pytorch-lightning VS CARLA

https://see.stanford.edu/Course/CS229 https://lightning.ai/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00s9ireCnCw&t=57s https://towardsdatascience.com/

I've been wondering on what is the recommended method of saving logits/activations using PyTorch Lightning. I've looked at Callbacks, Loggers and ModelHooks but none of the use-cases seem to be for this kind of activity (even if I were to create my own custom variants of each utility). The ModelCheckpoint Callback in its utility makes me feel like custom Callbacks would be the way to go but I'm not quite sure. This closed GitHub issue does address my issue to some extent.

Our codebase for the diffusion models builds heavily on OpenAI's ADM codebase , lucidrains, Stable Diffusion, Lightning and Hugging Face. Thanks for open-sourcing!

For lightweight use, pytorch-lightning is too heavy, and its source code will be very difficult for beginners to read, at least for me.

For the A100 GPU, theoretical performance is the same for FP16/BF16 and both rely on the same number of bits, meaning memory should be the same. However since it's quite newly added to PyTorch, performance seems to still be dependent on underlying operators used (pytorch lightning debugging in progress here).

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