Examples: query, "exact match", wildcard*, wild?ard, wild*rd
Fuzzy search: cake~ (finds cakes, bake)
Term boost: "red velvet"^4, chocolate^2
Field grouping: tags:(+work -"fun-stuff")
Escaping: Escape characters +-&|!(){}[]^"~*?:\ with \, e.g. \+
Range search: properties.timestamp:[1587729413488 TO *] (inclusive), properties.title:{A TO Z}(excluding A and Z)
Combinations: chocolate AND vanilla, chocolate OR vanilla, (chocolate OR vanilla) NOT "vanilla pudding"
Field search: properties.title:"The Title" AND text
Answered
My Current Training Setup Is A Hyperparameter Optimization Using The Tpesampler From Optuna. For Configuration We Use Hydra. There Is A Very Nice Plugin That Let'S You Define The Hyperparameters In The Config Files Using The

My current training setup is a hyperparameter optimization using the TPEsampler from Optuna. For configuration we use Hydra. There is a very nice plugin that let's you define the hyperparameters in the config files using the sweep argument. The consequence is that I run my train file with the --multirun parameter and before each new trial starts, it checks the current status and proposes new parameters based off the results until that point.

I'm struggling a bit to integrate this setup with ClearML since the way hyperparameter optimization is handled is a bit different. I would prefer it nicely integrated since we get an overview/parent task and also the option to do parallel processing using remote agents (even if it comes at a slight cost since TPE is better serially).

I seem to have a couple of choices:

  • Fix outside of ClearML. I could rewrite the configuration in code so that I can use the HyperParameterOptimizer from ClearML.
  • Fix inside of ClearML. ClearML reads the config files that I already have and turns it into the ClearML way of working with the hyperparameters. This would require a change in the ClearML codebase, I think, since I cannot find a way to make this with the current codebase. I am willing to contribute if it's not a lot of work (I haven't really estimated the time it would cost me yet). However, this only makes sense if you're accepting PRs like this.
    I am thinking that the second option is better for the community if it would be accepted and you'd be willing to support this. Would it be something you'd consider supporting?
  
  
Posted one month ago
Votes Newest

Answers 3


Hi @<1577468611524562944:profile|MagnificentBear85>

Thank you for bringing this up! We’re always excited to see contributions from the community, especially around areas like hyperparameter configuration. We’d be happy to consider a PR if you’re open to working on it! Our team encourages contributions 🙂

Did you check the relevant examples from our docs?
None
None

  
  
Posted one month ago

I'll look into integrating it.

  
  
Posted one month ago

Yeah, both of them. The HPO though requires everything to be defined by python code. The Hydra config is parsed and stored nicely, but it isn't recognized as describing HPO.

  
  
Posted one month ago