Investigate discrepancy between non-BLAS and BLAS versions of `linfa-ica`
Open
Nobody has claimed this yet.
enhancement
help wanted
- Dominant language
- Rust
- Stars
- 4.7k
- Forks
- 334
- Avg merge
- 39m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 1
Description
According to these results, all ICA benchmarks are noticibly faster with BLAS than without, though this is less severe at higher sample sizes. We should profile the non-BLAS benchmark runs (using something like flamegraph) and see if we can fix the discrepancy.
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
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 linfa-ica non-BLAS benchmark runs and compare them with the BLAS results linked in issue #228. Profile the non-BLAS runs with a tool such as flamegraph, identify the source of the performance discrepancy, and verify whether the discrepancy is reduced after the relevant fix.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- rust
- Domain
- machine-learning, performance
- Issue type
- Bug
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100