You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I am working on an implementation of Pattern Search for an auto-tuning-framework based on the pattern search algorithm of Hooke and Jeeves. By looking at the results I get with my implementation and comparing them with the ones from OpenTuner Pattern Search, I recognized that the results from OpenTuner are not as good as the ones one I got with the added pattern step, especially in big search spaces. I guess that's because the algorithm is trapped in local minima, not able to get out again to continue exploring, but I don't really know.
So I was wondering, why did you decide to go for this specific version of Pattern Search? Is there a specific reason?
Greets!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The included pattern search is primarily a baseline and in most of our testing is worse than the other available techniques. Pull requests to improve it are welcome.
Hello all,
I am working on an implementation of Pattern Search for an auto-tuning-framework based on the pattern search algorithm of Hooke and Jeeves. By looking at the results I get with my implementation and comparing them with the ones from OpenTuner Pattern Search, I recognized that the results from OpenTuner are not as good as the ones one I got with the added pattern step, especially in big search spaces. I guess that's because the algorithm is trapped in local minima, not able to get out again to continue exploring, but I don't really know.
So I was wondering, why did you decide to go for this specific version of Pattern Search? Is there a specific reason?
Greets!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: