trunk/98fc38c4eb17c435699cea1a7d3aa84c14458ed9: Add autograd_cache_key to aot_autograd with tests (#178152)
Expose autograd_cache_key in torch._functorch.aot_autograd that wraps prepare_aot_module_simplified to build an AOTConfig and then delegates to the base autograd_cache.autograd_cache_key. This lets callers compute the cache key for a dynamo graph without running the full inductor pipeline. Tests verify that the API produces the same key as torch.compile by capturing the ground-truth key and graph from the inductor pipeline, then calling the new API on the same graph and example inputs. Pull Request resolved: #178152 Approved by: https://github.com/zou3519 ghstack dependencies: #177852 , #177871
Expose autograd_cache_key in torch._functorch.aot_autograd that wraps prepare_aot_module_simplified to build an AOTConfig and then delegates to the base autograd_cache.autograd_cache_key. This lets callers compute the cache key for a dynamo graph without running the full inductor pipeline._Expose autograd_cache_key in torch._functorch.aot_autograd that wraps prepare_aot_module_simplified to build an AOTConfig and then delegates to the base autograd_cache.autograd_cache_key. This lets callers compute the cache key for a dynamo graph without running the full inductor pipeline._Tests verify that the API produces the same key as torch.compile by capturing the ground-truth key and graph from the inductor pipeline, then calling the new API on the same graph and example inputs.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/pull/178152 Approved by: https://github.com/zou3519 ghstack dependencies: #177852, #177871`
Assets 2
PyTorch Releases
https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/releases/tag/trunk%2F98fc38c4eb17c435699cea1a7d3aa84c14458ed9Sign in to highlight and annotate this article
Conversation starters
Daily AI Digest
Get the top 5 AI stories delivered to your inbox every morning.
More about
github
TurboQuant seems to work very well on Gemma 4 — and separately, per-layer outlier-aware K quantization is beating current public fork results on Qwen PPL
I’ve been experimenting with TurboQuant KV cache quantization in llama.cpp (CPU + Metal) on Gemma 4 26B A4B-it Q4_K_M on an Apple M4 Pro 48GB, and the results look surprisingly strong. Gemma 4 findings On Gemma 4, QJL seems to work well, and FWHT as a structured rotation substitute also looks like a good fit for the large attention heads (dk=256/512). My benchmark results: tq3j/q4_0: 37/37 on quality tests, 8/8 on NIAH tq2j/q4_0: 36/37, with the only miss being an empty response +34% faster than q4_0/q4_0 at 131K context TurboQuant overtakes q4_0 from 4K context onward So on this setup, ~3.1 bits per K channel gets near-zero accuracy loss with a meaningful long-context speedup. What’s also interesting is that this looks better than the public Gemma 4 fork results I’ve seen so far. In the l
Your LLM Passes Type Checks but Fails the "Vibe Check": How I Fixed AI Reliability
Your LLM Passes Type Checks but Fails the "Vibe Check": How I Fixed AI Reliability You validate your LLM outputs with Pydantic. The JSON is well-formed. The fields are correct. Life is good. Then your model returns a "polite decline" that says "I'd rather gouge my eyes out." It passes your type checks. It fails the vibe check. This is the Semantic Gap — the space between structural correctness and actual meaning . Every team shipping LLM-powered features hits it eventually. I got tired of hitting it, so I built Semantix . The Semantic Gap: Shape vs. Meaning Here's what most validation looks like today: class Response ( BaseModel ): message : str tone : Literal [ " polite " , " neutral " , " firm " ] This tells you the shape is right. It tells you nothing about whether the meaning is right.
Knowledge Map
Connected Articles — Knowledge Graph
This article is connected to other articles through shared AI topics and tags.
More in Releases
[D] ICML Rebuttle Acknowledgement
I've received 3 out of 4 acknowledgements, All of them basically are choosing Option A without changing their scores, because their initial scores were already positive. Meanwhile, the 4th reviewer had already given me a 3 and still hasn’t replied. What frustrates me is that I didn’t just clarify a few points. I ran a lot of additional experiments and wrote proofs to address every request they raised. So is this really how the process is supposed to work? Reviewers can ask for as many edits, experiments, and proofs as they want, and in the end all you get is “thanks for your response” with no score update? I’m trying to understand whether this is normal or if I just got unlucky. submitted by /u/Charming-Fail-772 [link] [comments]
Discussion
Sign in to join the discussion
No comments yet — be the first to share your thoughts!