Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to github.com

Skip to content

Update tools.md for missing color meaning issue #1491 #1624

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

Merged
merged 9 commits into from
Jul 9, 2023

Conversation

varshneydevansh
Copy link
Contributor

Issue >

Null hypothesis test discrepancy #1491

Solution Proposed >

documentation needs to be enhanced

Changes made >

Added the lines to the tools.md file which explains the following -

  1. Clarify the meaning of the colors in the output.
  2. Defining the 'success' and 'failure' explicitly.
  3. Clarify the interpretation of the p-value and the null hypothesis.

## Issue > 
Null hypothesis test discrepancy google#1491

## Solution Proposed >  
documentation needs to be enhanced

## Changes made >
Added the lines to the tools.md file which explains the following -

  1. Clarify the meaning of the colors in the output.
  2. Defining the 'success' and 'failure' explicitly.
  3. Clarify the interpretation of the p-value and the null hypothesis.
Copy link
Collaborator

@LebedevRI LebedevRI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thank you for looking into this!
I'm not sure how to best write this, but i do have some thoughts.

Changes are based on my understanding from the code review from the PR.
When comparing benchmarks, `compare.py` uses statistical tests to determine whether there is a statistically-significant difference between the measurements being compared.
The result of said statistical test is additionally communicated through color coding:
Restructured the text and made a few tweaks for better logical reading.
Copy link
Contributor Author

@varshneydevansh varshneydevansh left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for your guidance, Roman. The starting paragraph felt so interesting while reading, and the changes you suggested made this more well versed.

It was the first time that I came across about benchmarking, learned so much in the process.

If anything, still felt inconsistent or incomplete, I would love to make those changes.

@LebedevRI
Copy link
Collaborator

@dmah42 someone more fluent in english will need to proofread the wording,
i can only mostly help with the content here.

@dmah42
Copy link
Member

dmah42 commented Jul 7, 2023

@dmah42 someone more fluent in english will need to proofread the wording, i can only mostly help with the content here.

seems good to me. feel free to merge it whenever you're happy with the content.

Added an output summary from a benchmark comparison with statistics
provided for a multi-threaded process.


Furthermore, added the breakdown of each row.
Copy link
Collaborator

@LebedevRI LebedevRI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@varshneydevansh thank you!
I suppose this could use some more editorial work,
but this is certainly much better than what we have now :)

@LebedevRI LebedevRI merged commit b5aade1 into google:main Jul 9, 2023
@varshneydevansh
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thank you so much @LebedevRI for guiding me. I recently encountered benchmarking for the first time and began learning about it. Then I realized that this is something where, alongside learning, I can even contribute.

I learned a lot from this process, not just about benchmarking, but how to organize thoughts in a way that makes it easier to understand for others.

Regards.

@varshneydevansh varshneydevansh deleted the tools_md_1491 branch July 9, 2023 16:50
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.

3 participants