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
The run_benchmark needs to be able to run methods with multiple parameter settings. Perhaps with the addition of something like this?
- name: "--parameter_sets"type: filedescription: | A yaml file containing the parameter sets for each method. Example format: - method_id: ... run_id: ... parameters: ... - method_id: ... run_id: ... parameters: ...
If the run_id is not set, it defaults to the method_id. If no parameters are specified, it defaults to {}.
Alternative formats are possible, such as:
- name: "--parameter_sets"type: filedescription: | A yaml file containing the parameter sets for each method. Example format: method_1: param_set1: par_a: ... par_b: ... param_set2: par_a: ... par_b: ... method_2: param_set1: par_a: ... par_b: ... param_set2: par_a: ... par_b: ...
The paramset_id / run_id would need to be stored in the .uns, and downstream components would need to be adapted accordingly, so let's think about how the api specs would change and which downstream components are affected.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The
run_benchmark
needs to be able to run methods with multiple parameter settings. Perhaps with the addition of something like this?If the
run_id
is not set, it defaults to themethod_id
. If no parameters are specified, it defaults to{}
.Alternative formats are possible, such as:
The paramset_id / run_id would need to be stored in the
.uns
, and downstream components would need to be adapted accordingly, so let's think about how the api specs would change and which downstream components are affected.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: