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

Some confusions about nasbenchmark_201. #178

Open
fze0012 opened this issue Apr 18, 2023 · 5 comments
Open

Some confusions about nasbenchmark_201. #178

fze0012 opened this issue Apr 18, 2023 · 5 comments

Comments

@fze0012
Copy link

fze0012 commented Apr 18, 2023

For different task numbers, how can I know the best results for canculating the simple or inference regret?

@Neeratyoy
Copy link
Collaborator

The best score is known only for the tabular benchmarks. For the nn benchmarks the following should work:

from hpobench.benchmarks.ml import TabularBenchmark

b = TabularBenchmark(model="nn", task_id=31)

b.global_minimums

@fze0012 fze0012 closed this as completed Apr 18, 2023
@fze0012 fze0012 reopened this May 17, 2023
@fze0012 fze0012 closed this as completed May 17, 2023
@fze0012 fze0012 changed the title Where to find the best-known values of nn-benchmarks? Some confusions about nasbenchmark_201. May 18, 2023
@fze0012 fze0012 reopened this May 18, 2023
@fze0012
Copy link
Author

fze0012 commented May 18, 2023

i) The best possible incumbents (NO AVG!) ii) The "average" incumbent
Datastet Metric (Index of Arch, Accuracy) (Index, Loss) (Index of Arch, Accuracy) (Index, Loss)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cifar10-valid train (258, 100.0) (2778, 0.001179278278425336) (10154, 100) (2778, 0.0013082386429297428)
cifar10-valid x-valid (6111, 91.71999999023437) (14443, 0.3837750501537323) (6111, 91.60666665039064) (3888, 0.3894046771335602)
cifar10-valid x-test
cifar10-valid ori-test (14174, 91.65) (3385, 0.3850496160507202) (1459, 91.52333333333333) (3385, 0.3995230517864227)
cifar100 train (9930, 99.948) (9930, 0.012630240231156348) (9930, 99.93733333333334) (9930, 0.012843489621082942)
cifar100 x-valid (13714, 73.71999998779297) (13934, 1.1490126512527465) (9930, 73.4933333577474) (7361, 1.1600867895126343)
cifar100 x-test (1459, 74.28000004882813) (15383, 1.1427113876342774) (9930, 73.51333332112631) (7337, 1.1747569534301758)
cifar100 ori-test (9930, 73.88) (13706, 1.1610547459602356) (9930, 73.50333333333333) (7361, 1.1696554500579834)
ImageNet16-120 train (9930, 73.2524719841793) (9930, 0.9490517352046979) (9930, 73.22918040138735) (9930, 0.9524298415108582)
ImageNet16-120 x-valid (13778, 47.39999985758463) (10721, 2.0826991437276203) (10676, 46.73333327229818) (10721, 2.0915397168795264)
ImageNet16-120 x-test (857, 48.03333317057292) (12887, 2.0940088628133138) (857, 47.31111100599501) (11882, 2.106453532218933)
ImageNet16-120 ori-test (857, 47.083333353678384) (11882, 2.0950548852284747) (857, 46.8444444647895) (11882, 2.1028235816955565)

In this file, what is the mean of the prefix ori e.g. ori-test?

@Neeratyoy
Copy link
Collaborator

Hi,

This docstring is borrowed from the NASBench-201 paper release and thus the actual details can be found here.
This is likely to indicate the numbers on the original test set.

I shall close this issue for now as there is nothing about HPOBench here. Please feel free to reopen or ask any further queries.

@fze0012
Copy link
Author

fze0012 commented Jun 12, 2023

test_accuracies = [self.data[seed][structure_str]['eval_acc1es'][f'{valid_key}@{199}'] for seed in data_seed]
test_losses = [self.data[seed][structure_str]['eval_losses'][f'{valid_key}@{199}'] for seed in data_seed]
test_times = [np.sum((self.data[seed][structure_str]['eval_times'][f'{test_key}@{199}'])

For test_accuracies and test_losses, why the valid_key is used rather than the test_key?

@Neeratyoy Neeratyoy reopened this Jun 13, 2023
@Neeratyoy
Copy link
Collaborator

Thanks for raising this.
Would you like to do a PR with this fix?

You can refer to this and this and use the local version for testing.
Once merged, we can upload a new container with this fix.

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