microsoft/FLAML

Flaml/LightGBM - Shouldn't I found better/faster or equal results from FLAML than direct LightGBM?

Open

#785 opened on Oct 31, 2022

 (12 comments) (0 reactions) (0 assignees)Jupyter Notebook (560 forks)github user discovery
good first issuequestion

Repository metrics

Stars
 (4,364 stars)
PR merge metrics
 (Avg merge 3d 21h) (12 merged PRs in 30d)

Description

Hello

I have the following training with LightGBM

model2 = lgb.LGBMRegressor(learning_rate=0.09,max_depth=-5,random_state=42, n_estimators=20000) #, use_missing=FALSE)
model2.fit(x_train,y_train,eval_set=[(x_test,y_test),(x_train,y_train)], verbose=20,eval_metric='logloss') #, init_model=filename2_)

When I look at results it reutrn this

print('Training accuracy {:.4f}'.format(model2.score(x_train,y_train)))
print('Testing accuracy {:.4f}'.format(model2.score(x_test,y_test)))

lgb.plot_importance(model2)
lgb.plot_metric(model2)
Training accuracy 1.0000
Testing accuracy 0.7628

I'm trying with FLAML (please keep in mind I'm new with Python and those libraries) I would expect the results to get better quicker?

from flaml import AutoML
automl = AutoML()
automl.fit(X_train=x_train, y_train=y_train, time_budget=60*60*7, estimator_list=['lgbm'], task='regression')#, estimator_list=['lgbm'], task='regression') #'regression classification
[1.76959344 0.11876356 1.6142814  ... 1.79535421 0.55507853 1.04489782]
LGBMRegressor(colsample_bytree=0.7114672034208275,
              learning_rate=0.013851620085123617, max_bin=1023,
              min_child_samples=9, n_estimators=1877, num_leaves=262,
              reg_alpha=0.009443894441159862, reg_lambda=1.8437202926962308,
              verbose=-1)
Training accuracy 0.9081
Testing accuracy 0.0693

TY!

Contributor guide