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

fastai parity #259

Open
26 of 37 tasks
lorenzoh opened this issue Nov 5, 2020 · 13 comments
Open
26 of 37 tasks

fastai parity #259

lorenzoh opened this issue Nov 5, 2020 · 13 comments

Comments

@lorenzoh
Copy link
Member

lorenzoh commented Nov 5, 2020

This issue tracks the progress on fastai parity.

Last updated 2021/08/11

Datasets

Data pipelines

Models

Training

Applications

  • computer vision
    • image classification
      • single-label
      • multi-label
    • image segmentation
    • image keypoint regression
  • tabular
    • classification
    • regression
  • recommender systems
  • natural language processing
@lorenzoh
Copy link
Member Author

Updated the list with pointers to existing implementations

@ToucheSir
Copy link
Member

I vote for reviving MLMetrics instead of rolling them into FluxTraining. I'm sure there would be many base Flux, Knet and other library users who could make use of them. Currently everybody has a incomplete subset of metrics with incompatible APIs (e.g. Avalon.jl). I would hope that we could get rid of those for a "NNlib of metrics" instead.

@DoktorMike
Copy link

I vote for reviving MLMetrics instead of rolling them into FluxTraining. I'm sure there would be many base Flux, Knet and other library users who could make use of them. Currently everybody has a incomplete subset of metrics with incompatible APIs (e.g. Avalon.jl). I would hope that we could get rid of those for a "NNlib of metrics" instead.

Since most of these metrics are really distances in one form or another wouldn't it be natural to use the existing implementation in Distances.jl ? But maybe I'm missing something.

@darsnack
Copy link
Member

Yeah I think implementing the distance part of it in Distances.jl makes a lot of sense.

@ToucheSir
Copy link
Member

ToucheSir commented Dec 19, 2020

I think there's still a need for a metrics package because most of the classification metrics don't make sense in Distances.jl. There's also the case of domain-specific metrics like Dice score(edit: potentially general enough to go in something like Distances) and BLEU.

@CarloLucibello
Copy link
Member

there should be some distinction between losses and metrics?

@ToucheSir
Copy link
Member

At the very least, the metrics package/namespace could reexport losses that are also metrics.

@darsnack
Copy link
Member

Yeah I think the hierarchy would be Distances -> Metrics -> Losses. There will be losses that are not metrics (i.e. defined completely in a loss package), and losses that just reexport a metric. Similarly there will be metrics that are completely defined the metrics package, but many will reexport or build upon standard distances.

To that end, I agree that we should make use of Distances.jl as much as possible. And if there is a metric that generalizes to a distance, then we can submit a PR to Distances.jl.

@lorenzoh
Copy link
Member Author

I agree with @darsnack! Every loss can be a metric (not in a strict mathematical sense but as a measure of model performance), but not the reverse.

@lorenzoh
Copy link
Member Author

Also, if MLMetrics.jl is revived, FluxTraining.jl should depend on it.

@lorenzoh
Copy link
Member Author

Updated the list

@darsnack
Copy link
Member

darsnack commented Aug 9, 2022

@lorenzoh do you want to transfer stuff from here to FastAI.jl issues?

@lorenzoh lorenzoh transferred this issue from FluxML/FluxML-Community-Call-Minutes Sep 3, 2022
@lorenzoh
Copy link
Member Author

lorenzoh commented Sep 3, 2022

I went ahead and transferred the issue to the FastAI.jl repo which should make it easier to track 👍

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

No branches or pull requests

5 participants