-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 427
Make (Log)NoisyExpectedImprovement create a correct fantasy model with non-default SingleTaskGP #2414
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
Closed
Closed
Make (Log)NoisyExpectedImprovement create a correct fantasy model with non-default SingleTaskGP #2414
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
11 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
cf2f4d8
broken code
71c 7a878ad
finalized change
71c 454e884
Fixed tests and improved code -- all tests pass now
71c 5f28d39
Try to make the code more similar to Sebastian's commit so there's no…
71c 3a55eaf
Merge branch 'main' into improve_model_data_api
SebastianAment e2d5da5
Skip tests with RBF + float32 because those have numerical problems; …
71c 31f2a80
Reverted model type annotation back to GPyTorchModel; made expected m…
71c a577213
Update comment in _get_noiseless_fantasy_model about transforms
71c 85033a4
misc changes to comments
saitcakmak a0c67f4
Patch codecov
saitcakmak 26066d3
lint
saitcakmak File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This change would allow for supporting more model types. However, @saitcakmak had a good question: Why do we need
_get_noiseless_fantasy_model
at all? Can we use thefantasize
method on the model instead? I'm a bit afraid of the change I'm suggesting, since this instantiation logic won't be right for every model.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, it'd be a great simplification (& removal of duplicate logic) if we can simply use
model.fantasize(...)
rather than defining a custom_get_noiseless_fantasy_model
.Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think you mean to write
model.__class__(...)
ortype(model)(...)
;cls(model)
is not a thing in Python.But anyway, how about just not making that change because the model is currently assumed to be a
SingleTaskGP
anyway, and if we can find a way to usefantasize
for a wider variety of models later, then just do that.