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
Adjust number of threads for SLR in Recobundles #1745
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
7c51366
Pass down the num_thread parameters and fix verbose
b689925
Fix Pep8
52fbcaa
Added a new test with an assert_almost_equal due to multi-threading
4b412a1
Change the decimal precision for test
88dc62b
Fixed the random state of both RB object, to fix crash on python 3.6
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What type is D at this point? It's not an array?
Do you understand why multi-threading prevents an exact match? Is there any additional randomness introduced within the algorithm, beyond the control you have via
rng
?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.
Hey @frheault : I'd love to be able to merge this in. Any thoughts on these questions?
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.
(Sorry I misclicked the last time and the comment was pending, my mistake)
D is an array, I used the same test "format" as every other recobundle test. I didn't want to diverge too much from the existing code. That's why I used this verification style.
The randomness is introduced from the optimizer ('L_BFGS_B' or 'Powell') from dipy.core.optimize import Optimizer which ultimately call scipy.optimize import fmin_l_bfgs_b, fmin_powell does not accept fixed initialization or seed.
rng only controls the shuffle and clustering of QBx, so the input to the optimizer is identical. The optimizer reach the same local minima, however the slight difference comes from numerical error due to different initialization for each thread.
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.
Gotcha. That all makes sense to me. The fact that scipy.optimize has randomization in it is very unfortunate, but out of our control here.
This all looks fine to me. I'm +1 for the merge here.
Does anyone else want to take a look? If so, please do so in the next couple of days. I'll merge this mid next week, if no one complains before that.
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.
LGTM. I can merge if you want, or you can go ahead.
Thanks @frheault