autograd VS Enzyme

Actually, that's never been a constraint for JAX autodiff. JAX grew out of the original Autograd (https://github.com/hips/autograd), so differentiating through Python control flow always worked. It's jax.jit and jax.vmap which place constraints on control flow, requiring structured control flow combinators like those.

I'm sure there's a lot of good material around, but here are some links that are conceptually very close to the linked Autodidax.

There's [Autodidact](https://github.com/mattjj/autodidact), a predecessor to Autodidax, which was a simplified implementation of [the original Autograd](https://github.com/hips/autograd). It focuses on reverse-mode autodiff, not building an open-ended transformation system like Autodidax. It's also pretty close to the content in [these lecture slides](https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~rgrosse/courses/csc321_2018/slid...) and [this talk](http://videolectures.net/deeplearning2017_johnson_automatic_...). But the autodiff in Autodidax is more sophisticated and reflects clearer thinking. In particular, Autodidax shows how to implement forward- and reverse-modes using only one set of linearization rules (like in [this paper](https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.10923)).

Here's [an even smaller and more recent variant](https://gist.github.com/mattjj/52914908ac22d9ad57b76b685d19a...), a single ~100 line file for reverse-mode AD on top of NumPy, which was live-coded during a lecture. There's no explanatory material to go with it though.

XLA is "higher level" than what Numba produces.

You may be able to get the equivalent of jax via numba+numpy+autograd[1], but I haven't tried it before.

IMHO, jax is best thought of as a numerical computation library that happens to include autograd, vmapping, pmapping and provides a high level interface for XLA.

I have built a numerical optimisation library with it, and although a few things became verbose, it was a rather pleasant experience as the natural vmapping made everything a breeze, I didn't have to write the gradients for my testing functions, except for special cases that involved exponents and logs that needed a bit of delicate care.

[1] https://github.com/HIPS/autograd

Next, we want the code in the https://github.com/hrichardlee/dalle-playground repo, and we want to construct a pip environment from the backend/requirements.txt file in that repo. We were almost able to use the saharmor/dalle-playground repo as-is, but we had to make one change to add the jax[cuda] package to the requirements.txt file. In case you haven’t seen jax before, jax is a machine-learning library from Google, roughly equivalent to Tensorflow or PyTorch. It combines Autograd for automatic differentiation and XLA (accelerated linear algebra) for JIT-compiling numpy-like code for Google’s TPUs or Nvidia’s CUDA API for GPUs. The CUDA support requires explicitly selecting the [cuda] option when we install the package.

> fun fact, the Jax folks at Google Brain did have a Python source code transform AD at one point but it was scrapped essentially because of these difficulties

I assume you mean autograd?

https://github.com/HIPS/autograd

These four points lead to an enormous differentiation in the ecosystem: Keras, for example, was originally thought to be almost completely focused on point (4), leaving the other tasks to a backend engine. In 2015, on the other hand, Autograd focused on the first two points, allowing users to write code using only "classic" Python and NumPy constructs, providing subsequently many options for point (2). Autograd's simplicity greatly influenced the development of the libraries to follow, but it was penalized by the clear lack of the points (3) and (4), i.e. adequate techniques to speed up the code and sufficiently abstract modules for neural network development.

Automatic differentiation is done using https://enzyme.mit.edu/

lattner left google and was the primary reason they chose swift, so they lost interest.

if you're asking from an ML perspective, i believe the original motivation was to incorporate automatic differentiation in the swift compiler. i believe enzyme is the spiritual successor.

https://github.com/EnzymeAD/Enzyme

https://ispc.github.io/ispc.html

For the auto-differentiation when I need performance or memory, I currently use tapenade ( http://tapenade.inria.fr:8080/tapenade/index.jsp ) and/or manually written gradient when I need to fuse some kernel, but Enzyme ( https://enzyme.mit.edu/ ) is also very promising.

MPI for parallelization across machines.

For autodiff, we are currently working again on publishing a new Enzyme (https://enzyme.mit.edu) Frontend for Rust which can also handle pure Rust types, first version should be done in ~ a week.

Have you taken a look at enzymeAD? There is a group porting it to rust.

Enzyme dev here, so take everything I say as being a bit biased:

While, by design Enzyme is able to run very fast by operating within the compiler (see https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2020/file/9332c513ef44b... for details) -- it aggressively prioritizes correctness. Of course that doesn't mean that there aren't bugs (we're only human and its a large codebase [https://github.com/EnzymeAD/Enzyme], especially if you're trying out newly-added features).

Notably, this is where the current rough edges for Julia users are -- Enzyme will throw an error saying it couldn't prove correctness, rather than running (there is a flag for "making a best guess, but that's off by default"). The exception to this is garbage collection, for which you can either run a static analysis, or stick to the "officially supported" subset of Julia that Enzyme specifies.

Incidentally, this is also where being a cross-language tool is really nice -- namely we can see edge cases/bug reports from any LLVM-based language (C/C++, Fortran, Swift, Rust, Python, Julia, etc). So far the biggest code we've handled (and verified correctness for) was O(1million) lines of LLVM from some C++ template hell.

I will also add that while I absolutely love (and will do everything I can to support) Enzyme being used throughout arbitrary Julia code: in addition to exposing a nice user-facing interface for custom rules in the Enzyme Julia bindings like Chris mentioned, some Julia-specific features (such as full garbage collection support) also need handling in Enzyme.jl, before Enzyme can be considered an "all Julia AD" framework. We are of course working on all of these things (and the more the merrier), but there's only a finite amount of time in the day. [^]

[^] Incidentally, this is in contrast to say C++/Fortran/Swift/etc, where Enzyme has much closer to whole-language coverage than Julia -- this isn't anything against GC/Julia/etc, but we just have things on our todo list.

Idk, Enzyme is pretty next gen, all the way down to LLVM code.

https://github.com/EnzymeAD/Enzyme

I'm working on merging my build-tool for (oxide)-enzyme into Enzyme itself. Also looking into improving the documentation.

that seems one of the points of enzyme[1], which was mentioned in the article.

[1] - https://enzyme.mit.edu/

being able in effect do interprocedural cross language analysis seems awesome.