change stft to have consistent signature with librosa (#9308) #9497
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Summary: Fixes pytorch#7883 by using `rfft`. It's worth noting that this is BC breaking. And it's impossible to detect the change because the two signatures before and after this change supports a common subset of calling patterns, e.g., `stft(Tensor, int, int)`. (some other calling patterns will raise error). soumith and I plan to change the current `stft` interface because it is a bit messy and non-standard. rafaelvalle suggested us that `librosa` is a good reference API to align with. After discussing with soumith and ezyang , and given that `stft` is only out for 1 release, I decide to go with directly changing the signature. Also, my understanding is that most researchers in this field will welcome this change as `librosa` seems to be the golden-standard here. (it doesn't yet support all `pad_mode` but those will become available if added to `F.pad`.) Pull Request resolved: pytorch#9308 Differential Revision: D8806148 fbshipit-source-id: 2e00c2105d039cb822ae2161c5ce2a9d46831355
ssnl
requested review from
apaszke,
colesbury,
ezyang,
gchanan,
soumith and
zdevito
as code owners
zdevito
pushed a commit
to zdevito/ATen
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 17, 2018
Summary: Pull Request resolved: pytorch/pytorch#9497 Fixes #7883 by using `rfft`. It's worth noting that this is BC breaking. And it's impossible to detect the change because the two signatures before and after this change supports a common subset of calling patterns, e.g., `stft(Tensor, int, int)`. (some other calling patterns will raise error). soumith and I plan to change the current `stft` interface because it is a bit messy and non-standard. rafaelvalle suggested us that `librosa` is a good reference API to align with. After discussing with soumith and ezyang , and given that `stft` is only out for 1 release, I decide to go with directly changing the signature. Also, my understanding is that most researchers in this field will welcome this change as `librosa` seems to be the golden-standard here. (it doesn't yet support all `pad_mode` but those will become available if added to `F.pad`.) Pull Request resolved: pytorch/pytorch#9308 Reviewed By: ezyang Differential Revision: D8806148 Pulled By: SsnL fbshipit-source-id: f6e8777d0c34d4a4d7024e638dc9c63242e8bb58
goldsborough
pushed a commit
to goldsborough/pytorch
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 20, 2018
Summary: Pull Request resolved: pytorch#9497 Fixes pytorch#7883 by using `rfft`. It's worth noting that this is BC breaking. And it's impossible to detect the change because the two signatures before and after this change supports a common subset of calling patterns, e.g., `stft(Tensor, int, int)`. (some other calling patterns will raise error). soumith and I plan to change the current `stft` interface because it is a bit messy and non-standard. rafaelvalle suggested us that `librosa` is a good reference API to align with. After discussing with soumith and ezyang , and given that `stft` is only out for 1 release, I decide to go with directly changing the signature. Also, my understanding is that most researchers in this field will welcome this change as `librosa` seems to be the golden-standard here. (it doesn't yet support all `pad_mode` but those will become available if added to `F.pad`.) Pull Request resolved: pytorch#9308 Reviewed By: ezyang Differential Revision: D8806148 Pulled By: SsnL fbshipit-source-id: f6e8777d0c34d4a4d7024e638dc9c63242e8bb58
jramseyer
pushed a commit
to jramseyer/pytorch
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 30, 2018
Summary: Pull Request resolved: pytorch#9497 Fixes pytorch#7883 by using `rfft`. It's worth noting that this is BC breaking. And it's impossible to detect the change because the two signatures before and after this change supports a common subset of calling patterns, e.g., `stft(Tensor, int, int)`. (some other calling patterns will raise error). soumith and I plan to change the current `stft` interface because it is a bit messy and non-standard. rafaelvalle suggested us that `librosa` is a good reference API to align with. After discussing with soumith and ezyang , and given that `stft` is only out for 1 release, I decide to go with directly changing the signature. Also, my understanding is that most researchers in this field will welcome this change as `librosa` seems to be the golden-standard here. (it doesn't yet support all `pad_mode` but those will become available if added to `F.pad`.) Pull Request resolved: pytorch#9308 Reviewed By: ezyang Differential Revision: D8806148 Pulled By: SsnL fbshipit-source-id: f6e8777d0c34d4a4d7024e638dc9c63242e8bb58
goodlux
pushed a commit
to goodlux/pytorch
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 15, 2018
Summary: Pull Request resolved: pytorch#9497 Fixes pytorch#7883 by using `rfft`. It's worth noting that this is BC breaking. And it's impossible to detect the change because the two signatures before and after this change supports a common subset of calling patterns, e.g., `stft(Tensor, int, int)`. (some other calling patterns will raise error). soumith and I plan to change the current `stft` interface because it is a bit messy and non-standard. rafaelvalle suggested us that `librosa` is a good reference API to align with. After discussing with soumith and ezyang , and given that `stft` is only out for 1 release, I decide to go with directly changing the signature. Also, my understanding is that most researchers in this field will welcome this change as `librosa` seems to be the golden-standard here. (it doesn't yet support all `pad_mode` but those will become available if added to `F.pad`.) Pull Request resolved: pytorch#9308 Reviewed By: ezyang Differential Revision: D8806148 Pulled By: SsnL fbshipit-source-id: f6e8777d0c34d4a4d7024e638dc9c63242e8bb58
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary:
Fixes #7883 by using
rfft.It's worth noting that this is BC breaking. And it's impossible to detect the change because the two signatures before and after this change supports a common subset of calling patterns, e.g.,
stft(Tensor, int, int). (some other calling patterns will raise error).soumith and I plan to change the current
stftinterface because it is a bit messy and non-standard. rafaelvalle suggested us thatlibrosais a good reference API to align with. After discussing with soumith and ezyang , and given thatstftis only out for 1 release, I decide to go with directly changing the signature. Also, my understanding is that most researchers in this field will welcome this change aslibrosaseems to be the golden-standard here. (it doesn't yet support allpad_modebut those will become available if added toF.pad.)Pull Request resolved: #9308
Differential Revision: D8806148