You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The problem is apparently that this round() call sometimes results in irace seeing parameter bounds that are too wide; e.g. when the actual lower bound is 1e-5, then irace with the default readParametersdigits value ends up calling the function with value 0. I am doing quite a lot of experiments currently and observed this often; maybe the mutator in irace tries the exact boundary value with nonzero probability? (Another example is lower bound log(2) (0.6931472) -> irace tries 0.6931, which is too low.)
The problem is apparently that this
round()
call sometimes results inirace
seeing parameter bounds that are too wide; e.g. when the actual lower bound is1e-5
, thenirace
with the defaultreadParameters
digits
value ends up calling the function with value0
. I am doing quite a lot of experiments currently and observed this often; maybe the mutator inirace
tries the exact boundary value with nonzero probability? (Another example is lower boundlog(2)
(0.6931472) -> irace tries0.6931
, which is too low.)We also accept some tolerance in our real-valued search space components, but that is just much tighter than four digits. I think we should call
irace
in a way that avoids rounding as much as possible.Originally posted by @mb706 in mlr-org/bbotk#191 (comment)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: