Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jun 14, 2023. It is now read-only.

Benchmarks vs MS_HMMBase & question about messages_backwards_log #11

Open
mmattocks opened this issue Aug 11, 2019 · 0 comments
Open

Benchmarks vs MS_HMMBase & question about messages_backwards_log #11

mmattocks opened this issue Aug 11, 2019 · 0 comments

Comments

@mmattocks
Copy link

Just finished benchmarking what I hope is the final commit of MS_HMMBase, where I attempted to add multiple observations to the mle_step function and subfunctions, without compromising performance too much. Here are the results from running https://github.com/mmattocks/MS_HMMBase.jl/blob/master/test/benchmarks.jl:

[ Info: Judging log_likelihoods
BenchmarkTools.TrialJudgement: 
  time:   +14.47% => regression (5.00% tolerance) 
  memory: -19.52% => improvement (1.00% tolerance)

[ Info: Judging messages_forwards_log
BenchmarkTools.TrialJudgement: 
  time:   +1.04% => invariant (5.00% tolerance)
  memory: +0.01% => invariant (1.00% tolerance)

[ Info: Judging messages_backwards_log
BenchmarkTools.TrialJudgement: 
  time:   +1.35% => invariant (5.00% tolerance) 
  memory: +6.46% => regression (1.00% tolerance)

[ Info: Judging mle_step
BenchmarkTools.TrialJudgement: 
  time:   -61.12% => improvement (5.00% tolerance)
  memory: -29.02% => improvement (1.00% tolerance)

If you find any useful lines for HMMBase, please feel free to integrate them, obviously!

Also, if you have time, could you explain how messages_backwards_log works? It seems the views and the temp variable really make this much faster than simpler constructions might suggest- I haven't had much luck with views improving speed in other functions. Thanks very much for your time Max!!

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant