Skip to content

Add predefined layout oversampling for stochastic mixer #474

Open
oleksost wants to merge 3 commits intomainfrom
feature/placeemnt_predefined_layout_set
Open

Add predefined layout oversampling for stochastic mixer #474
oleksost wants to merge 3 commits intomainfrom
feature/placeemnt_predefined_layout_set

Conversation

@oleksost
Copy link
Contributor

@oleksost oleksost commented Mar 9, 2026

✨ Description

Summary

  • Add ability to provide predefined layouts (e.g., from surrogate-based architecture search) and oversample them during training
  • With configurable probability p, each iteration either picks a predefined layout uniformly at random or samples a random layout using the existing sampling_strategy
  • Works with all sampling strategies (uniform, weighted, full_layout)

Config example

mixer:
type: stochastic
sampling_strategy: full_layout
predefined_layouts:
- ["attention", "sliding_window", "attention", "gdn"]
- ["gdn", "attention", "sliding_window", "attention"]
predefined_layout_probability: 0.3

🔍 Type of change

Select all that apply:

  • 🐛 Bug fix (non-breaking change that addresses a specific issue)
  • 🚀 New feature (non-breaking change that adds functionality)
  • ⚠️ Breaking change (a change that could affect existing functionality)
  • 📈 Performance improvement/optimization (improves speed, memory usage, or efficiency)
  • 🛠️ Code refactor (non-functional changes that improve code readability, structure, etc.)
  • 📦 Dependency bump (updates dependencies, including Dockerfile or package changes)
  • 📝 Documentation change (updates documentation, including new content or typo fixes)
  • 🔧 Infrastructure/Build change (affects build process, CI/CD, or dependencies)

📝 Changes

List the key changes introduced in this PR:

  1. Change A
  2. Change B

✅ Checklist

Make sure the following tasks are completed before submitting the PR:

General

  • 📜 I have read and followed the contributing guidelines.
  • 🏷️ I am using a clear and descriptive PR title that summarizes the key change or feature introduced.
  • 🎉 The functionality is complete, and I have tested the changes.
  • 📝 I have updated the documentation if needed.
  • ⚠️ The change does not introduce any new issues (e.g., runtime warnings, type checker errors, linting problems, unhandled edge cases).
  • 🧩 I have commented my code, especially in hard-to-understand areas.

Dependencies and Configuration

  • 🐋 I have updated the Docker configuration or dependencies, if applicable.
  • 🔄 I have ensured compatibility with the existing setup after dependency changes.

Testing

  • 🧪 I have added or updated tests to cover my changes.
  • ✔️ New and existing tests pass locally with my changes.
  • 🚦 I have tested these changes on GPUs and verified training stability.
  • 🏋️ I have tested the changes on realistic training workloads, if applicable.

Performance Impact

  • 📊 I have run benchmarks where applicable to evaluate the performance impact.
  • ✅ The benchmarks show no performance regression.
  • 🚀 The benchmarks indicate a potential performance improvement.
  • ⚠️ The benchmarks indicate a potential performance degradation.
  • 📈 I have provided benchmark results and detailed any performance impact below, if applicable.

📊 Performance Impact Details

If there is any impact on performance, describe it and provide benchmark results, if applicable:


🗒️ Additional Notes

Include any additional context, information, or considerations here, such as known issues, follow-up tasks, or backward compatibility concerns.

hint=FieldHint.feature,
)

predefined_layout_probability: float = Field(
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Shouldn't this be a list so each layout has its own probability?

hint=FieldHint.feature,
)

predefined_layouts: list[list[str]] | None = Field(
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

list[list[str]] with default_factory=list would be enough

Copy link
Collaborator

@jlamypoirier jlamypoirier left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Some suggestions, otherwise LGTM

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants