-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 24
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
Quasisep Benchmark #221
Comments
hmmm. Are you sure it's the tinygp version, and not the JAX version that makes this difference? Can you try to bisect the version combination where this goes wrong? |
I think it starts to go wrong with:
I tried a collection of different JAX versions all the way back to 0.3.3 and it has no major impact on the benchmark. This makes me wonder if the problem could be caused by the The JAX version has a tiny impact on the performance for about only a factor of <2 at N < 50. The impact starts at about JAX == 0.4.2. |
Interesting - thanks for tracking that down! Can try updating the benchmark you're running to use |
I think it is more complicated than what I thought earlier. Setting You were right, the JAX version has a much bigger effect! Any thoughts? P.S. Sorry for the misleading information from above. I tried to make comparisons with the earliest version of |
Thanks for tracking this down! My next guess is that this has to do with a change in the CPU behavior that was introduced in
If that is the source of the issue, I don't know exactly how to solve it in the long term, but at least then we can start digging in. Thanks again! |
Hi @dfm,
I noticed that there is a factor of 10 increase in the runtime of the quasisep kernels in the newest version of tinygp. So, I rerun your benchmark notebook in the documentation to test out. And indeed, the quasisep kernel is about 10 times slower than celerite2. I am attaching the reproduced benchmark plot. Note I didn't rerun the benchmark for GPU. Any idea what might be causing it?
I run your notebook on two platforms (M2 Mac and Google Colab), the results are basically consistent. The plot shown was produced using the results obtained with:
Thanks for your attention!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: