You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository was archived by the owner on Nov 17, 2023. It is now read-only.
Repository navigation
This repository was archived by the owner on Nov 17, 2023. It is now read-only.
changed the title [-]Flaky test_random.test_exponential_generator[/-][+]Flaky test_random.test_exponential_generator @ Python2: MKLDNN-CPU[/+]on Feb 21, 2018
That might fix the test, but could we risk masking a problem that way? I'm afraid I'm unfamiliar with the topic, so would you mind explaining how an actual failure would look like and how we could select the best threshold?
@marcoabreu A wrongly implemented random number generator would typically have success_rate = 0, i.e, producing p < 0.05 for all the 5 runs. However, since this tests the randomness, it's really tricky to set the threshold and my previous design is to force the success rate to be at least 25%.
kk ran this test 500x as well and didn't see a problem
ubuntu@ip-172-31-11-93:~/incubator-mxnet-original$ for i in {1..500}; do nosetests tests/python/unittest/test_random.py:test_exponential_generator; if [ $? -ne 0 ]; then break; fi; done || exit 1
Activity
[-]Flaky test_random.test_exponential_generator[/-][+]Flaky test_random.test_exponential_generator @ Python2: MKLDNN-CPU[/+]zheng-da commentedon Feb 22, 2018
It seems this problem is related to #9856
sxjscience commentedon Feb 22, 2018
As shown in the log, the chi-square value is above the 0.05 threshold (indicates the check has passed) once in the 5 runs, i.e, 20% success rate. Currently we force the success rate to be 25% (https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/blob/master/python/mxnet/test_utils.py#L1848), we could lower it to 10% to fix the test.
marcoabreu commentedon Feb 22, 2018
That might fix the test, but could we risk masking a problem that way? I'm afraid I'm unfamiliar with the topic, so would you mind explaining how an actual failure would look like and how we could select the best threshold?
sxjscience commentedon Feb 23, 2018
@marcoabreu A wrongly implemented random number generator would typically have success_rate = 0, i.e, producing p < 0.05 for all the 5 runs. However, since this tests the randomness, it's really tricky to set the threshold and my previous design is to force the success rate to be at least 25%.
zheng-da commentedon Feb 28, 2018
This test also fails constantly with a special seed.
sxjscience commentedon Feb 28, 2018
Should I revise the code to use a smaller threshold?
azai91 commentedon Jun 27, 2018
@marcoabreu the success rate has been lowered. do we know if this test is still causing us problems?
marcoabreu commentedon Jun 27, 2018
Haven't seen any problems recently. Thanks for following up!
azai91 commentedon Jun 27, 2018
kk ran this test 500x as well and didn't see a problem
piyushghai commentedon Jan 7, 2019
Found a failure of this test on the CI pipeline on Windows-CPU.
Details of failure captured here : http://jenkins.mxnet-ci.amazon-ml.com/blue/organizations/jenkins/mxnet-validation%2Fwindows-cpu/detail/PR-13678/30/pipeline