None of the sampled configurations was model_based about hpbandster

[sfalkner]

Hey,
thanks for trying our package.
The fact that all configs were not picked by the model seems to suggest that there is something wrong. Could you please post your ConfigSpace defining the search space? Otherwise I can't tell you what might have happened.
Best, Stefan

[gchlebus]

Hi Stefan,

Please find below my ConfigSpace definition. Thanks for taking a look at it.

import ConfigSpace as cs

def get_configspace():
  config = cs.ConfigurationSpace()
  config.add_hyperparameter(cs.Constant('training_batchsize', 1))
  config.add_hyperparameter(cs.Constant('subbatch_validation', 1))
  config.add_hyperparameter(cs.Constant('validation_batchsize', 100))
  config.add_hyperparameter(cs.Constant('validation_interval', 400))
  config.add_hyperparameter(cs.CategoricalHyperparameter('loss_function', ['dice', 'categorical_cross_entropy',
                                                                           'dice_allchannels', 'top-k(5)']))
  config.add_hyperparameter(cs.UniformFloatHyperparameter('learning_rate', lower=1e-6, upper=1e-3, log=True))
  config.add_hyperparameter(cs.UniformFloatHyperparameter('arch_spatial_dropout', lower=0, upper=0.8,
                                                          default_value=0.5, log=False))
  config.add_hyperparameter(cs.CategoricalHyperparameter('arch_activation', ['relu', 'leaky_relu']))
  return config

[sfalkner]

Oh I see,
Could you try to remove the constants from your configspace.
I know the ConfigSpace has those, but I have never tested them, and so they probably don't work for BOHB. The reason it still runs through comes from the fact that BOHB will fall back to Hyperband if the configuration space has not supported features. You would see some messages in the debug output, but I guess I should make them warning that are always printed.
Sorry about that. Let me know if that fixes your problem.

[gchlebus]

Great, thanks for the hint! I just started a second run without any Constants in my configspace. I will let you know whether it helped.

Could you tell me what is the meaning of the n_iterations parameter passed to the BOHB.run method? I was unable to derive the meaning of this argument from the source code.

[gchlebus]

Hi Stefan,
unfortunately, removal of Constants from the ConfigSpace didn't resolve the problem. Please find attached the configspace definition, the sampled configs and results logged by the result logger (attached them as txt since github doesn't support json files). I started the optimization with min_budget=2 and max_budget=10.
Do you have any idea, why still none of my configs was sampled from the model?

results.txt
config.txt
configspace.txt

[sfalkner]

Hey,

Oh I see what's going on. So here is what's happening:

• you only have two budgets: 3.33 and 10 (a result of your min and max budegt and the eta=3 default)
• as a consequence, you have two types of iterations, one that tries 3 configs on the small budget, and advances one to the large one, and another one that simply tries two configs on the largest budget.
• given your config space dimensionality (4 parameters), BOHB will start building a model after 6 evaluations on any budget.
• you do 4 iterations which results in 6 evaluations on both budgets actually (Your scenario with only two budgets might not give you much speed up as you evaluate not many more configurations on the smaller budget)

So, the very next iteration should contain configurations sampled from the model. You can reuse old runs by putting them into the model before you start BOHB again. See
this example.
Let me know if you have any trouble with that.

Best,
Stefan

[gchlebus]

Hi Stefan,

Many thanks for your help. I just started next optimization run and will let you know once it ends. Could you elaborate a bit more on the types of iterations? What types of iterations are there and how the iteration type is chosen? I would appreciate a short explanation or a pointer to a code.

[sfalkner]

So Hyperband and BOHB do a round robin on different iterations that trade of an aggressive minimal budget with many configurations vs a conservative budget with only a few configurations.
I like the explanation in the original Hyperand post, although their parametrization is slightly different.
So the basic idea is to have the first iteration start with the minimal budget and increase that by factors of eta (=3) and cutting down the number of configurations by the same factor. The next iteration will increase the smallest budget which means that fewer configurations are evaluated, but with a higher fidelity right away.
This goes on until the iteration that just evaluates configurations on the largest budget. This is implemented in the code here. You only need to understand what self.budgets and what the ns variable in get_next_iteration are. Those will tell you how many configurations (ns) are evaluated at which budget.
BTW, I updated the FAQ to include your questions here.
Let me know if you any more questions, or close the issue if you are happy :)

[gchlebus]

As you expected, the next iteration picked some configurations from the model. Thank you very much for your help and the explanation of BOHP internals. Closing the issue.

[gui-miotto]

So, does this mean that BOHB fits a different model for each budget?
In other words, I'll only start evaluating (1 - random_fraction) of model-sampled configurations after min_points_in_model configurations have been evaluated for each budget K. Is that it?

[gui-miotto]

Just for the record, config_space Constants work fine with BOHB. I've tested this.