[narutolhy]

Motivation

Clarify the intent of the probs_without_temp_scaling tensor in logprob computation by assigning a more descriptive and consistent variable name. This improves readability and prevents confusion when debugging or maintaining code related to temperature scaling and RETURN_ORIGINAL_LOGPROB.

Modifications

Renamed the temporary variable from logprobs to probs_without_temp_scaling to better reflect that the tensor represents unscaled softmax probabilities used for original logprob computation.

No change in functionality or behavior; this is a pure refactor for clarity.

Before:
logprobs = torch.softmax(logits, dim=-1)

After:
probs_without_temp_scaling = torch.softmax(logits, dim=-1)

Accuracy Tests

This change does not affect any model outputs — logprobs are computed exactly the same way. Verified by rerunning:
'test_original_logprobs.py'

Checklist

• [ X] Format your code according to the Format code with pre-commit.
• Add unit tests according to the Run and add unit tests.
• Update documentation according to Write documentations.
• Provide accuracy and speed benchmark results according to Test the accuracy and Benchmark the speed.

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @narutolhy, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request is a pure refactoring effort aimed at enhancing code readability and maintainability. It clarifies the intent of a specific tensor used in logprob computation by assigning a more descriptive variable name, without altering any existing functionality or behavior.

Highlights

• Variable Renaming for Clarity: The logprobs variable in python/sglang/srt/layers/sampler.py has been renamed to probs_without_temp_scaling. This change clarifies that the tensor represents unscaled softmax probabilities used for original logprob computation, improving readability and preventing confusion.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point in your pull request via creating an issue comment (i.e. comment on the pull request page) using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in issue comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request is a nice refactoring that improves code clarity by renaming a misleading variable. The change from logprobs to probs_without_temp_scaling accurately reflects that the variable holds probabilities before temperature scaling. I have one suggestion to improve a related code comment to prevent future confusion. Overall, this is a valuable improvement.

[narutolhy]

Hi @merrymercy @zhaochenyang20 , does this pr have any other problems? Thank you

[zhaochenyang20]

Ready to merge