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

Wishlist: Tracking Issue #566

Open
lena-kashtelyan opened this issue Apr 23, 2021 · 6 comments
Open

Wishlist: Tracking Issue #566

lena-kashtelyan opened this issue Apr 23, 2021 · 6 comments
Assignees
Labels
wishlist Long-term wishlist feature requests

Comments

@lena-kashtelyan
Copy link
Contributor

lena-kashtelyan commented Apr 23, 2021

Feature requests marked as 'wishlist' will be gathered here going forward, in order to:

  • improve discoverability of issues that report bugs or ask questions,
  • help us easily assess these requests when roadmapping.

Please still feel free to open new issues for feature requests (or comment them here if they are short/clear), and we will take care of adding them to this post.

Status: will likely be addressed in the short-term

Status: will likely be addressed in the long-term

Status: uncertain

Suggestions for setup changes:

@rpanai
Copy link

rpanai commented Jun 22, 2021

@lena-kashtelyan I already built a conda recipe see PR whenever we fix the windows compatibility I'll let you know.

@rpanai
Copy link

rpanai commented Jun 22, 2021

@lena-kashtelyan it is now available on conda-forge https://anaconda.org/conda-forge/ax-platform

@lena-kashtelyan
Copy link
Contributor Author

Wow, thank you so much, @rpanai!

Cesar-Cardoso added a commit to Cesar-Cardoso/Ax that referenced this issue Apr 17, 2024
Summary:
Addresses facebook#746 (also in the wishlist facebook#566).

As the title implies, this PR adds the possibility of specifying some `FixedFeatures` as `fixed_features` in `AxClient.get_next_trial` and `AxClient.get_next_trials` which is currently only possible with the developer API.

Differential Revision: D56068035
@saitcakmak saitcakmak pinned this issue Jul 24, 2024
@CompRhys
Copy link
Contributor

For "Exact equality parameter constraints" is the blocking factor an API design choice or a bandwidth choice? If it's bandwidth I am happy to take it on

@Balandat
Copy link
Contributor

We should be able to just introduce a ComparisonOp.EQ to indicate an equality constraint, so I don't think there are any fundamental (user-facing) API questions. We should also add/update some validation to make sure that there are any feasible solutions in the search space.

I think the key question is whether we'd want to work on a reduced space in the Ax land by eliminating one of the parameters, or whether we want to work on the full parameter space and pass the equality constraints down to botorch.

The former would not support observations that do not satisfy the parameter constraints. Seems like it could be quite common in practice that users have such data that they'd want to use in the modeling (wdyt?) so maybe the latter option would be preferred here. That will require modifying how the constraints are passed through the modelbridge layer in different places.

So overall I think it's largely a bandwidth constraint (doing this will require some nontrivial amount of work)

@CompRhys
Copy link
Contributor

My intent would have been to funnel everything down to botorch rather than trying to work in Ax land (I am a tourist). In my toy experiments so far playing with a sum to one constraint reformulated as an inequality constraint by excluding a parameter space and then using SEBO with FullyBayesianSaas I have observed quite pathological behaviour, using a single task GP the performance is better. I need to run a few ablations such as to shuffle the parameter order to make sure that this is due to the SAAS/sum-constraint-inequality interaction.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
wishlist Long-term wishlist feature requests
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants