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

[python-package] Allow to pass early stopping min delta in params #6274

Merged
merged 16 commits into from
May 1, 2024

Conversation

borchero
Copy link
Collaborator

Motivation

Currently, setting min_delta in the early stopping callback requires specifying the early stopping callback manually. It would be nice to continue passing all early-stopping-related parameters in params.

@borchero
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Finally ready now @jameslamb 😄

Copy link
Collaborator

@jameslamb jameslamb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looking into this, I just realized... early_stopping_min_delta is specific to the Python interface! I'm sorry for not noticing that earlier.

It isn't listed at https://lightgbm.readthedocs.io/en/latest/Parameters.html and isn't a valid property of the LightGBM::Config object on the C++ side (https:/microsoft/LightGBM/blob/master/include/LightGBM/config.h).

I guess because when that was added, it was only added on the Python side and not in this C++ code:

bool GBDT::EvalAndCheckEarlyStopping() {
bool is_met_early_stopping = false;
// print message for metric
auto best_msg = OutputMetric(iter_);
is_met_early_stopping = !best_msg.empty();
if (is_met_early_stopping) {
Log::Info("Early stopping at iteration %d, the best iteration round is %d",
iter_, iter_ - early_stopping_round_);
Log::Info("Output of best iteration round:\n%s", best_msg.c_str());
// pop last early_stopping_round_ models
for (int i = 0; i < early_stopping_round_ * num_tree_per_iteration_; ++i) {
models_.pop_back();
}
}
return is_met_early_stopping;
}

Given that, if it's going to show up in the params dictionary (which I get is valuable because it's the type of parameter you'd like to search a space of values for during hyperparam tuning), then I I think it should be popped off very early in train() / cv(), like this:

early_stopping_min_delta = params.pop("early_stopping_min_delta", 0.0)

I haven't pulled your branch and tested, but strongly suspect LightGBM is raising this warning about an unrecognized parameter:

Log::Warning("Unknown parameter %s", kv);

ALTERNATIVELY... this PR could be expanded by adding early_stopping_min_delta to the Config object.

That'd involve:


@borchero @jmoralez what do you think?

  • Option 1: add early_stopping_min_delta as a LightGBM-wide parameter (even if only the Python package currently uses it)
  • Option 2: .pop() it off params in train() / cv() in the Python package

@jmoralez
Copy link
Collaborator

We didn't mark #2526 as done in #2302 because the min_delta should be implemented on the cpp side (ref), so it'd definitely be great to have it as a general LightGBM parameter.

@jameslamb
Copy link
Collaborator

Ah right! Thank you for those references.

Alright I think we should make adding it to the Config on the C++ side part of the scope here @borchero . So that LightGBM won't raise a warning and so it'll survive the round-trip to/from model files.

@borchero
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Makes sense! I'll take care, hopefully soon 😄

@borchero
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Modifying the cpp config seemed to be straightforward enough 😄 I guess this is ready for review again (in case CI passes)

@borchero
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Tangentially related to this PR: do you think, we can do another release of LightGBM after this is merged @jameslamb? I'd really like to get my hands on #6314 and #6353 😄 👀

@jameslamb
Copy link
Collaborator

we can do another release of LightGBM after this is merged @jameslamb?

Yeah I think it's a good time! It's been 3 months since the last one.

I'd love to get those fixes you mentioned out and #6019. I'll open a release PR where we can talk about what else we want to see get in before doing a release, and talk about whether it should be 4.3.1 or 4.4.0.

@jameslamb
Copy link
Collaborator

I guess this is ready for review again

Could you please modify the tests I mentioned in #6274 (review)? If this parameter is expected to make it into model files, we should test that to be sure that isn't accidentally broken in the future.

@borchero
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I think this should do it. I also adjusted the C++ early stopping logic to make use of the min delta.

Copy link
Collaborator

@jameslamb jameslamb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks great! I added 2 more very very minor comments on the tests... do what you want with those, and I don't need to review again. You can merge this after you've addressed them.

This is a really nice improvement, thanks for working on it!

Are you interested in doing a follow-up PR to add this same support to the R package? It'd be very similar.

# If user supplied early_stopping_rounds, add the early stopping callback
if (using_early_stopping) {
callbacks <- .add_cb(
cb_list = callbacks
, cb = cb_early_stop(
stopping_rounds = early_stopping_rounds
, first_metric_only = isTRUE(params[["first_metric_only"]])
, verbose = params[["verbosity"]] > 0L
)
)
}

cb_early_stop <- function(stopping_rounds, first_metric_only, verbose) {

If not, maybe @mayer79 would be interested (saw that he 👍🏻 'd some comments on this PR).

tests/python_package_test/test_engine.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
tests/python_package_test/test_engine.py Show resolved Hide resolved
@borchero
Copy link
Collaborator Author

borchero commented Apr 23, 2024

@jameslamb unfortunately, our AppVeyor build seems to be broken (also on main) which might be related to a new build of pyarrow on conda-forge (cf. https://anaconda.org/conda-forge/pyarrow/files: v15.0.2 build 5 was published right before our CI started failing).

Based on my what-I-thought-is-a-bug-report, I opened #6425 to try something out to fix it.

Unfortunately, I cannot replicate the issue "locally", hence, I'm a little stuck debugging 👀

@jameslamb
Copy link
Collaborator

@borchero I just applied these 2 small suggestions:

And I'll merge this PR once CI passes. If you disagree with either of them we can revert them, but I think they're non-controversial.

@borchero
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@borchero I just applied these 2 small suggestions:

Sure! 😄 I would have taken care once CI was functional again 😬

@jameslamb
Copy link
Collaborator

I would have taken care once CI

yeah sorry, I was too eager 😬

@jameslamb jameslamb mentioned this pull request May 1, 2024
33 tasks
@borchero borchero merged commit 9f5fbb6 into microsoft:master May 1, 2024
38 checks passed
@borchero borchero deleted the early-stopping-rounds branch May 1, 2024 17:57
@jameslamb
Copy link
Collaborator

I'm so glad to see this one finally merged! Thanks for all your hard work, @borchero

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants