Investigate discrepancy between non-BLAS and BLAS versions of `linfa-pls`
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 benchmark results from this comment, linfa-pls is slightly slower without BLAS. Specifically, the Regression-Nipals benchmarks are slightly slower when the sample size is 100000, and the Regression-Svd and Canonical-Svd benchmarks are slower when the sample size is 100000.
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 by reproducing the BLAS and non-BLAS benchmark results for linfa-pls at a sample size of 100000, focusing on Regression-Nipals, Regression-Svd, and Canonical-Svd. Compare the benchmark outputs and trace the relevant implementation paths; done means identifying and documenting the cause of the discrepancy.
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
- 30/100