Use dtype dependent precision by mlondschien · Pull Request #844 · Quantco/glum

Malte Londschien (mlondschien) · 2024-09-20T07:16:02Z

Jan Tilly (jtilly) · 2024-09-20T07:47:54Z

It would be very cool to have float32 support that "just works". I would expect that you will run into a couple more issues.

In 653d6f1 I'm now running the test suite on a float32 dataset. This actually looks pretty good, it's just that on the inference side, we're still expecting doubles in a lot of places.

Details

================================================================================== short test summary info ===================================================================================
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_solver_equivalence[float32-False-solver=lbfgs, alpha=1.0] - AssertionError: 
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_solver_equivalence[float32-True-solver=lbfgs, alpha=1.0] - AssertionError: 
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_alpha_search[float32] - AssertionError: 
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_ols_std_errors[float32] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_array_std_errors[float32-poisson-True] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_array_std_errors[float32-poisson-False] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_array_std_errors[float32-normal-True] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_array_std_errors[float32-normal-False] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_array_std_errors[float32-binomial-True] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_array_std_errors[float32-binomial-False] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_sparse_std_errors[float32] - TypeError: self and d need to be of same dtype, either np.float64
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_inputtype_std_errors[float32-False-False-False] - AssertionError: 
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_wald_test_matrix[float32-single-poisson-True] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_wald_test_matrix[float32-single-poisson-False] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_wald_test_matrix[float32-single-normal-True] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_wald_test_matrix[float32-single-normal-False] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_wald_test_matrix[float32-single-binomial-True] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_wald_test_matrix[float32-single-binomial-False] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_wald_test_matrix[float32-multiple_vars-poisson-True] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_wald_test_matrix[float32-multiple_vars-poisson-False] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_wald_test_matrix[float32-multiple_vars-normal-True] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_wald_test_matrix[float32-multiple_vars-normal-False] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_wald_test_matrix[float32-multiple_vars-binomial-True] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_wald_test_matrix[float32-multiple_vars-binomial-False] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_wald_test_matrix[float32-multiple_constraints-poisson-True] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_wald_test_matrix[float32-multiple_constraints-poisson-False] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_wald_test_matrix[float32-multiple_constraints-normal-True] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_wald_test_matrix[float32-multiple_constraints-normal-False] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_wald_test_matrix[float32-multiple_constraints-binomial-True] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_wald_test_matrix[float32-multiple_constraints-binomial-False] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_wald_test_matrix[float32-rhs_not_zero-poisson-True] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_wald_test_matrix[float32-rhs_not_zero-poisson-False] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_wald_test_matrix[float32-rhs_not_zero-normal-True] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_wald_test_matrix[float32-rhs_not_zero-normal-False] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_wald_test_matrix[float32-rhs_not_zero-binomial-True] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_wald_test_matrix[float32-rhs_not_zero-binomial-False] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_wald_test_matrix_public[float32-single] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_wald_test_matrix_public[float32-multiple_vars] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_wald_test_matrix_public[float32-multiple_constraints] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_wald_test_matrix_public[float32-rhs_not_zero] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_wald_test_matrix_fixed_cov[float32-single] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_wald_test_matrix_fixed_cov[float32-multiple_vars] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_wald_test_matrix_fixed_cov[float32-multiple_constraints] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_wald_test_matrix_fixed_cov[float32-rhs_not_zero] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_information_criteria_raises_correct_warnings_and_errors[float32] - RuntimeWarning: overflow encountered in cast
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_store_covariance_matrix[float32-robust-opg-clustered] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_store_covariance_matrix[float32-robust-opg-nonclustered] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_store_covariance_matrix[float32-robust-oim-clustered] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_store_covariance_matrix[float32-robust-oim-nonclustered] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_store_covariance_matrix[float32-nonrobust-opg-clustered] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_store_covariance_matrix[float32-nonrobust-opg-nonclustered] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_store_covariance_matrix[float32-nonrobust-oim-clustered] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_store_covariance_matrix[float32-nonrobust-oim-nonclustered] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_store_covariance_matrix_errors[float32] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_store_covariance_matrix_alpha_search[float32-robust-opg-clustered] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_store_covariance_matrix_alpha_search[float32-robust-opg-nonclustered] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_store_covariance_matrix_alpha_search[float32-robust-oim-clustered] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_store_covariance_matrix_alpha_search[float32-robust-oim-nonclustered] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_store_covariance_matrix_alpha_search[float32-nonrobust-opg-clustered] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_store_covariance_matrix_alpha_search[float32-nonrobust-opg-nonclustered] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_store_covariance_matrix_alpha_search[float32-nonrobust-oim-clustered] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_store_covariance_matrix_alpha_search[float32-nonrobust-oim-nonclustered] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_store_covariance_matrix_cv[float32-robust-opg-clustered] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_store_covariance_matrix_cv[float32-robust-opg-nonclustered] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_store_covariance_matrix_cv[float32-robust-oim-clustered] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_store_covariance_matrix_cv[float32-robust-oim-nonclustered] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_store_covariance_matrix_cv[float32-nonrobust-opg-clustered] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_store_covariance_matrix_cv[float32-nonrobust-opg-nonclustered] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_store_covariance_matrix_cv[float32-nonrobust-oim-clustered] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
FAILED tests/glm/test_glm.py::test_store_covariance_matrix_cv[float32-nonrobust-oim-nonclustered] - ValueError: Buffer dtype mismatch, expected 'double' but got 'float'
======================================================================= 70 failed, 1220 passed, 342 warnings in 17.42s =======================================================================

Martin Stancsics (stanmart) · 2024-09-20T08:36:56Z

This is an example fix for one of the mistakes causing the errors on Jan Tilly (@jtilly)'s branch.

--- a/src/glum/_glm.py
+++ b/src/glum/_glm.py
@@ -2128,7 +2128,7 @@ class GeneralizedLinearRegressorBase(BaseEstimator, RegressorMixin):
             )

         if (
-            np.linalg.cond(_safe_toarray(X.sandwich(np.ones(X.shape[0]))))
+            np.linalg.cond(_safe_toarray(X.sandwich(np.ones(X.shape[0], dtype=X.dtype))))
             > 1 / sys.float_info.epsilon**2
         ):
             raise np.linalg.LinAlgError(

There are a bunch of similar ones in the functions used for calculating the covariance matrix.

Malte Londschien (mlondschien) · 2024-09-20T11:27:21Z

This actually looks pretty good, it's just that on the inference side, we're still expecting doubles in a lot of places.

I think there are also quite some "Kinderkrankheiten" that are not covered by the tests. E.g., if run on "real data", enet_coordinate_descent_gram sometimes returns coef with +- inf's, resulting in an error further down. So far, I wasn't able to reproduce this with simulated data. Also, we see a lot of

 ConvergenceWarning: Line search failed. Next iteration will be very close to current iteration. Might result in more convergence issues.

and

 ConvergenceWarning: Coordinate descent did not converge. You might want to increase the number of iterations. Minimum norm subgradient: nan, tolerance: 9.999999747378752e-05

probably due to fixed convergence tolerances. Setting gradient_tol = 1e-3 fixes this.

Jan Tilly (jtilly) · 2024-09-20T11:32:05Z

Yes, this is a bit of a rabbit hole.

We looked into this when we built glum originally and decided it wasn't worth the effort. However, we never had a real need to go to float32.

I think we'll also have to do a bit of work in tabmat:

 import tabmat as tm
 import numpy as np
 
 X = tm.DenseMatrix(
     np.random.rand(1000, 10).astype(np.float32),
 )
 beta = np.random.rand(10).astype(np.float32)
 
 print(X.sandwich(beta))
 
 [[nan nan nan nan nan nan nan nan nan nan]
  [nan nan nan nan nan nan nan nan nan nan]
  [nan nan nan nan nan nan nan nan nan nan]
  [nan nan nan nan nan nan nan nan nan nan]
  [nan nan nan nan nan nan nan nan nan nan]
  [nan nan nan nan nan nan nan nan nan nan]
  [nan nan nan nan nan nan nan nan nan nan]
  [nan nan nan nan nan nan nan nan nan nan]
  [nan nan nan nan nan nan nan nan nan nan]
  [nan nan nan nan nan nan nan nan nan nan]]

Works fine with float64. I guess we're running into overflow issues somewhere.

Edit: reproducer here: https://github.com/Quantco/tabmat/compare/test-float32?expand=1

Martin Stancsics (stanmart) · 2024-09-20T11:44:23Z

I'm having issues finding an X, beta combination for which we run into the problem. Jan Tilly (@jtilly), if you have one, could you please pickle and attach it to this thread?

Malte Londschien (mlondschien) · 2024-09-21T12:47:28Z

Two questions about the convergence criteria:

I know that even if scale_predictors = True, internally, data and coefficients are kept without rescaling, but the lasso / ridge penalties are reweighted by the inverse of the features' standard deviations / variances. Is this logic also applied to gradient_tol and step_size_tol? Or are they compared to the "raw" coefficients / gradients / steps?
Since gradient_tol and step_size_tol are compared against the norms of gradients / step sizes, would it make sense to scale them with sqrt(n_features)?

Do you have a reference on how to improve convergence? For reasonable alpha and a large (but not super large) dataset ~10M x 4k, glum does not converge (in coefficient) with gradient_tol=1e-3.

Iteration 0: |          | 0/? [s/it, gradient norm=1.196613084175624e-07]
Alpha: 0.08150364458560944, Iterations: 0, Time: 0.8982693669968285
Iteration 2:  63%|██████▎   | 1.26/2.0 [7.77s/it, gradient norm=0.005485215689986944]
Alpha: 0.05019387602806091, Iterations: 3, Time: 24.94159863999812
Iteration 1:  34%|███▍      | 0.68/2.0 [8.89s/it, gradient norm=0.02099936455488205]]
Alpha: 0.03091180883347988, Iterations: 2, Time: 17.32267956000578
Iteration 1:  67%|██████▋   | 1.34/2.0 [9.77s/it, gradient norm=0.004562998190522194]
Alpha: 0.01903698220849037, Iterations: 2, Time: 25.582762536010705
Iteration 1:  70%|██████▉   | 1.39/2.0 [11.25s/it, gradient norm=0.004092678427696228]
Alpha: 0.011723890900611877, Iterations: 2, Time: 28.499169431001064
Iteration 1:  74%|███████▍  | 1.49/2.0 [10.71s/it, gradient norm=0.003259933553636074]
Alpha: 0.007220137398689985, Iterations: 2, Time: 27.16131660400424
Iteration 1:  82%|████████▏ | 1.64/2.0 [10.39s/it, gradient norm=0.0023090492468327284]
Alpha: 0.004446508828550577, Iterations: 2, Time: 29.888066792991594
Iteration 1:  87%|████████▋ | 1.74/2.0 [13.20s/it, gradient norm=0.001813305076211691]]
Alpha: 0.0027383745182305574, Iterations: 2, Time: 32.22748096199939
Iteration 1:  87%|████████▋ | 1.74/2.0 [13.20s/it, gradient norm=0.0018133050/cluster/customapps/biomed/grlab/users/lmalte/mambaforge/envs/icufm/lib/python3.10/site-packages/glum/_solvers.py:58: ConvergenceWarning: Coordinate descent did not converge. You might want to increase the number of iterations. Minimum norm subgradient: nan, tolerance: 0.0010000000474974513
  new_coef, gap, _, _, n_cycles = enet_coordinate_descent_gram(1036083102226]
/cluster/customapps/biomed/grlab/users/lmalte/mambaforge/envs/icufm/lib/python3.10/site-packages/glum/_solvers.py:819: ConvergenceWarning: Line search failed. Next iteration will be very close to current iteration. Might result in more convergence issues.
  warnings.warn(
Iteration 99:  20%|██        | 0.4/2.0 [20.86s/it, gradient norm=0.040047112852334976]
/cluster/customapps/biomed/grlab/users/lmalte/mambaforge/envs/icufm/lib/python3.10/site-packages/glum/_solvers.py:345: ConvergenceWarning: IRLS failed to converge. Increase the maximum number of iterations max_iter (currently 100)%|██        | 0.4/2.0 [11.51s/it, gradient norm=0.040109891444444656]
  warnings.warn(
Alpha: 0.0016864229692146182, Iterations: 100, Time: 2164.3713447759947
Iteration 99:   7%|▋         | 0.14/2.0 [22.36s/it, gradient norm=0.07259562611579895]
Alpha: 0.0010385805508121848, Iterations: 100, Time: 2299.8850959279807
Iteration 99:   0%|          | 0.01/2.0 [22.62s/it, gradient norm=0.09704066812992096]
Alpha: 0.0006396080134436488, Iterations: 100, Time: 2326.857085836993
Iteration 99:  31%|███▏      | 0.94/3.0 [22.24s/it, gradient norm=0.11388653516769409]
Alpha: 0.0003939014277420938, Iterations: 100, Time: 2324.6465414399863
Iteration 99:  30%|███       | 0.9/3.0 [22.22s/it, gradient norm=0.12463512271642685]
Alpha: 0.0002425834973109886, Iterations: 100, Time: 2289.6218947519956
Iteration 99:  29%|██▉       | 0.88/3.0 [23.25s/it, gradient norm=0.1313784420490265]
Alpha: 0.00014939460379537195, Iterations: 100, Time: 2325.5795365330123
Iteration 99:  29%|██▉       | 0.87/3.0 [23.35s/it, gradient norm=0.13564461469650269]
Alpha: 9.200440399581566e-05, Iterations: 100, Time: 2270.3260740459955
Iteration 99:  29%|██▊       | 0.86/3.0 [22.42s/it, gradient norm=0.13827645778656006]
Alpha: 5.6660748668946326e-05, Iterations: 100, Time: 2301.0685696779983
Iteration 99:  28%|██▊       | 0.85/3.0 [22.37s/it, gradient norm=0.13990382850170135]
Alpha: 3.489441951387562e-05, Iterations: 100, Time: 2305.937522252003
Iteration 99:  28%|██▊       | 0.85/3.0 [22.54s/it, gradient norm=0.14089839160442352]
Alpha: 2.1489666323759593e-05, Iterations: 100, Time: 2327.7936690200004
Iteration 1:  28%|██▊       | 0.85/3.0 [13.11s/it, gradient norm=0.1409554928541183

…s is different between the fit and predict methods. (Quantco#848) * Check number of features when predicting * Add changelog entry

Co-authored-by: Luca Bittarello <15511539+lbittarello@users.noreply.github.com>

Martin Stancsics (stanmart)

I think it would make sense to extend the test suite to float32s before merging this (see 653d6f1). There are still a few places where we are mixing dtypes, and the new tests would uncover many of those. Or does that belong to a separate PR?

Malte Londschien (mlondschien) · 2024-10-24T09:09:39Z

I think it would make sense to extend the test suite to float32s before merging this (see 653d6f1). There are still a few places where we are mixing dtypes, and the new tests would uncover many of those. Or does that belong to a separate PR?

I am unsure whether the tests would have caught anything here. The solvers would have simply run until max_iter is reached.

Martin Stancsics (stanmart) · 2024-10-24T12:11:36Z

Yeah, that's true. Let's fix the remaining dtype-related bugs elsewhere then.

Malte Londschien (mlondschien) · 2024-11-04T10:09:17Z

Marc-Antoine Schmidt (@MarcAntoineSchmidtQC) can we merge this?

Luca Bittarello (lbittarello) · 2024-11-07T16:44:05Z

Martin Stancsics (@stanmart), ping

Martin Stancsics (stanmart)

I'd love to see how well the optimization converges using float32s, but I'm also okay with adding such tests later.

Malte Londschien (mlondschien) · 2024-11-08T07:17:55Z

See #872 for an example for "bad convergence" with float64. I guess this would only be worse for float32. I'm not sure how to turn this into a test.

Malte Londschien (mlondschien) · 2024-11-08T07:19:58Z

Can we merge this and #865 and then work on the convergence issues. For me, hotfixing Quantco/tabmat#408 locally already gave me a huge improvement in convergence.

Luca Bittarello (lbittarello) · 2024-11-08T17:22:55Z

    If values are zeros, return val.
    """
-    zeros = np.where(np.abs(arr) < 1e-7)
+    zeros = np.where(np.abs(arr) < np.sqrt(np.finfo(arr.dtype).eps))


Malte Londschien (@mlondschien), what was the logic for this change? It's a slightly stricter criterion for float64 than before, which is causing testing failures downstream.

In [4]: np.sqrt(np.finfo(np.float32).eps) Out[4]: np.float32(0.00034526698) In [5]: np.sqrt(np.finfo(np.float64).eps) Out[5]: np.float64(1.4901161193847656e-08)

None. I thought that's where the 1e-7 came from. I don't realy know what would be "good" values here. Just that 1e-7 is too strict for float32. Sorry!

I guess zeros = np.where(np.abs(arr) < np.sqrt(np.finfo(arr.dtype).eps) / 10) should do the trick 🤷 .

Essentially we're doing

var = 0 - 0 std = np.sqrt(var) normalized_values = values * _one_over_var_inf_to_val(std, 1)

Use dtype dependent precision.

18ba452

Compare to tol.

a94dbb1

Malte Londschien (mlondschien) marked this pull request as ready for review October 24, 2024 06:59

Malte Londschien (mlondschien) requested review from Marc-Antoine Schmidt (MarcAntoineSchmidtQC), Jan Tilly (jtilly) and Luca Bittarello (lbittarello) as code owners October 24, 2024 06:59

dependabot Bot and others added 5 commits October 24, 2024 09:34

Bump pypa/gh-action-pypi-publish from 1.10.1 to 1.10.2 (Quantco#845)

8ece563

Bump pypa/cibuildwheel from 2.21.0 to 2.21.1 (Quantco#846)

64eb6df

scikit-learn-compliant error message when the number of input feature…

5ce9a6e

…s is different between the fit and predict methods. (Quantco#848) * Check number of features when predicting * Add changelog entry

Wrong way round.

58784d8

Changelog.

758ec9d

Malte Londschien (mlondschien) force-pushed the use-correct-dtype-precision branch from 6e05960 to 758ec9d Compare October 24, 2024 07:34

Merge branch 'main' into use-correct-dtype-precision

d5e6eb7

Luca Bittarello (lbittarello) reviewed Oct 24, 2024

View reviewed changes

Comment thread CHANGELOG.rst Outdated

Update CHANGELOG.rst

2172b1d

Co-authored-by: Luca Bittarello <15511539+lbittarello@users.noreply.github.com>

Martin Stancsics (stanmart) reviewed Oct 24, 2024

View reviewed changes

Marc-Antoine Schmidt (MarcAntoineSchmidtQC) reviewed Oct 24, 2024

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/glum/_solvers.py Outdated

Marc-Antoine Schmidt (MarcAntoineSchmidtQC) reviewed Oct 24, 2024

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/glum/_solvers.py Outdated

Malte Londschien (mlondschien) added 2 commits October 29, 2024 13:37

More explicit comment.

04002b3

Move large_number logic into IRLSState

d042117

Malte Londschien (mlondschien) requested a review from Marc-Antoine Schmidt (MarcAntoineSchmidtQC) November 4, 2024 10:09

Martin Stancsics (stanmart) approved these changes Nov 7, 2024

View reviewed changes

Merge branch 'main' into use-correct-dtype-precision

c2d62fa

Jan Tilly (jtilly) merged commit 959288d into Quantco:main Nov 8, 2024

Malte Londschien (mlondschien) deleted the use-correct-dtype-precision branch November 8, 2024 08:30

Luca Bittarello (lbittarello) reviewed Nov 8, 2024

View reviewed changes

Conversation

Malte Londschien (mlondschien) commented Sep 20, 2024

Uh oh!

Jan Tilly (jtilly) commented Sep 20, 2024

Uh oh!

Martin Stancsics (stanmart) commented Sep 20, 2024

Uh oh!

Malte Londschien (mlondschien) commented Sep 20, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Jan Tilly (jtilly) commented Sep 20, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Martin Stancsics (stanmart) commented Sep 20, 2024

Uh oh!

Malte Londschien (mlondschien) commented Sep 21, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Martin Stancsics (stanmart) left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Malte Londschien (mlondschien) commented Oct 24, 2024

Uh oh!

Martin Stancsics (stanmart) commented Oct 24, 2024

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Malte Londschien (mlondschien) commented Nov 4, 2024

Uh oh!

Luca Bittarello (lbittarello) commented Nov 7, 2024

Uh oh!

Martin Stancsics (stanmart) left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Malte Londschien (mlondschien) commented Nov 8, 2024

Uh oh!

Malte Londschien (mlondschien) commented Nov 8, 2024

Uh oh!

Luca Bittarello (lbittarello) Nov 8, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Malte Londschien (mlondschien) Nov 8, 2024 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants

Malte Londschien (mlondschien) commented Sep 20, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Jan Tilly (jtilly) commented Sep 20, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Malte Londschien (mlondschien) commented Sep 21, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Malte Londschien (mlondschien) Nov 8, 2024 •

edited

Loading