Difference between revisions of "Infrastructure/software/eosc"
(→Software) |
(→Software) |
||
Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
Between 2017 and 2019, the NLPL infrastructure task force has received installation requests | Between 2017 and 2019, the NLPL infrastructure task force has received installation requests | ||
for individual Python add-ons against language versions 2.7, 3.5, and 3.7, sometimes with | for individual Python add-ons against language versions 2.7, 3.5, and 3.7, sometimes with | ||
− | + | additional constraints regarding supported versions of, for example, NumPy, PyTorch, or | |
TensorFlow. | TensorFlow. | ||
− | For | + | For compatibility with third-party code and for reproducibility, users should largely |
be free (within reason) to pick the module versions they (believe they) require, modules must | be free (within reason) to pick the module versions they (believe they) require, modules must | ||
not change once installed (and announced), and historic or older module versions should | not change once installed (and announced), and historic or older module versions should | ||
remain functional over time, ideally many years into the future. | remain functional over time, ideally many years into the future. | ||
The NLPL approach to meeting these demands has been to ‘unbundle’ to a high degree, i.e. | The NLPL approach to meeting these demands has been to ‘unbundle’ to a high degree, i.e. | ||
− | provision separate add-ons (like Gensim, NumPy, SciPy, TensorFlow, etc.) as | + | provision separate add-ons (like Gensim, NumPy, SciPy, TensorFlow, etc.) as individual |
modules and inasmuch as possible provide each module for multiple base language | modules and inasmuch as possible provide each module for multiple base language | ||
versions. | versions. | ||
Abstractly, this design appears adequate and scalable, but module installation needs to be | Abstractly, this design appears adequate and scalable, but module installation needs to be | ||
automated further, uniformity across different computing environments improved, and users | automated further, uniformity across different computing environments improved, and users | ||
− | + | better guided in navigating the resulting (large) space of only partially interoperable | |
modules. | modules. | ||
= Data = | = Data = |
Revision as of 21:29, 8 September 2019
Background
This page provides a working document for requirements in the NLP(L) use case in the EOSC Nordic project.
The NLPL research community (in late 2019) is comprised of many dozens of active users, ranging from MSc students to professors; there is much variation in computational experience and ‘Un*x foo’. Likewise, computing tasks vary a lot, ranging from maybe a handful of single-cpu jobs to thousands of (mildly) parallel or multi-gpu tasks; NLP research quite generally is both data- and compute-intensive.
Typical types of data include potentially large document collections (for example 130 billion words of English extracted from the Common Crawl or vast collections of translated texts in multiple languages), pre-computed representations of word or sentence meaning (so-called word embeddings), or more specialized training and evaluation sets for supervised machine learning tasks like parsing or machine translation.
After some two years of activity in the NLPL project, its community has collectively
installed some 80 shared software modules and around six terabytes of primary source data.
In May 2019, module load
operations for NLPL-maintained software accounted
for close to five percent of the total on the Norwegian Abel supercluster.
In sum, preparing the software and data environment for the ‘average’ NLP experiment is no
small task; duplication of data, software, and effort should be minimized.
Further, reproducibility and replicability play an increasingly important role in NLP research.
Other researchers must be enabled to re-run the same experiment (and obtain the same results),
ideally also several years after the original publication.
Software
Relevant software modules comprise general-purpose run-time environments like Java and Python, machine learning frameworks like DyNet, PyTorch, SciPy, or TensorFlow, and a myriad of discipline-specific tools like CoreNLP, Gensim, Marian, NLTK, Open NMT, spaCy, and others. NLPL users typically ‘mix and match’ several of these components, to then build their own code on top. They will often require specific versions of individual modules, sometimes for good reasons. Between 2017 and 2019, the NLPL infrastructure task force has received installation requests for individual Python add-ons against language versions 2.7, 3.5, and 3.7, sometimes with additional constraints regarding supported versions of, for example, NumPy, PyTorch, or TensorFlow.
For compatibility with third-party code and for reproducibility, users should largely be free (within reason) to pick the module versions they (believe they) require, modules must not change once installed (and announced), and historic or older module versions should remain functional over time, ideally many years into the future. The NLPL approach to meeting these demands has been to ‘unbundle’ to a high degree, i.e. provision separate add-ons (like Gensim, NumPy, SciPy, TensorFlow, etc.) as individual modules and inasmuch as possible provide each module for multiple base language versions. Abstractly, this design appears adequate and scalable, but module installation needs to be automated further, uniformity across different computing environments improved, and users better guided in navigating the resulting (large) space of only partially interoperable modules.