MLflow VS guildai

How can this be? The current state of practice in AI/ML work requires adaptivity, which is uncommon in classical computational fields. There are myriad tools that capture the work across the many instances of the AI/ML lifecycle. The idea that any one tool could sufficiently capture the dynamic work is unrealistic. Take, for example, an experiment tracking tool like W&B or MLFlow; some form of experiment tracking is necessary in typical model training lifecycles. Such a tool requires some notion of a dataset. However, a tool focusing on experiment tracking is orthogonal to the needs of analyzing model performance at the data sample level, which is critical to understanding the failure modes of models. The way one does this depends on the type of data and the AI/ML task at hand. In other words, MLOps is inherently an intricate mosaic, as the capabilities and best practices of AI/ML work evolve.

MLflow is an open-source platform for managing the end-to-end machine learning lifecycle. It includes features for experiment tracking, model versioning, and deployment, enabling developers to track and compare experiments, package models into reproducible runs, and manage model deployment across multiple environments.

Platforms such as MLflow monitor the development stages of machine learning models. In parallel, Data Version Control (DVC) brings version control system-like functions to the realm of data sets and models.

MLFlow - http://mlflow.org

MLflow:

In search for a tool that needs comparable configuration I looked into mlflow and found this. https://github.com/mlflow/mlflow/blob/master/mlflow/environment_variables.py There they define a class _EnvironmentVariable and create many objects out of it, for any variable they need. The get method of this class is in principle a decorated os.getenv. Maybe that is something I can take as orientation.

I have been using DVC and MLflow since then DVC had only data tracking and MLflow only model tracking. I can say both are awesome now and maybe the only factor I would like to mention is that IMO, MLflow is a bit harder to learn while DVC is just a git practically.

Experiment tracking in DvC is implemented using git to store snapshots of a project and related artifacts. You might take a look at Guild AI's support for DvC, which is tightly integrated with DvC stages. You can run any of the stages defined for a project and you get a properly isolated run (each run is a project copy to ensure that you're not corrupting the run if you modify files while it's running - as well as properly supporting concurrent runs). Once you have runs in Guild, you can use any number of tools to study, compare, export, etc.

I built an experiment tracking tool (Guild AI) that focuses on code/model reuse and so this question is dear to my heart :) Best of luck!

I'm not aware of experiment tracking in Jupyter notebooks themselves. Guild AI is able to run notebooks as experiments however.

Disclosure - I'm the author of Guild AI so take this for the biased opinion that it is.

I'm the author of Guild AI (open source experiment tracking). For some time now Guild users have asked for DvC support. This is now available as a pre-release.

Guild AI now has support for running DvC stages as experiments. DvC uses git under the covers to manage project state for each experiment, along with the experiment results. Guild doesn't touch your git repo and instead copies your project source to a new run directory. This ensures that you have a correct record of your experiment without churning your project state.

Guild.ai - https://guild.ai/

Use guild and pytorch-lightning. Make it easy for new contributors to get your data by using dvc as a data access tool.