|
1
|
|
|
""" |
|
2
|
|
|
RandomSampler Example - Random Search |
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
The RandomSampler performs pure random sampling from the parameter space. |
|
5
|
|
|
It serves as a baseline and is surprisingly effective for many problems, |
|
6
|
|
|
especially when the parameter space is high-dimensional or when you have |
|
7
|
|
|
limited computational budget. |
|
8
|
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
Characteristics: |
|
10
|
|
|
- No learning from previous trials |
|
11
|
|
|
- Uniform sampling from parameter distributions |
|
12
|
|
|
- Excellent baseline for comparison |
|
13
|
|
|
- Works well in high-dimensional spaces |
|
14
|
|
|
- Embarrassingly parallel |
|
15
|
|
|
- Good when objective function is noisy |
|
16
|
|
|
""" |
|
17
|
|
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
import numpy as np |
|
19
|
|
|
from sklearn.datasets import load_digits |
|
20
|
|
|
from sklearn.svm import SVC |
|
21
|
|
|
from sklearn.model_selection import cross_val_score |
|
22
|
|
|
|
|
23
|
|
|
from hyperactive.experiment.integrations import SklearnCvExperiment |
|
24
|
|
|
from hyperactive.opt.optuna import RandomSampler |
|
25
|
|
|
|
|
26
|
|
|
|
|
27
|
|
|
def objective_function_analysis(): |
|
28
|
|
|
"""Demonstrate when random sampling is effective.""" |
|
29
|
|
|
# When Random Sampling Works Well: |
|
30
|
|
|
# 1. High-dimensional parameter spaces (curse of dimensionality) |
|
31
|
|
|
# 2. Noisy objective functions |
|
32
|
|
|
# 3. Limited computational budget |
|
33
|
|
|
# 4. As a baseline for comparison |
|
34
|
|
|
# 5. When parallel evaluation is important |
|
35
|
|
|
# 6. Uniform exploration is desired |
|
36
|
|
|
|
|
37
|
|
|
|
|
38
|
|
|
def main(): |
|
39
|
|
|
# === RandomSampler Example === |
|
40
|
|
|
# Pure Random Search - Uniform Parameter Space Exploration |
|
41
|
|
|
|
|
42
|
|
|
objective_function_analysis() |
|
43
|
|
|
|
|
44
|
|
|
# Load dataset - using digits for a more challenging problem |
|
45
|
|
|
X, y = load_digits(return_X_y=True) |
|
46
|
|
|
print(f"Dataset: Handwritten digits ({X.shape[0]} samples, {X.shape[1]} features)") |
|
47
|
|
|
|
|
48
|
|
|
# Create experiment |
|
49
|
|
|
estimator = SVC(random_state=42) |
|
50
|
|
|
experiment = SklearnCvExperiment(estimator=estimator, X=X, y=y, cv=3) |
|
51
|
|
|
|
|
52
|
|
|
# Define search space - SVM hyperparameters |
|
53
|
|
|
param_space = { |
|
54
|
|
|
"C": (0.001, 1000), # Regularization - log scale would be better |
|
55
|
|
|
"gamma": (1e-6, 1e2), # RBF kernel parameter |
|
56
|
|
|
"kernel": ["rbf", "poly", "sigmoid"], # Kernel type |
|
57
|
|
|
"degree": (2, 5), # Polynomial degree (only for poly kernel) |
|
58
|
|
|
"coef0": (0.0, 10.0), # Independent term (poly/sigmoid) |
|
59
|
|
|
} |
|
60
|
|
|
|
|
61
|
|
|
# Search Space: |
|
62
|
|
|
# for param, space in param_space.items(): |
|
63
|
|
|
# print(f" {param}: {space}") |
|
64
|
|
|
|
|
65
|
|
|
# Configure RandomSampler |
|
66
|
|
|
optimizer = RandomSampler( |
|
67
|
|
|
param_space=param_space, |
|
68
|
|
|
n_trials=30, # More trials to show random behavior |
|
69
|
|
|
random_state=42, # For reproducible random sampling |
|
70
|
|
|
experiment=experiment, |
|
71
|
|
|
) |
|
72
|
|
|
|
|
73
|
|
|
# RandomSampler Configuration: |
|
74
|
|
|
# n_trials: configured above |
|
75
|
|
|
# random_state: set for reproducibility |
|
76
|
|
|
# No learning parameters - pure random sampling |
|
77
|
|
|
|
|
78
|
|
|
# Run optimization |
|
79
|
|
|
# Running random search... |
|
80
|
|
|
best_params = optimizer.solve() |
|
81
|
|
|
|
|
82
|
|
|
# Results |
|
83
|
|
|
print("\n=== Results ===") |
|
84
|
|
|
print(f"Best parameters: {best_params}") |
|
85
|
|
|
print(f"Best score: {optimizer.best_score_:.4f}") |
|
86
|
|
|
print() |
|
87
|
|
|
|
|
88
|
|
|
# Analysis of Random Sampling behavior: |
|
89
|
|
|
# Each trial is independent - no learning from history |
|
90
|
|
|
# Uniform coverage of parameter space |
|
91
|
|
|
# No convergence issues or local optima concerns |
|
92
|
|
|
# Embarrassingly parallel - can run trials simultaneously |
|
93
|
|
|
# Works equally well for continuous, discrete, and categorical parameters |
|
94
|
|
|
|
|
95
|
|
|
# Comparison with Other Methods: |
|
96
|
|
|
# vs Grid Search: |
|
97
|
|
|
# + Better coverage in high dimensions |
|
98
|
|
|
# + More efficient for continuous parameters |
|
99
|
|
|
# - No systematic coverage guarantee |
|
100
|
|
|
# |
|
101
|
|
|
# vs Bayesian Optimization (TPE, GP): |
|
102
|
|
|
# + No assumptions about objective function smoothness |
|
103
|
|
|
# + Works well with noisy objectives |
|
104
|
|
|
# + No risk of model misspecification |
|
105
|
|
|
# - No exploitation of promising regions |
|
106
|
|
|
# - May waste trials on clearly bad regions |
|
107
|
|
|
|
|
108
|
|
|
# Practical Usage: |
|
109
|
|
|
# Use as baseline to validate more sophisticated methods |
|
110
|
|
|
# Good first choice when objective is very noisy |
|
111
|
|
|
# Ideal for parallel optimization setups |
|
112
|
|
|
# Consider for high-dimensional problems (>10 parameters) |
|
113
|
|
|
# Use with log-uniform distributions for scale-sensitive parameters |
|
114
|
|
|
|
|
115
|
|
|
return best_params, optimizer.best_score_ |
|
116
|
|
|
|
|
117
|
|
|
|
|
118
|
|
|
if __name__ == "__main__": |
|
119
|
|
|
best_params, best_score = main() |
|
120
|
|
|
|