Test against Enzyme #318

mhauru · 2024-06-26T11:42:19Z

Currently failing, using this to run CI and catch issues. Uses code from #240.

Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>

mhauru · 2024-06-26T13:12:56Z

CI currently fails with

julia: /buildworker/worker/package_linux64/build/src/llvm-late-gc-lowering.cpp:872: std::vector<int, std::allocator<int> > LateLowerGCFrame::NumberAllBase(State&, llvm::Value*): Assertion `Tracked.size() == BaseNumbers.size()' failed.

Running the tests locally I also see the following

  Expression: ≈(Enzyme.gradient(Enzyme.Reverse, f, x), finitediff, rtol = rtol, atol = atol)
  Enzyme compilation failed due to illegal type analysis.
  Current scope:
  ; Function Attrs: mustprogress willreturn
  define internal fastcc "enzyme_type"="{[-1]:Float@double}" double @preprocess_julia__solve__70_20557({ { [3 x double] }, [4 x double], { i64, i8 } } addrspace(11)* nocapture noundef nonnull readonly align 8 dereferenceable(72) "enzyme_type"="{[-1]:Pointer, [-1,0]:Float@double, [-1,8]:Float@double, [-1,16]:Float@double, [-1,24]:Float@double, [-1,32]:Float@double, [-1,40]:Float@double, [-1,48]:Float@double, [-1,56]:Integer, [-1,57]:Integer, [-1,58]:Integer, [-1,59]:Integer, [-1,60]:Integer, [-1,61]:Integer, [-1,62]:Integer, [-1,63]:Integer, [-1,64]:Integer}" "enzymejl_parmtype"="4511001616" "enzymejl_parmtype_ref"="1" %0) unnamed_addr #99 !dbg !10218 {
  [blahblahblah]

This is with Enzyme 0.12.19. @wsmoses, could you let me know if these are issues familiar to you, or if I should work to make a minimal reproduction of them?

wsmoses · 2024-06-26T13:19:05Z

What is the Julia version of the first error. That looks like a Julia compiler bug that was subsequently fixed

wsmoses · 2024-06-26T13:19:38Z

The latter issue is not known please open an issue with a mwe

mhauru · 2024-06-26T13:26:50Z

The first one is on Julia 1.6, so the compiler bug it probably is then. I'll make CI run only on latest release and retry, and try to make an MWE of the latter.

mhauru · 2024-06-26T13:59:16Z

Illegal type analysis error issue here: EnzymeAD/Enzyme.jl#1573

mhauru · 2024-06-26T17:36:08Z

The Assertion failed: (vec.back() == currentBlock) issue: EnzymeAD/Enzyme.jl#1574

wsmoses · 2024-06-27T12:24:28Z

@mhauru like I mentioned on the closed Enzyme issue, the illegal type analysis is thrown due to the presence of an unknown bithack in Roots.jl , rather than risk an incorrect answer: https://github.com/JuliaMath/Roots.jl/blob/4263c7683423af209af1879bd9cd223b0ba55acd/src/Bracketing/bisection.jl#L135

It looks like you all defined a custom rule for tapir/etc for find_alpha for it, which I presume is a reasonable place for a custom rule for it here

@willtebbutt @mhauru @yebai mind importing the same rule in Enzyme. Feel free to use Enzyme's chain rule import macro if you like: https://github.com/EnzymeAD/Enzyme.jl/blob/c4068fc96a9b574fd08593178611b153cb71ac5b/ext/EnzymeChainRulesCoreExt.jl#L126 If you test with both forward and reverse you'll need to import both forward and reverse rules

devmotion · 2024-06-27T13:08:38Z

It looks like you all defined a custom rule for tapir/etc for find_alpha for it, which I presume is a reasonable place for a custom rule for it here

Even if Enzyme would not throw an error, one really should define a custom rule for find_alpha (it's very simple) instead of differentiating through the root finding algorithm.

More generally, similar to the ForwardDiff support IMO it would be good to add support for Enzyme to Roots.jl such that the implicit function theorem is always exploited.

wsmoses · 2024-06-27T13:10:52Z

Sure, but I definitely appreciate that Enzyme early errors rather than risking bad behavior here!

Since it looks like this repo already adds custom rules for this, can that be added here to start and after tests are validated possibly upstream to roots.jl

Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>

mhauru · 2024-06-27T15:47:36Z

Thanks @wsmoses, I added an import of the existing ChainRule for find_alpha. This uncovered a new issue, filed here: EnzymeAD/Enzyme.jl#1577

ext/BijectorsEnzymeExt.jl

test/runtests.jl

Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>

devmotion · 2024-06-28T14:30:40Z

test/ad/utils.jl

@@ -3,6 +3,7 @@ const AD = get(ENV, "AD", "All")

 function test_ad(f, x, broken=(); rtol=1e-6, atol=1e-6)
 finitediff = FiniteDifferences.grad(central_fdm(5, 1), f, x)[1]
+ et = eltype(finitediff)


Why is this needed? Shouldn't Enzyme return the correct types automatically?

In forward mode it returns tuples, and if the gradient is empty, the result is a Tuple{}. This resulted in comparing an empty Float64[] to an empty Union{}[], which failed. See EnzymeAD/Enzyme.jl#1584

But the gradient should never be empty? Such a test would be quite useless, so I assume we don't run into this special case here? So maybe a simple collect (without specifying the element type) would be sufficient?

It's a corner case, but we ran into it here, when d==1:

Bijectors.jl/test/bijectors/corr.jl

Line 5 in 8654475

for d in [1, 2, 5]

I'd suggest not testing AD in the case d = 1 - or just checking that the gradient is empty. We already handle this case in a special way in e.g.

Bijectors.jl/test/bijectors/corr.jl

Lines 32 to 33 in 8654475

test_bijector(b, x; test_not_identity=d != 1, changes_of_variables_test=false)

test_bijector(bvec, x; test_not_identity=d != 1, changes_of_variables_test=false)

.

It passes now though, and I don't really see a downside to testing it? Good to know for instance that nothing crashes even if you hit this corner case.

No, I also would prefer to not remove the test completely (even though I think it's of very limited use)

just checking that the gradient is empty

That's what the current test is effectively doing, because when d = 1 finitediff returns an empty array. The eltype thing just makes sure that the check becomes Float64[] == Float64[], rather than Union{}[] == Float64[]. We could put in a specific case for d == 1 in the test file, but this seems like more work to me, because you need to make it cater to different AD backends and specify manually that the result should be empty.

I meant something differently - removing the eltype/collect completely and only add a special case to this weird test of the CorrBijector since we already have special cases for d = 1 there anyway.

Yeah, that's how I understood you, but that would require something like adding another argument to test_ad called expect_empty that would skip comparing to finitediff and instead check that the gradient has length 1 (for all AD backends) and setting that argument to d == 1, which to me seems more complicated, with a bunch of if statements, compared adding the one-liner enforcing eltype. I can do it if you prefer it, I just don't see the benefit.

test/ad/utils.jl

Co-authored-by: Hong Ge <3279477+yebai@users.noreply.github.com>

Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>

wsmoses · 2024-07-09T14:07:25Z

since it looks like all of this passes, can this get merged? @devmotion @yebai @mhauru

wsmoses · 2024-07-09T14:08:31Z

test/ad/utils.jl

@@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ function test_ad(f, x, broken=(); rtol=1e-6, atol=1e-6)
 end
 end

- if AD == "All" || AD == "Enzyme"
+ if (AD == "All" || AD == "Enzyme") && VERSION >= v"1.10"
 if :EnzymeReverse in broken


The Julia compiler bug on 1.6 only applies to [batched] fwd mode. It shouldn't be hit for reverse mode if you want to losen the tests

Nice, changed that. Is forward_broken = :EnzymeForward in broken || :Enzyme in broken || VERSION <= v"1.6" correct, or did the compiler bug get fixed only later?

mhauru · 2024-07-10T09:57:06Z

@wsmoses, one of the tests started failing when I enabled reverse mode Enzyme checks for Julia 1.6. Could you please check the CI logs and let me know if this is a known issue with Julia 1.6 and what the appropriate version bound would be: https://github.com/TuringLang/Bijectors.jl/actions/runs/9871431348/job/27259337160?pr=318

wsmoses · 2024-07-10T15:09:46Z

Hm yeah I haven't seen that one before. Open an issue and will investigate.

In interim, maybe we just enable for 1.10+ for now and update bounds once that's fixed

yebai · 2024-07-10T16:25:56Z

@wsmoses When assertation fails (like here), can we throw an error so Julia can handle it, instead of aborting/exiting? In my view, abouting a Julia session should only be used in unrecoverable scenarios. Related: EnzymeAD/Enzyme.jl#1625

mhauru · 2024-07-11T12:49:06Z

Reported the latest issue here: EnzymeAD/Enzyme.jl#1629 It gets triggered on Julia 1.6 and 1.7, but not 1.8.

mhauru · 2024-07-11T13:31:19Z

src/interface.jl

@@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ function transform(t::Transform, x)
 res = with_logabsdet_jacobian(t, x)
 if res isa ChangesOfVariables.NoLogAbsDetJacobian
 error(
- "`transform` not implemented for $(typeof(f)); implement `transform` and/or `with_logabsdet_jacobian`.",
+ "`transform` not implemented for $(typeof(t)); implement `transform` and/or `with_logabsdet_jacobian`.",


This change has nothing to do with this PR, I just spotted the typo while working on this PR and didn't feel like making a separate one character PR.

mhauru · 2024-07-11T14:59:30Z

If we are happy with Enzyme only being tested on 1.10, this could be ready to merge. I'm the owner, so someone else needs to review.

wsmoses · 2024-07-11T23:49:33Z

or so Julia can handle it, instead of aborting/exiting? In my view, abouting a Julia session should only be used in unrecoverabl

Oh yeah totally agreed, PR's welcome!

yebai · 2024-07-12T14:55:42Z

or so Julia can handle it, instead of aborting/exiting? In my view, abouting a Julia session should only be used in unrecoverabl

Oh yeah totally agreed, PR's welcome!

@mhauru can you help create an Enzyme issue for this? Thanks!

mhauru · 2024-07-12T15:01:00Z

Done: EnzymeAD/Enzyme.jl#1634

Test against Enzyme

175f382

mhauru self-assigned this Jun 26, 2024

Run JuliaFormatter

89a3267

Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>

Disable some CI tests for Enzyme testing purposes

961aeb6

willtebbutt mentioned this pull request Jun 26, 2024

Tapir.jl Usage #319

Merged

mhauru and others added 2 commits June 27, 2024 16:44

Import ChainRule for find_alpha for Enzyme

f33da48

Remove unnecessary whitespace

28beac5

Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>

devmotion reviewed Jun 27, 2024

View reviewed changes

ext/BijectorsEnzymeExt.jl Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

ext/BijectorsEnzymeExt.jl Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

wsmoses reviewed Jun 27, 2024

View reviewed changes

test/runtests.jl Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

mhauru and others added 6 commits June 28, 2024 09:28

Fixes to Enzyme extension

1239040

Enzyme test fixes

94023a1

Remove unnecessary Enzyme settings

7860701

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master' into mhauru/enzyme

3cf5e79

Code style

2163ec4

Apply suggestions from reviewdog

8654475

Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>

devmotion reviewed Jun 28, 2024

View reviewed changes

Check broken symbols in tests

e43d71e

yebai reviewed Jul 8, 2024

View reviewed changes

test/ad/utils.jl Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

mhauru and others added 2 commits July 8, 2024 18:04

Add :Tapir to list of valid broken test marks

deec0a6

Co-authored-by: Hong Ge <3279477+yebai@users.noreply.github.com>

Add Enzyme compat bounds

cd3000a

mhauru and others added 3 commits July 9, 2024 10:18

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master' into mhauru/enzyme

5ac4583

Code style

44bd739

Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>

Adjust when Enzyme tests are run

976874b

wsmoses reviewed Jul 9, 2024

View reviewed changes

Improve Enzyme brokenness check

f5fd835

mhauru added 3 commits July 11, 2024 14:25

Don't check Enzyme AD for Julia < v1.10

41d643c

Reenable CI for Julia 1.6

5124bd7

Misc tiny typos

73711d6

mhauru commented Jul 11, 2024

View reviewed changes

Don't run Enzyme at all for Julia < v1.10

04d98e9

yebai approved these changes Jul 11, 2024

View reviewed changes

yebai merged commit b79c425 into master Jul 11, 2024
27 checks passed

yebai deleted the mhauru/enzyme branch July 11, 2024 22:04

mhauru mentioned this pull request Jul 12, 2024

Raise Julia errors rather than crashing on Assertion failures EnzymeAD/Enzyme.jl#1634

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Test against Enzyme #318

Test against Enzyme #318

mhauru commented Jun 26, 2024

mhauru commented Jun 26, 2024

wsmoses commented Jun 26, 2024

wsmoses commented Jun 26, 2024

mhauru commented Jun 26, 2024

mhauru commented Jun 26, 2024

mhauru commented Jun 26, 2024

wsmoses commented Jun 27, 2024

devmotion commented Jun 27, 2024

wsmoses commented Jun 27, 2024

mhauru commented Jun 27, 2024

devmotion Jun 28, 2024

mhauru Jun 28, 2024

devmotion Jun 28, 2024

mhauru Jun 28, 2024

devmotion Jun 28, 2024

mhauru Jul 1, 2024

devmotion Jul 1, 2024

mhauru Jul 10, 2024

devmotion Jul 10, 2024

mhauru Jul 10, 2024

wsmoses commented Jul 9, 2024

wsmoses Jul 9, 2024

mhauru Jul 10, 2024

mhauru commented Jul 10, 2024

wsmoses commented Jul 10, 2024

yebai commented Jul 10, 2024 •

edited

Loading

mhauru commented Jul 11, 2024

mhauru Jul 11, 2024

mhauru commented Jul 11, 2024

wsmoses commented Jul 11, 2024

yebai commented Jul 12, 2024 •

edited

Loading

mhauru commented Jul 12, 2024

	test_bijector(b, x; test_not_identity=d != 1, changes_of_variables_test=false)
	test_bijector(bvec, x; test_not_identity=d != 1, changes_of_variables_test=false)

Test against Enzyme #318

Test against Enzyme #318

Conversation

mhauru commented Jun 26, 2024

mhauru commented Jun 26, 2024

wsmoses commented Jun 26, 2024

wsmoses commented Jun 26, 2024

mhauru commented Jun 26, 2024

mhauru commented Jun 26, 2024

mhauru commented Jun 26, 2024

wsmoses commented Jun 27, 2024

devmotion commented Jun 27, 2024

wsmoses commented Jun 27, 2024

mhauru commented Jun 27, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

wsmoses commented Jul 9, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mhauru commented Jul 10, 2024

wsmoses commented Jul 10, 2024

yebai commented Jul 10, 2024 • edited Loading

mhauru commented Jul 11, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mhauru commented Jul 11, 2024

wsmoses commented Jul 11, 2024

yebai commented Jul 12, 2024 • edited Loading

mhauru commented Jul 12, 2024

yebai commented Jul 10, 2024 •

edited

Loading

yebai commented Jul 12, 2024 •

edited

Loading