Closed teubert closed 10 months ago
Thank you for opening this PR. Each PR into dev requires a code review. For the code review, look at the following:
Merging #110 (0ac867c) into dev (70ab878) will not change coverage. Report is 5 commits behind head on dev. The diff coverage is
0.00%
.:exclamation: Current head 0ac867c differs from pull request most recent head fb3f5d2. Consider uploading reports for the commit fb3f5d2 to get more accurate results
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## dev #110 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 83.54% 83.54%
=======================================
Files 100 100
Lines 10281 10281
=======================================
Hits 8589 8589
Misses 1692 1692
Files | Coverage Δ | |
---|---|---|
src/progpy/mixture_of_experts.py | 13.54% <0.00%> (ø) |
Looks good and works as expected. it took me a little to understand what was going on tho. Can the idea behind the heterogeneous comparison with multi-output models be clarified in the test_moe with more comments? Maybe I did not understand it. If models have different output size, the only thing you can do is rank their performance per output, is that what's happening? I think giving a practical example, instead of random numbers (x0+b, x0+c, with b=0.75, etc) would help the user understand what this is for.
Previously MoE only worked with homogenous models. Now if a output, etc. is missing it will keep trying the next best model until all are completed.