The APIs are flexible and easy-to-use, supporting authentication, user identity, and complex enterprise features like SSO and SCIM provisioning. Learn more →
RecursiveFactorization Alternatives
Similar projects and alternatives to RecursiveFactorization
-
-
diffrax
Numerical differential equation solvers in JAX. Autodifferentiable and GPU-capable. https://docs.kidger.site/diffrax/
-
WorkOS
The modern identity platform for B2B SaaS. The APIs are flexible and easy-to-use, supporting authentication, user identity, and complex enterprise features like SSO and SCIM provisioning.
-
-
ffi-overhead
comparing the c ffi (foreign function interface) overhead on various programming languages
-
-
-
-
InfluxDB
Power Real-Time Data Analytics at Scale. Get real-time insights from all types of time series data with InfluxDB. Ingest, query, and analyze billions of data points in real-time with unbounded cardinality.
-
-
-
-
SciMLBenchmarks.jl
Scientific machine learning (SciML) benchmarks, AI for science, and (differential) equation solvers. Covers Julia, Python (PyTorch, Jax), MATLAB, R
-
-
SciPyDiffEq.jl
Wrappers for the SciPy differential equation solvers for the SciML Scientific Machine Learning organization
-
-
-
StochasticAD.jl
Research package for automatic differentiation of programs containing discrete randomness.
-
-
PowerSimulationsDynamics.jl
Julia package to run Dynamic Power System simulations. Part of the Scalable Integrated Infrastructure Planning Initiative at the National Renewable Energy Lab.
-
SaaSHub
SaaSHub - Software Alternatives and Reviews. SaaSHub helps you find the best software and product alternatives
NOTE:
The number of mentions on this list indicates mentions on common posts plus user suggested alternatives.
Hence, a higher number means a better RecursiveFactorization alternative or higher similarity.
RecursiveFactorization reviews and mentions
Posts with mentions or reviews of RecursiveFactorization.
We have used some of these posts to build our list of alternatives
and similar projects. The last one was on 2023-05-01.
-
Can Fortran survive another 15 years?
What about the other benchmarks on the same site? https://docs.sciml.ai/SciMLBenchmarksOutput/stable/Bio/BCR/ BCR takes about a hundred seconds and is pretty indicative of systems biological models, coming from 1122 ODEs with 24388 terms that describe a stiff chemical reaction network modeling the BCR signaling network from Barua et al. Or the discrete diffusion models https://docs.sciml.ai/SciMLBenchmarksOutput/stable/Jumps/Dif... which are the justification behind the claims in https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.07.30.502135v1 that the O(1) scaling methods scale better than O(log n) scaling for large enough models? I mean.
> If you use special routines (BLAS/LAPACK, ...), use them everywhere as the respective community does.
It tests with and with BLAS/LAPACK (which isn't always helpful, which of course you'd see from the benchmarks if you read them). One of the key differences of course though is that there are some pure Julia tools like https://github.com/JuliaLinearAlgebra/RecursiveFactorization... which outperform the respective OpenBLAS/MKL equivalent in many scenarios, and that's one noted factor for the performance boost (and is not trivial to wrap into the interface of the other solvers, so it's not done). There are other benchmarks showing that it's not apples to apples and is instead conservative in many cases, for example https://github.com/SciML/SciPyDiffEq.jl#measuring-overhead showing the SciPyDiffEq handling with the Julia JIT optimizations gives a lower overhead than direct SciPy+Numba, so we use the lower overhead numbers in https://docs.sciml.ai/SciMLBenchmarksOutput/stable/MultiLang....
> you must compile/write whole programs in each of the respective languages to enable full compiler/interpreter optimizations
You do realize that a .so has lower overhead to call from a JIT compiled language than from a static compiled language like C because you can optimize away some of the bindings at the runtime right? https://github.com/dyu/ffi-overhead is a measurement of that, and you see LuaJIT and Julia as faster than C and Fortran here. This shouldn't be surprising because it's pretty clear how that works?
I mean yes, someone can always ask for more benchmarks, but now we have a site that's auto updating tons and tons of ODE benchmarks with ODE systems ranging from size 2 to the thousands, with as many things as we can wrap in as many scenarios as we can wrap. And we don't even "win" all of our benchmarks because unlike for you, these benchmarks aren't for winning but for tracking development (somehow for Hacker News folks they ignore the utility part and go straight to language wars...).
If you have a concrete change you think can improve the benchmarks, then please share it at https://github.com/SciML/SciMLBenchmarks.jl. We'll be happy to make and maintain another.
- Yann Lecun: ML would have advanced if other lang had been adopted versus Python
-
Small Neural networks in Julia 5x faster than PyTorch
Ask them to download Julia and try it, and file an issue if it is not fast enough. We try to have the latest available.
See for example: https://github.com/JuliaLinearAlgebra/RecursiveFactorization...
-
A note from our sponsor - WorkOS
workos.com | 27 Apr 2024
Stats
Basic RecursiveFactorization repo stats
3
-
-
-
Popular Comparisons
- RecursiveFactorization VS tiny-cuda-nn
- RecursiveFactorization VS diffrax
- RecursiveFactorization VS vectorflow
- RecursiveFactorization VS LeNetTorch
- RecursiveFactorization VS KiteSimulators.jl
- RecursiveFactorization VS RecursiveFactorization.jl
- RecursiveFactorization VS SciPyDiffEq.jl
- RecursiveFactorization VS juliaup
- RecursiveFactorization VS StochasticAD.jl
- RecursiveFactorization VS NNlib.jl
Sponsored
SaaSHub - Software Alternatives and Reviews
SaaSHub helps you find the best software and product alternatives
www.saashub.com