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

Benchmark IHVP Calculator #5

Open
fel-thomas opened this issue Feb 21, 2022 · 1 comment
Open

Benchmark IHVP Calculator #5

fel-thomas opened this issue Feb 21, 2022 · 1 comment
Assignees
Labels
enhancement New feature or request question Further information is requested

Comments

@fel-thomas
Copy link
Member

as discussed by @lucashervier, it would be good to have a way to properly benchmark our inverse hessian vector product calculator on different parameter dimensions -- mnist, cifar, imagenet convolution networks for example -- in order to have benchmarks on the amount of memory needed to build the inverse hessian in each case.

We still need to figure out if we integrate that in the test suite, or if we provide a notebook to benchmark ?
We could meet at some point to discuss about it (@lucashervier, @Agustin-Picard). :)

@fel-thomas fel-thomas self-assigned this Feb 21, 2022
@fel-thomas fel-thomas added enhancement New feature or request question Further information is requested labels Feb 21, 2022
@Agustin-Picard
Copy link
Member

I think it might be interesting if we could capture the amount of available memory (be it GPU or CPU, depending on the system's configuration) and optimize the computation method to better accomodate the resources.

Are we talking just memory/speed tradeoff or computation precision with the different methods as well? I'd think that if we have access to pod TPUs, we could maybe try to see the extent to which we can accurately calculate influence vectors/values on up to cifar10 networks.

In any case, I wouldn't think that integrating these benchmarks to the unit test suite would be interesting. Unit tests are mainly there to make sure that we didn't break anything whilst changing parts of the codebase, and our other tests should check this already.

So, yeah, I'm down for discussing this anytime @fel-thomas @lucashervier ;)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request question Further information is requested
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants