Quasisep Benchmark
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Python
- Stars
- 349
- Forks
- 35
- Avg merge
- 2d 2h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 1
Description
Hi @dfm,
I noticed that there is a factor of 10 increase in the runtime of the quasisep kernels in the newest version of tinygp. So, I rerun your benchmark notebook in the documentation to test out. And indeed, the quasisep kernel is about 10 times slower than celerite2. I am attaching the reproduced benchmark plot. Note I didn't rerun the benchmark for GPU. Any idea what might be causing it?
I run your notebook on two platforms (M2 Mac and Google Colab), the results are basically consistent. The plot shown was produced using the results obtained with:
- M2 Pro
- Python 3.11.9
- tingpy v0.3
Thanks for your attention!
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start with the benchmark notebook in the documentation and reproduce the reported quasisep-versus-celerite2 timing on the listed M2 Mac or Google Colab setup. Compare the newest tinygp results with the reported baseline, then trace the quasisep benchmark path to identify the regression. Done means the slowdown is explained and the benchmark confirms the resulting behavior.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- python
- Domain
- performance
- Issue type
- Bug
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100