-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 54
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
features/110-split_output_randn: Adding the new code for random #114
Closed
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
9ce86d0
reset banch to current master (13.02.19), adding the new code for random
1879b06
changes to pass tests for argmin, min, max
ef98f85
removed failing tests, added get rank function to comm, commit prior …
4dc5f66
Merge branch 'master' into features/110-split_output_randn
797cd94
accidentally uncommented comment
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
Oops, something went wrong.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Implementation of the function is closely related to issue #54. What is the intended behaviour of this function? Output a number of random numbers where each of the split parts is random and not identical to the other split chunks of the other nodes? What will happen if I use the very same seed but a different node count? Will the random tensor differ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It looks like torch's randn will not generate the same values for arrays of different sizes. This means that even though the same seed is used, the split tensor will not be the same as a tensor generated only on one process. i.e.
One solution to this would be to generate the whole dataset then split it. But this will not scale. I do not see another way to do this.
It must be noted that the matrix generated by the ht.randn with a fixed seed (torch.manual_seed) and a fixed size produces a reproducible result
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In my opinion, we can leave it as proposed for now, however, for the future, I would want to actually have a different behaviour. Consider the following example:
Should always produce the same set of random numbers independent of the utilized nodes (for reproducibility reasons as you mentioned). This is exactly what is requested in issue #54. Obviously, this means that we would have to come up with a pseudo random generator allowing to skip to arbitrary/some fixed positions into the random sequence.
In the proposed fix, we would have a simplified randn() call. It will only provide reproducible results for the exact same node count.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
100% agree. i am trying to figure a way to do this. i will move this discussion to the issue and close this request.