CARLA VS pytorch-lightning

Abstract: Counterfactual explanations provide means for prescriptive model explanations by suggesting actionable feature changes (e.g., increase income) that allow individuals to achieve favourable outcomes in the future (e.g., insurance approval). Choosing an appropriate method is a crucial aspect for meaningful counterfactual explanations. As documented in recent reviews, there exists a quickly growing literature with available methods. Yet, in the absence of widely available open–source implementations, the decision in favour of certain models is primarily based on what is readily available. Going forward – to guarantee meaningful comparisons across explanation methods – we present CARLA (Counterfactual And Recourse Library), a python library for benchmarking counterfactual explanation methods across both different data sets and different machine learning models. In summary, our work provides the following contributions: (i) an extensive benchmark of 11 popular counterfactual explanation methods, (ii) a benchmarking framework for research on future counterfactual explanation methods, and (iii) a standardized set of integrated evaluation measures and data sets for transparent and extensive comparisons of these methods. We have open sourced CARLA and our experimental results on GitHub, making them available as competitive baselines. We welcome contributions from other research groups and practitioners.

4 Min Read| Paper | Github

def on_validation_end(self, trainer: Trainer, pl_module: LightningModule) -> None: # Trainer calls `on_validation_end` for sanity check. Therefore, it is necessary to avoid # calling `trial.report` multiple times at epoch 0. For more details, see # https://github.com/PyTorchLightning/pytorch-lightning/issues/1391. if trainer.sanity_checking: return

Under the hood, the ModelWrapper object will create a ML model based on the config (so far, an XGBoost model and a PyTorch Lightning model). Each of those will have a wrapper that conducts training and evaluation (since from my understanding of Lightning, Trainers are required to be outside of the class). In lack of a better name, I call these wrappers Fitters. For uniformity, I thought about adding a common interface IFitter, which is inherited by all model wrappers as outlined below.

Join their Slack to ask the community questions and check out the GitHub here.

Pytorch lightning benchmarks against pytorch on every PR (benchmarks to make sure that it is mot slower.

There is already a ton of momentum around automating ML workflows. I would suggest you contribute to a preexisting project like, for instance, PyTorch Lightning or fast.ai.

Is the problem the sheer number of options, or the fact that they are all together in one place? Would it be better if they were organized into the different trainer entrypoints (fit, validate, ...)? If that is the case, there was an RFC proposing this which you might find interesting, feel free to drop by and comment on the issue: https://github.com/PyTorchLightning/pytorch-lightning/issues/10444

I wanted to make a quick performance comparison between the GPU (Tesla K80) and TPU (v2-8) available in Google Colab with PyTorch. To do so quickly, I used an MNIST example from pytorch-lightning that trains a simple CNN.

We've noticed GPU 0 on our 3 GPU system is sometimes idle (which would explain performance differences). However its unclear to us why that may be. Similar to this issue

If you want a good example for reference, take a look at Pytorch Lightning's readme (https://github.com/PyTorchLightning/pytorch-lightning) It answers the 3 questions of "what is this", "why should I care", and "how do i use it" almost instantly