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

Implement a sanity check for existing tuner output pathes #11

Open
abahde opened this issue Sep 26, 2019 · 0 comments
Open

Implement a sanity check for existing tuner output pathes #11

abahde opened this issue Sep 26, 2019 · 0 comments
Labels
🆕 Status: New New Issue 🚀 Type: Enhancement Enhancement/rework request of an existing feature

Comments

@abahde
Copy link

abahde commented Sep 26, 2019

Let us assume I run a tuning A and the results are written to './results'. When I change my mind and want to run a different tuning B and I do not specify a different output folder the new outputs of B are also written to './results'. This can easily happen when I use a script for A, adapt it for B, and forget to change the output directory (or when I use the default of DeepOBS). The problem this implies is:

The outputs of A and B are both in the './results' path and further analyses (e.g. getting the best hyperparameter setting with the analyzer) are performed on all the runs. If I am only interested in B, but results of A are included I may end up with the best setting of A.

Proposed solution:
I know that we could simply expect the user to be smart enough to delete the results of A first (or to change the output directory of B), but if the users forgets to do so it can be really a mess. Therefore, I suggest to implement a sanity check in the tuner that prompts or warns the user when tuning is run on an already existing output directory. As far as I know the rerunning of the best setting is based on the runner class and not the tuner class. Therefore, rerunning the best setting would not prompt the user (which is fine).

However, just see this as an idea for improvement. The exact design may differ from my suggestion.

@abahde abahde added the 🆕 Status: New New Issue label Sep 26, 2019
@fsschneider fsschneider added the 🚀 Type: Enhancement Enhancement/rework request of an existing feature label Sep 26, 2019
@fsschneider fsschneider removed their assignment Sep 26, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
🆕 Status: New New Issue 🚀 Type: Enhancement Enhancement/rework request of an existing feature
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants