fix: align strict adaptive constraint boundaries - #168
Merged
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Adaptive
<and>constraints previously reported a zero violation at exact threshold equality, which Optuna treats as feasible even thoughResultsTable.feasible()rejects that boundary. Strict comparisons now report the smallest positive representable violation at equality, while preserving negative violations for adjacent feasible values and zero for non-strict comparisons.Regression tests compare stored sampler constraints, result metadata and warm-start imports against result-table feasibility for all four inequality operators, including neighboring floating-point values.
Validation:
just ci(588 tests); targeted adaptive session and warm-start tests with Optuna 4.5 (38 tests).Closes #167.