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

[experiment] ENH: using only raw inputs for onedal backend #2153

Draft
wants to merge 55 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

samir-nasibli
Copy link
Contributor

Description

Add a comprehensive description of proposed changes

List associated issue number(s) if exist(s): #6 (for example)

Documentation PR (if needed): #1340 (for example)

Benchmarks PR (if needed): IntelPython/scikit-learn_bench#155 (for example)


PR should start as a draft, then move to ready for review state after CI is passed and all applicable checkboxes are closed.
This approach ensures that reviewers don't spend extra time asking for regular requirements.

You can remove a checkbox as not applicable only if it doesn't relate to this PR in any way.
For example, PR with docs update doesn't require checkboxes for performance while PR with any change in actual code should have checkboxes and justify how this code change is expected to affect performance (or justification should be self-evident).

Checklist to comply with before moving PR from draft:

PR completeness and readability

  • I have reviewed my changes thoroughly before submitting this pull request.
  • I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas.
  • I have updated the documentation to reflect the changes or created a separate PR with update and provided its number in the description, if necessary.
  • Git commit message contains an appropriate signed-off-by string (see CONTRIBUTING.md for details).
  • I have added a respective label(s) to PR if I have a permission for that.
  • I have resolved any merge conflicts that might occur with the base branch.

Testing

  • I have run it locally and tested the changes extensively.
  • All CI jobs are green or I have provided justification why they aren't.
  • I have extended testing suite if new functionality was introduced in this PR.

Performance

  • I have measured performance for affected algorithms using scikit-learn_bench and provided at least summary table with measured data, if performance change is expected.
  • I have provided justification why performance has changed or why changes are not expected.
  • I have provided justification why quality metrics have changed or why changes are not expected.
  • I have extended benchmarking suite and provided corresponding scikit-learn_bench PR if new measurable functionality was introduced in this PR.

@samir-nasibli samir-nasibli changed the title [experiment] Enh/raw inputs [experiment] ENH: using only raw inputs for onedal backend Nov 5, 2024
Copy link
Contributor Author

@samir-nasibli samir-nasibli Nov 5, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Make sense for dbscan and rf use just onedal4py API only for raw inputs.

)

use_raw_input = _get_config().get("use_raw_input") is True
if use_raw_input and _get_sycl_namespace(X)[0] is not None:
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
if use_raw_input and _get_sycl_namespace(X)[0] is not None:
if use_raw_input and sua_iface is not None:
  • move line 284 above this

Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 17, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 75.29070% with 85 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
onedal/linear_model/logistic_regression.py 9.52% 38 Missing ⚠️
sklearnex/ensemble/_forest.py 76.92% 9 Missing ⚠️
onedal/_device_offload.py 66.66% 8 Missing ⚠️
onedal/linear_model/incremental_linear_model.py 80.64% 6 Missing ⚠️
onedal/ensemble/forest.py 87.50% 5 Missing ⚠️
onedal/utils/_dpep_helpers.py 50.00% 5 Missing ⚠️
onedal/linear_model/linear_model.py 87.87% 4 Missing ⚠️
sklearnex/_device_offload.py 83.33% 3 Missing ⚠️
onedal/cluster/dbscan.py 88.23% 2 Missing ⚠️
...l/basic_statistics/incremental_basic_statistics.py 92.30% 1 Missing ⚠️
... and 4 more
Flag Coverage Δ
github 82.87% <75.29%> (-0.32%) ⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
onedal/_config.py 100.00% <ø> (ø)
onedal/basic_statistics/basic_statistics.py 100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
onedal/covariance/incremental_covariance.py 96.15% <100.00%> (+0.91%) ⬆️
onedal/neighbors/neighbors.py 89.87% <100.00%> (+0.05%) ⬆️
onedal/utils/_array_api.py 68.29% <100.00%> (+0.79%) ⬆️
sklearnex/_config.py 96.77% <100.00%> (+0.22%) ⬆️
sklearnex/cluster/dbscan.py 93.82% <100.00%> (+0.40%) ⬆️
sklearnex/covariance/incremental_covariance.py 91.48% <ø> (ø)
...l/basic_statistics/incremental_basic_statistics.py 98.07% <92.30%> (-1.93%) ⬇️
onedal/cluster/kmeans.py 85.71% <88.88%> (-0.07%) ⬇️
... and 12 more

@ahuber21
Copy link
Contributor

/intelci: run

@ahuber21
Copy link
Contributor

/intelci: run

@ahuber21
Copy link
Contributor

/intelci: run

@ethanglaser
Copy link
Contributor

/intelci: run

@ahuber21
Copy link
Contributor

/intelci: run

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants