Skip to content
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

Integration/comet #3

Open
wants to merge 43 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Integration/comet #3

wants to merge 43 commits into from

Conversation

jynx10
Copy link
Owner

@jynx10 jynx10 commented Aug 8, 2021

Before submitting (checklist)

  • Was this discussed/approved via a Github issue? (no need for typos and docs improvements)
  • Did you read the contribution guide?
  • Did you check the code style? catalyst-make-codestyle && catalyst-check-codestyle (pip install -U catalyst-codestyle).
  • Did you make sure to update the docs? We use Google format for all the methods and classes.
  • Did you check the docs with make check-docs?
  • Did you write any new necessary tests?
  • Did you check that your code passes the unit tests pytest . ?
  • Did you add your new functionality to the docs?
  • Did you update the CHANGELOG?
  • Did you run colab minimal CI/CD with latest and minimal requirements?

Description

Related Issue

Type of Change

  • Examples / docs / tutorials / contributors update
  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • Improvement (non-breaking change which improves an existing feature)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)

PR review

Anyone in the community is free to review the PR once the tests have passed.
If we didn't discuss your PR in Github issues there's a high chance it will not be merged.

FAQ

Please review the FAQ before submitting an issue:

@jynx10 jynx10 requested a review from DN6 August 8, 2021 19:19
catalyst/loggers/comet.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
catalyst/loggers/comet.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
catalyst/loggers/comet.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
catalyst/loggers/comet.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
catalyst/loggers/comet.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
catalyst/loggers/comet.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
catalyst/loggers/comet.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
catalyst/loggers/comet.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
experiment_id: str = None,
comet_mode: str = "online",
tags: List = None,
logging_frequency: int = 10,
Copy link
Collaborator

@DN6 DN6 Aug 19, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would change the default here to 1.

Suggested change
logging_frequency: int = 10,
logging_frequency: int = 1,

Copy link
Owner Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Me and Doug thought it would be better if the default value would be a value that doesn't cause the throttle.

metrics,
step=global_batch_step,
epoch=global_epoch_step,
prefix=f"{stage_key}/{scope}",
Copy link
Collaborator

@DN6 DN6 Aug 19, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would make this f"{stage_key}/{loader_key}_{scope}" since the loader_key tells you which dataset (train, valid or test) the metric was computed on. You can have cases where the stage_key is train but the loader_key is valid. With the current implementation, these metrics will get overwritten.

Suggested change
prefix=f"{stage_key}/{scope}",
prefix=f"{stage_key}/{loader_key}_{scope}",

Copy link
Owner Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In all my tests it seemed like the stage_key and the loader_key were all set on "train" so it gave the metric a weird name. You can see an example in this ticket: https://comet-ml.atlassian.net/browse/CM-781

Copy link
Collaborator

@DN6 DN6 Aug 24, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

So I think it's okay if the name looks weird like train/train_batch_precision_09 It would be up to the user to change the stage_key to something that is more relevant.

If the loader_key is not included, then metrics computed on the valid data would be written to the same metric name as the train data and the user would not be able to differentiate between the two.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants