Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
KL Divergence for Latent SDEs #463
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
KL Divergence for Latent SDEs #463
Changes from 18 commits
7e5ff3d
81fe647
4783af9
c7dfdc8
2f04859
095ba88
773403e
f2301db
bf0b006
b3359a2
2dbfef8
722ac99
ddeb773
3d5dce4
aa186c7
536bebe
3e30f9e
005ca6b
6829cef
72687bb
7e77b27
1532acf
7306ec9
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
As per this comment:
#402 (review)
and also the updated term docs:
https://docs.kidger.site/diffrax/api/terms/
then this outer
MultiTerm
isn't really in-keeping. We're not adding all of these extra terms on to the same evolving state.Bearing in mind that the rest of Diffrax has to see this as just another SDE solve.
I think this one might take a bit more iteration to get to something that's obeying the abstractions in the way they're designed, I'm afraid.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think I get what you're saying, multiterm implies a single differential equation "unit". So the composed multi terms is bad form. However, I'm not sure I see the difficulty going forward, I can replace it with tuple (multiterm, multiterm) or even tuple (multiterm, ode term). Which seems to adhere to this principle of multiterm = sde unit, since we are integrating two simultaneous SDEs, while also falling in line with other solvers (such as implicit Euler as you remarked).
On the terms vs solver approach, I am open to both. I think in my many iterations/experimentations I found the solver approach more in line with my thinking about the nature of the problem, specifically the original idea of (terms, kl_term) I didn't see as appealing since the KL_term relies on information from the other term and I didn't see a clean way to do that. However, having terms with a term wrapper is very doable (but may not mesh with the repo as well).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Maybe introducing a totally new term is ok (given the remarks in #453), in which case the approach of a KLTerm (rather than a solver), is doable. Given the restricted nature of terms so far, I originally thought that wasn't in line with the package