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

Hyperband bracket generation is inconsistent with the original Hyperband paper #27

Open
nabenabe0928 opened this issue Apr 18, 2023 · 1 comment

Comments

@nabenabe0928
Copy link

nabenabe0928 commented Apr 18, 2023

The DEHB paper says that each SH bracket samples $n = \lceil \frac{s_{\max} + 1}{s + 1} \eta^s \rceil$ configurations; however, this line samples $n = \lfloor\lfloor \frac{s_{\max} + 1}{s + 1} \rfloor \eta^s\rfloor$ configurations.
In reality, this line should be:

n0 = int(np.ceil(self.max_SH_iter / (s + 1) * self.eta ** s))

Note that self.max_SH_iter is $s_{\max} + 1$.

@nabenabe0928 nabenabe0928 changed the title Mistake in Hyperband bracket generation Hyperband bracket generation is inconsistent with the original Hyperband paper Apr 18, 2023
@Neeratyoy
Copy link
Collaborator

Hi

The implementation details were verified and cross-checked by the then official implementation of HyperBand as seen here.
Therefore, in our experiments, the comparison of DEHB with HB and BOHB is much fairer as one can see that during the first HB iteration, all 3 algorithms perform similarly.

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants