-related logic from SurrogateRunner Reviewed By: saitcakmak Differential Revision: D64899032
esantorella
force-pushed
the
export-D64899032
branch
from
7de4467 to
e0bb826
Compare
|
This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D64899032 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary:
Context: This next diff will cut over uses of
SurrogateRunnerto useParamBasedTestProblemRunnerwith atest_problemthat is the newly introducedSurrogateTestFunction, and the following diff after that will bring us down to only one runner class for benchmarking by mergingParamBasedTestProblemRunnerintoBenchmarkRunner. Having only one runner will make it easier to enable asynchronous benchmarks. Currently, SurrogateRunner had its own logic for tracking when trials are completed, which would make it difficult to work in with asynchronicity.Note on naming: Some names have become non-intuitive in the process of benchmarking. To accord with some future changes I hope to make, I called a new class SurrogateTestFunction, whereas SurrogateParamBasedTestProblem would be more in line with the old naming.
The name changes I hope to make:
Changes in this diff:
Differential Revision: D64899032