Skip to content
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

Centerline penalizer evaluation #32

Open
jara001 opened this issue May 18, 2022 · 2 comments
Open

Centerline penalizer evaluation #32

jara001 opened this issue May 18, 2022 · 2 comments
Labels
evaluation Testing and experimental evaluation

Comments

@jara001
Copy link
Owner

jara001 commented May 18, 2022

In 04ed669 new methods for centerline penalizer were added. Currently, there are four methods:

  • min
  • max
  • sum
  • avg

This means, that all invalid points are paired with the appropriate subsequence of the centerline, finding the longest distance the invalid point and centerline. Then, a method is used to compute the penalty.

To evaluate the methods, following experiment was performed:

  • Torino map
  • budget 100
  • loops 40

Even though the budget is quite small, the goal was to find if the method is "pushed" towards a good solution. Therefore, it is successful when a valid solution is found within the budget.

Results were:

  • min: 1/40
  • max: 11/40
  • sum: 10/40
  • avg: 10/40

According to this, we can omit min method.

@jara001 jara001 added the evaluation Testing and experimental evaluation label May 18, 2022
@jara001
Copy link
Owner Author

jara001 commented May 18, 2022

{
    "_version": 2,
    "_comment": "Example of configuration file for Matryoshka mapping.",
    "loops": 40,
    "groups": 8,
    "interpolator": "cubic_spline",
    "segmentator": "flood_fill",
    "selector": "uniform",
    "selector_init": {
        "distance": 0.1,
        "overlap": 100,
        "rotate": 0.7
    },
    "penalizer": "centerline",
    "variate": "method",
    "method": ["min", "max", "sum", "avg"],
    "cascade": [
        {
            "algorithm": "matryoshka",
            "budget": 100,
            "layers": 5,
            "criterion": "profile",
            "criterion_args": {
                "overlap": 100
            },
            "criterion_init": {
                "_dummy": 0
            }
        }
    ],
    "start_points": "ng_start_points_torino2.npy",
    "valid_points": "ng_valid_points_torino2.npy",
    "logging_verbosity": 2,
    "hold_map": true,
    "plot": true,
    "plot_args": [
        {
            "_figure": {
                "function": "axis",
                "_args": [ "equal" ]
            },
            "trackPlot": [ "@track" ]
        },
        {
            "pointsPlot": {
                "_args": [ "@result" ]
            },
            "pointsScatter": {
                "_args": [ "@rcandidate" ]
            }
        }
    ],
    "prefix": "penalizer_test"
}

@jara001
Copy link
Owner Author

jara001 commented May 18, 2022

After some discussion with Tonda, a Huber loss support was added in c67a223.

The methods are still the same, but the their input data are treated with Huber first.

I have tested Huber loss on two cases, with delta = 2.0 and delta = 4.0. However, the results were not nice:

  • Huber 2.0
    • min 0/40
    • max 8/40
    • sum 7/40
    • avg 8/40
  • Huber 4.0
    • min 4/40
    • max 5/40
    • sum 9/40
    • avg 6/40

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
evaluation Testing and experimental evaluation
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant