Skip to content

Extend inverse @ b as solve rewrite to batched dots #945

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

Open
ricardoV94 opened this issue Jul 19, 2024 · 8 comments
Open

Extend inverse @ b as solve rewrite to batched dots #945

ricardoV94 opened this issue Jul 19, 2024 · 8 comments

Comments

@ricardoV94
Copy link
Member

This rewrite only triggers for non-blockwise dots, but there's no reason not to also cover Blockwise dots with a Blockise Solve (if solve is not blockwised by default already)

if isinstance(node.op, Dot | Dot22):

@ricardoV94 ricardoV94 changed the title Extend inverse @ b as solve to batched dots Extend inverse @ b as solve rewrite to batched dots Jul 19, 2024
@AdvH039
Copy link
Contributor

AdvH039 commented Feb 1, 2025

@ricardoV94 I am currently working on this issue and I have some doubts. As I see it the solve being used in the rewrite uses blockwise by default, so not much to do there. So all we have to do is trigger for the nodes that have
node.op = batched_variation_of_Dot | batched_variation of Dot 22 , use the current logic and write tests to see whether it is working or not, right?
And the batched variation of Dot we'll have to use from here right?
I could not find the corresponding one for Dot22 I guess we'll have to add it to blas.py.

@ricardoV94
Copy link
Member Author

ricardoV94 commented Feb 1, 2025

@AdvH039 you're right, the concern is that the rewrite currently doesn't apply with batch Dot.

You don't have to worry about Batch Dot22, as Dot22 is a specialized op that shouldn't ever be batched (it is only introduced when there's no batching going on).

@AdvH039
Copy link
Contributor

AdvH039 commented Mar 4, 2025

Hi @ricardoV94,
I have opened a recent topic in pymc discourse. I hope you can provide some inputs to it. I will try to complete the issue. Thanks!!

@ricardoV94
Copy link
Member Author

Hi @ricardoV94, I have opened a recent topic in pymc discourse. I hope you can provide some inputs to it. I will try to complete the issue. Thanks!!

I've missed it, it's better to keep the development discussion here on github.

@AdvH039
Copy link
Contributor

AdvH039 commented Mar 5, 2025

@ricardoV94 Ok thanks. Please let me know if there are any provisions for 175hr and what ideas are you looking for as I want to start preparing the proposal as soon as possible.

@AdvH039
Copy link
Contributor

AdvH039 commented Mar 5, 2025

@ricardoV94 I have started the discussion and introduced myself. Thanks!!

@ricardoV94
Copy link
Member Author

@ricardoV94 I have started the discussion and introduced myself. Thanks!!

I meant the discussion for the issue should happen here, not for GSOC projects

@AdvH039
Copy link
Contributor

AdvH039 commented Mar 8, 2025

Oh I'm sorry about that should I take it off? Thanks.(Also are there any developments regarding the gsoc project?)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants