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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
Addition of
step_warmup
#117Addition of
step_warmup
#117Changes from 25 commits
0987f5f
30c9f12
7faa73f
bd0bdc7
c620cca
572a286
6b842ee
ca03832
0441773
ea369ff
8e0ca53
6877978
b3b3148
ddc5254
ffbd32f
87480ff
76f2f23
c00d0c9
ef09c19
49b8406
f005746
9dccd8a
ff00e6e
7ce9f6b
3a217b2
de9bb2c
85d938f
0a667a4
91f5a10
7603171
ef68d04
25afc66
1886fa8
0ea293a
6e8f88e
44c55bb
3b4f6db
f9142a6
295fdc1
e6acb1f
2e9fa5c
366fceb
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
I think this is not needed? At least it's not present on the master branch, it seems.
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's not present on the master branch because there we do progress-reporting in the beginning of the for-loop for the discarded samples, and then a final progress-report before we start the "main sampling loop".
Here I've just moved the "final progress-report before we start the main sampling loop" to before all of the loops, and then moved the progres-reporting to the end of the for-loop for the discarded samples (well, I see I have forgotten to move the progress-reporting inside the discarded samples for-loop 😬 Will fix now)
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.
You happy with this @devmotion ?
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.
I think these should be accounted for in the progress logger as well (as done currently).
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.
Should be good now 👍
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.
This should be
shouldn't it?
Maybe it could even be split into two sequential for loops?
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.
I think technically it doesn't matter, right? Since we have either
discard_num_warmup = discard_initial
whennum_warmup >= discard_initial
, ordiscard_num_warmup = num_warmup
whennum_warmup < discard_initial
.In both of those cases we get the same behavior in the above.
But I think for readability's sake, I agree we should make the change! Just pointing out it shouldn't been a cause of a bug.
Wait what, wasn't that what I had before? 😕
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.
Really? I think you used a different logic initially but maybe I misremember 😄 In any case, I guess it does not matter.
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.
You mean
?
Because you're probably right, I don't think I ever did this exactly 😬
I'm preferential to the current code for readability's sake because it means the discard stepping is looks the same as the proper stepping, code-wise.
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.
Any particular reason to switch to a
while
loop here?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.
Ah no! I'll revert it to for-loop 👍
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.
Can you add the same/similar error checks as above?
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.
Done 👍
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.
Shouldn't
i
be incremented at the top of the loop? Before it was2
here, now it is1
.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.
Ah yes, nice catch!
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.
I just reverted the initialization of
i
to 2.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.
We could merge this with the for-loop above AFAICT?
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.
Aye, but we can do that everywhere here no? I can make this change, but I'll wait until you've had a final look (to make the diff clearer).