Archive for the ‘programming’ Category

April 17th, 2019

It started with a tweet

While basking in some geek nostalgia on twitter, I discovered that my first ever microcomputer, the Sinclair Spectrum, once had a Fortran compiler

mira

However, that compiler was seemingly lost to history and was declared Missing in Action on World of Spectrum.

mira2

A few of us on Twitter enjoyed reading the 1987 review of this Fortran Compiler but since no one had ever uploaded an image of it to the internet, it seemed that we’d never get the chance to play with it ourselves.

I never thought it would come to this

One of the benefits of 5000+ followers on Twitter is that there’s usually someone who knows something interesting about whatever you happen to tweet about and in this instance, that somebody was my fellow Fellow of the Software Sustainability InstituteBarry Rowlingson.  Barry was fairly sure that he’d recently packed a copy of the Mira Fortran Compiler away in his loft and was blissfully unaware of the fact that he was sitting on a missing piece of microcomputing history!mira3

He was right! He did have it in the attic…and members of the community considered it valuable.

mira_box

As Barry mentioned in his tweet, converting a 40 year old cassette to an archivable .tzx format is a process that could result in permanent failure.  The attempt on side 1 of the cassette didn’t work but fortunately, side 2 is where the action was!

makeTzx

It turns out that everything worked perfectly.  On loading it into a Spectrum emulator, Barry could enter and compile Fortran on this platform for the first time in decades! Here is the source code for a program that computes prime numbers

prime_source

Here it is running

running_primes

and here we have Barry giving the sales pitch on the advanced functionality of this compiler :)

high_res

How to get the compiler

Barry has made the compiler, and scans of the documentation, available at https://gitlab.com/b-rowlingson/mirafortran

January 23rd, 2019

I have been an advocate of the Windows Subsytem for Linux ever since it was released (See Bash on Windows: The scripting game just changed) since it allows me to use the best of Linux from my windows laptop.  I no longer dual boot on my personal machines and rarely need to use Linux VMs on them either thanks to this technology.  I still use full-blown Linux a lot of course but these days it tends to be only on servers and HPC systems.

I recently needed to compile and play with some code that was based on the GNU Scientific Library. Using the Ubuntu 18.04 version of the WSL this is very easy. Install the GSL with

sudo apt-get install libgsl-dev

A simple code that evaluates Dawson’s integral over a range of x values is shown below. Call this dawson.cpp

#include<iostream>
#include<vector>
#include<gsl/gsl_sf.h>

int main(){

double range = 6; // max/min values
int N = 100000; // Number of evaluations
double step = 2 * range / N;
std::vector<double> x(N);
std::vector<double> result(N);

for (int i=0;i<=N;i++){
     x[i] = -range + i*step;
     result[i] = gsl_sf_dawson(x[i]);
}


for (int i=0;i<=N;i++){
	std::cout << x[i] << "," << result[i] << std::endl;
}

return 0;
}

Compile with

g++ -std=c++11 dawson.cpp -o ./dawson -lgsl -lgslcblas -lm

Run it and generate some results

./dawson > results.txt

If we plot results.txt we get

dawson

This code is also available on GitHub: https://github.com/mikecroucher/GSL_example

October 1st, 2018

A guest blog-post by Catherine Smith of University of Birmingham

In early 2017 I was in the audience at one of Mike Croucher’s ‘Is your research software correct?’ presentations. One of the first questions posed in the talk is ‘how reproducible is a mouse click?’. The answer, of course, is that it isn’t and therefore research processes should be automated and not involve anyone pressing any buttons. This posed something of a challenge to my own work which is primarily about making buttons for researchers to press (and select, drag and drop etc.) in order to present their data in the appropriate scholarly way. This software, for making electronic editions of texts preserved in multiple sources, assists with the alignment and editing of material. Even so, the editor is always in control and that is the way it should be. The lack of automation means reproducibility is a problem for my software but as Peter Shillingsburg, one of the pioneers of digital editing, says ‘editing is an art not a science’: maybe art can therefore be excused, to an extent, from the constraints of automation and, despite their introduction of human decisions, the buttons may be permitted to stay. Nevertheless I still want to know that my software doing what I think it is doing even if I can’t automate what editors choose to do with it. In the discussion that followed the paper I was talking about the complication of testing my interface-heavy software. Mike agreed that it was a complex situation but concluded by saying “if you go away from here and write one test you will have made the world a better place”.

I did just that. In fact I did very little else for the next three months. What started with one Python unit test has so far led to 65 Python unit tests, 82 Javascript unit tests and 54 functional tests using Selenium. The timing of all of this was perfect in that I had just begun a project to migrate all of our web applications to Django. I had one application partially migrated and so I tested that one and even did some test-driven development on the sections that were not yet complete.

The tests themselves are great to have. This was my first project using Django and I made lots of mistakes in the first application. The tests have been invaluable in ensuring that, as I learned more and made improvements, the older code kept pace with those changes. Now that I have tests for some things I want tests for everything and I have developed a healthy fear of editing code that is not yet tested. There are other advantages as well. When I sat down to write my first test it very quickly became clear that the code I had written was not easily testable. I had to break down the large Django views into smaller chunks of code that could each be unit tested. I now write better structured code because of that time I invested in testing just some of it. I also learned a lot about how to approach migrating all of the remaining applications while writing the detailed tests for every aspect of the first one.T

Django has an integrated test framework based on the python unittest module but with the additional benefit of automatically creating a test database using the models from the project to which test data can be added. It was very straightforward to set up and run (see the Django docs https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/2.1/topics/testing/). I found Javascript unit testing less straight forward. There was not much Javascript in this first application so I used the qunit test framework and sinon.js for mocking. I have never automated the running of these tests and instead just open them in the browser. It’s not ideal but it works for now. I have other applications which are far more Javascript heavy and for those I will need to have automated tests, there are plenty of frameworks around to choose from so I will investigate those when I start writing the tests.

Probably the most important tests I have are the functional tests which are written in Selenium. I had already heard of Selenium, having attended a Test Driven Development workshop several years ago by Harry Percival. I used his book, Test-Driven Development with Python, as a tutorial for all of the Selenium tests and some of the Django and Javascript tests too. Selenium tests are automated browser tests which really do allow you to test what happens when a user presses a button, types text into a text box, selects an item from a list, moves an element by dragging it etc.. The result of every interaction in an interface can be tested with Selenium. The content of each page can also be checked. It is generally not necessary to test static html but I did test the contents of several dynamic pages which loaded different content depending on the permissions granted to a user. Selenium is also integrated within Django using the LiveServerTestCase which means it has access to a copy of the database just like the Django unit tests. Selenium tests can be complex and there are several things to watch out for. Selenium doesn’t automatically wait for a page to load before executing the test statements against it, at every point data is loaded Selenium must be told to wait until a given condition is fulfilled up to a maximum time limit before continuing. I still have tests which occasionally fail because, on that particular run, a page or an ajax call is taking longer to load than I have allowed for. Run it another five times and it may well pass on every one. It is also important to make sure the browser is told to scroll to a point where an element can be seen before the instruction to interact with that element is given. It’s not difficult to do and is more predictable that waiting for a page to load but it still has to be remembered every time.

The functional tests are by far the most complex of all the tests I wrote in my three month testing marathon but they are the most important. I can’t automate the entire creation of a digital edition but with tests I can make sure my interface is presenting the correct data in the right way to the editors and that when they interact with that data everything behaves as it should. I really can say that the buttons and other interactive elements I have tested do exactly what I think they do. Now I just need to test all the rest of the buttons – one test at a time!

April 12th, 2018

Update
A discussion on twitter determined that this was an issue with Locales. The practical upshot is that we can make R act the same way as the others by doing

Sys.setlocale("LC_COLLATE", "C")

which may or may not be what you should do!

Original post

While working on a project that involves using multiple languages, I noticed some tests failing in one language and not the other. Further investigation revealed that this was essentially because R's default sort order for strings is different from everyone else's.

I have no idea how to say to R 'Use the sort order that everyone else is using'. Suggestions welcomed.

R 3.3.2

sort(c("#b","-b","-a","#a","a","b"))

[1] "-a" "-b" "#a" "#b" "a" "b"

Python 3.6

sorted({"#b","-b","-a","#a","a","b"})

['#a', '#b', '-a', '-b', 'a', 'b']


MATLAB 2018a

sort([{'#b'},{'-b'},{'-a'},{'#a'},{'a'},{'b'}])

ans =
1×6 cell array
{'#a'} {'#b'} {'-a'} {'-b'} {'a'} {'b'}

C++

int main(){ 

std::string mystrs[] = {"#b","-b","-a","#a","a","b"}; 
std::vector<std::string> stringarray(mystrs,mystrs+6);
std::vector<std::string>::iterator it; 

std::sort(stringarray.begin(),stringarray.end());

for(it=stringarray.begin(); it!=stringarray.end();++it) {
   std::cout << *it << " "; 
} 

return 0;
} 

Result:

#a #b -a -b a b
May 23rd, 2017

I’m working on optimising some R code written by a researcher at University of Sheffield and its very much a war of attrition! There’s no easily optimisable hotspot and there’s no obvious way to leverage parallelism. Progress is being made by steadily identifying places here and there where we can do a little better. 10% here and 20% there can eventually add up to something worth shouting about.

One such micro-optimisation we discovered involved multiplying two matrices together where one of them needed to be transposed. Here’s a minimal example.

#Set random seed for reproducibility
set.seed(3)

# Generate two random n by n matrices
n = 10
a = matrix(runif(n*n,0,1),n,n)
b = matrix(runif(n*n,0,1),n,n)

# Multiply the matrix a by the transpose of b
c = a %*% t(b)

When the speed of linear algebra computations are an issue in R, it makes sense to use a version that is linked to a fast implementation of BLAS and LAPACK and we are already doing that on our HPC system.

Here, I am using version 3.3.3 of Microsoft R Open which links to Intel’s MKL (an implementation of BLAS and LAPACK) on a Windows laptop.

In R, there is another way to do the computation c = a %*% t(b)  — we can make use of the tcrossprod function (There is also a crossprod function for when you want to do t(a) %*% b)

 c_new = tcrossprod(a,b)

Let’s check for equality

c_new == c
[,1] [,2] [,3] [,4] [,5] [,6] [,7] [,8] [,9] [,10]
[1,] TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
[2,] TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
[3,] TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
[4,] TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
[5,] TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
[6,] TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
[7,] TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
[8,] TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
[9,] TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
[10,] TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE

Sometimes, when comparing the two methods you may find that some of those entries are FALSE which may worry you!
If that happens, computing the difference between the two results should convince you that all is OK and that the differences are just because of numerical noise. This happens sometimes when dealing with floating point arithmetic (For example, see http://www.walkingrandomly.com/?p=5380).

Let’s time the two methods using the microbenchmark package.

install.packages('microbenchmark')
library(microbenchmark)

We time just the matrix multiplication part of the code above:

microbenchmark(
original = a %*% t(b),
tcrossprod = tcrossprod(a,b)
)


Unit: nanoseconds
expr min lq mean median uq max neval
original 2918 3283 3491.312 3283 3647 18599 1000
tcrossprod 365 730 756.278 730 730 10576 1000

We are only saving microseconds here but that’s more than a factor of 4 speed-up in this small matrix case. If that computation is being performed a lot in a tight loop (and for our real application, it was), it can add up to quite a difference.

As the matrices get bigger, the speed-benefit in percentage terms gets lower but tcrossprod always seems to be the faster method. For example, here are the results for 1000 x 1000 matrices

#Set random seed for reproducibility
set.seed(3)

# Generate two random n by n matrices
n = 1000
a = matrix(runif(n*n,0,1),n,n)
b = matrix(runif(n*n,0,1),n,n)

microbenchmark(
original = a %*% t(b),
tcrossprod = tcrossprod(a,b)
)

Unit: milliseconds
expr min lq mean median uq max neval
original 18.93015 26.65027 31.55521 29.17599 31.90593 71.95318 100
tcrossprod 13.27372 18.76386 24.12531 21.68015 23.71739 61.65373 100

The cost of not using an optimised version of BLAS and LAPACK

While writing this blog post, I accidentally used the CRAN version of R.  The recently released version 3.4. Unlike Microsoft R Open, this is not linked to the Intel MKL and so matrix multiplication is rather slower.

For our original 10 x 10 matrix example we have:

library(microbenchmark)
#Set random seed for reproducibility
set.seed(3)

# Generate two random n by n matrices
n = 10
a = matrix(runif(n*n,0,1),n,n)
b = matrix(runif(n*n,0,1),n,n)

microbenchmark(
original = a %*% t(b),
tcrossprod = tcrossprod(a,b)
)

Unit: microseconds
       expr   min    lq    mean median     uq    max neval
   original 3.647 3.648 4.22727  4.012 4.1945 22.611   100
 tcrossprod 1.094 1.459 1.52494  1.459 1.4600  3.282   100

Everything is a little slower as you might expect and the conclusion of this article — tcrossprod(a,b) is faster than a %*% t(b) — seems to still be valid.

However, when we move to 1000 x 1000 matrices, this changes

library(microbenchmark)
#Set random seed for reproducibility
set.seed(3)

# Generate two random n by n matrices
n = 1000
a = matrix(runif(n*n,0,1),n,n)
b = matrix(runif(n*n,0,1),n,n)

microbenchmark(
original = a %*% t(b),
tcrossprod = tcrossprod(a,b)
)

Unit: milliseconds
       expr      min       lq     mean   median       uq       max neval
   original 546.6008 587.1680 634.7154 602.6745 658.2387  957.5995   100
 tcrossprod 560.4784 614.9787 658.3069 634.7664 685.8005 1013.2289   100

As expected, both results are much slower than when using the Intel MKL-lined version of R (~600 milliseconds vs ~31 milliseconds) — nothing new there.  More disappointingly, however, is that now tcrossprod is slightly slower than explicitly taking the transpose.

As such, this particular micro-optimisation might not be as effective as we might like for all versions of R.

May 15th, 2017

For a while now, Microsoft have provided a free Jupyter Notebook service on Microsoft Azure. At the moment they provide compute kernels for Python, R and F# providing up to 4Gb of memory per session. Anyone with a Microsoft account can upload their own notebooks, share notebooks with others and start computing or doing data science for free.

They University of Cambridge uses them for teaching, and they’ve also been used by the LIGO people  (gravitational waves) for dissemination purposes.

This got me wondering. How much power does Microsoft provide for free within these notebooks?  Computing is pretty cheap these days what with the Raspberry Pi and so on but what do you get for nothing? The memory limit is 4GB but how about the computational power?

To find out, I created a simple benchmark notebook that finds out how quickly a computer multiplies matrices together of various sizes.

Matrix-Matrix multiplication is often used as a benchmark because it’s a common operation in many scientific domains and it has been optimised to within an inch of it’s life.  I have lost count of the number of times where my contribution to a researcher’s computational workflow has amounted to little more than ‘don’t multiply matrices together like that, do it like this…it’s much faster’

So how do Azure notebooks perform when doing this important operation? It turns out that they max out at 263 Gigaflops! azure_free_notebook

For context, here are some other results:

As you can see, we are getting quite a lot of compute power for nothing from Azure Notebooks. Of course, one of the limiting factors of the free notebook service is that we are limited to 4GB of RAM but that was more than I had on my own laptops until 2011 and I got along just fine.

Another fun fact is that according to https://www.top500.org/statistics/perfdevel/, 263 Gigaflops would have made it the fastest computer in the world until 1994. It would have stayed in the top 500 supercomputers of the world until June 2003 [1].

Not bad for free!

[1] The top 500 list is compiled using a different benchmark called LINPACK  so a direct comparison isn’t strictly valid…I’m using a little poetic license here.

March 29th, 2017

UK to launch 6 major HPC centres

Tomorrow, I’ll be attending the launch event for the UK’s new HPC centres and have been asked to deliver a short talk as part of the program. As someone who paddles in the shallow-end of the HPC pool I find this both flattering and more than a little terrifying. What can little-ole-me say to the national HPC glitterati that might be useful?

This blog post is an attempt at gathering my thoughts together for that talk.

The technology gap in research computing

Broadly speaking, my role in academia is to hang out with researchers, compute providers (cloud and HPC) and software vendors in an attempt to be vaguely useful in the area of research software. I’m a Research Software Engineer with a focus on Long Tail Science: The large number of very small research groups who do a huge amount of modern research.

Time and again, what I see can be summarized in this quote by Greg Wilsongwilson

This is very true in the world of High Performance Computing.

Geek Top Gear

I love technology and I love HPC in particular. I love to geek out on Flops, Ghz, SIMD instructions, GPUs, FPGAs…..all that stuff. I help support The University of Sheffield’s local HPC service and worked in Research IT at The University of Manchester for around a decade before moving to Sheffield.

I’ve given and seen many a HPC-related talk in my time and have certainly been guilty of delivering what I now refer to as the ‘Geek Top Gear’ speech.  For maximum effect, you need to do it in a Jeremy Clarkson voice and, if you’re feeling really macho, kiss your bicep at the point where you tell the audience how many Petaflops your system can do in Linpack.

*Begin Jeremy Clarkson Impression*

Our new HPC system has got 100,000 of the latest Intel Kaby Lake cores...which is a lot!

Usually running at 2.6Ghz, these cores can turbo-boost to 3.2Ghz for those moments when we need that extra boost of power. Obviously, being Kaby Lake, these cores have all the instruction extensions you’d expect with AVX2, FMA, SSE, ABM and many many other TLAs for all your SIMD needs. Of course every HPC system needs accelerators…..and we have the best of them: Xeon Phis with 68 cores each and NVIDIA GPUs with thousands of tiny little cores will handle every massively parallel job you can throw at them….Easily. We connect these many many cores together with high-speed interconnect fashioned from threads of pure unicorn hair and cool the whole thing with the tears of virigin nerds.

YEEEEEES! Our new HPC system is the best one since the last one and, achieving over a Gajillion Petaflops in the Linpack test (kiss bicep), it will change your life forever.

more_power

Any questions?

Audience member 1: What’s a core?
Audience member 2: Why does it run my R script slower than my laptop?
Audience member 3: Do you have Excel installed on it?

There is a huge gap between what many HPC providers like to focus on and what the typical long-tail researcher wants or needs. I propose that the best bridge for this gap is the Research Software Engineer (RSE).

Research Software Engineer as Alpine guide

In my fellowship proposal, I compared the role of a Research Software Engineer to that of an alpine guide:

Technological development in software is more like a cliff-face than a ladder – there are many routes to the top, to a solution. Further, the cliff face is dynamic – constantly and quickly changing as new technologies emerge and decline. Determining which technologies to deploy and how best to deploy them is in itself a specialist domain, with many features of traditional research.

Researchers need empowerment and training to give them confidence with the available equipment and the challenges they face. This role, akin to that of an Alpine guide, involves support, guidance, and load carrying. When optimally performed it results in a researcher who knows what challenges they can attack alone, and where they need appropriate support. Guides can help decide whether to exploit well-trodden paths or explore new possibilities as they navigate through this dynamic environment.

At Sheffield, we have built a pool of these Research Software Engineers to provide exactly this kind of support and it’s working extremely well so far. Not only are we helping individual research groups but we are also using our experiences in the field to help shape the University HPC environment in collaboration with the IT department.

Supercomputing: Irrelevant to many?

“Never bring an anecdote to a data-fight” so the saying goes and all I have from my own experiences are a bucket load of anecdotes, case studies and cursory log-mining experiments that indicate that even those who DO use HPC are not doing so effectively. Fortunately, others have stepped up to the plate and we have survey and interview data on how researchers are using compute resources.

How Do Scientists Develop and Use Scientific Software? is a report on a 2009 survey of 1972 researchers from around the world. They found that “79.9% of the scientists never use scientific software on a supercomputer

When I first learned of this number, I found it faintly depressing. This technology that I love so much and for which University IT departments dedicate special days to seems to be pretty much irrelevant to the majority of researchers. Could it be that even in an era of big data, machine learning and research software engineering that most people only need a laptop?

Only ever needing a laptop certainly doesn’t fit with what I’ve seen while working in the trenches. Almost every researcher I’ve met who does computational research wishes it was faster or that they had more memory to allow them to do larger problems. Speed is the easiest thing to sell to researchers in the world of RSE. They come for faster execution and leave with a side-order of version control, testing and documentation. A combination of software development and migration to even a small HPC system can easily result in 100x or even 1000x speed-ups for many researchers.

In my experience, it’s not that researchers don’t need HPC, it’s that the jump from their laptop-based workflow to one that makes good use of a HPC system is too large for them to bridge without a little help. Providing that help can result in some great partnerships such as the recent one between the Sheffield RSE group and the Sheffield Faculty of Arts and Humanities.

language

Want to know how that partnership started? I compiled an experimental R/Rcpp package that they were struggling with and then took them for coffee and said ‘That code took a while to run. Here’s how we can make it go faster….Now…what exactly are you doing because it looks cool?’ Fast forward a year or so and we are on the cusp of starting a great new project that will include traditional HPC and cloud computing as part of their R-based workflow.

My experiences seem to be reflected in the data. In  their 2011 article, A Survey of the Practice of Computational Science, Prabhu et al interviewed 114 randomly selected researchers from Princeton University. Princeton have a very strong, well supported HPC centre which provides both resources and the expertise to use them. Even at such a well equipped institution, the authors write that  ‘Despite enormous wait times, many scientists run their programs only on desktops’ although they did report much higher HPC usage compared to the Hanny et al survey.

Other salient quotes from the Prabhu interviews include

“only 18% of researchers who optimize code leveraged profiling tools to inform their optimization plans”

“only 7% of researchers leveraged any form of thread based shared memory CPU parallelism”

“Only 11% of researchers utilized loop based parallelism”

“Currently, many researchers fit their scientific models to only a subset of available parameters for faster program runs.”

“Across disciplines, an order of magnitude performance improvement was cited as a requirement for significant changes in research quality”

HPC: There’s plenty of room at the bottom

Potential users of HPC look different to those of 20 years ago. The popularity explosion of languages such as MATLAB, Python and R have democratized programming and the world is awash with inefficient research software. Most of the time, this lack of efficiency is not a problem (see ‘In defense of inefficient scientific code‘) but if a researcher needs to scale up what they are doing, it can become limiting. Researchers might wait for days for the results to come in and limit the scope of their investigations to fit the hardware they have access to — their laptop usually.

The paper of Prabu et al said that an order of magnitude (10x) speed up was cited by researchers as a requirement for significant changes in research quality. For an experienced Research Software Engineer with access to cloud or HPC facilities, a 10x speed-up is usually pretty easy to achieve for this new audience. 100x or even 1000x can be achieved fairly frequently if you employ multiple hardware and software techniques. Compared to squeezing out a few percent more performance from HPC-centric code such as LAPACK or CASTEP, it’s not even all that difficult. I recently sped up one researcher’s MATLAB code by a factor of 800x in a couple of days and I’m a fairly middling developer if I’m brutally honest.

The whole point of High Performance Computing is to accelerate science and right now there is more computational science around than there has ever been before. Furthermore, it’s easier than ever to accelerate! There’s plenty of room at the bottom.

Closing the computational gap with people, training and compute power

The UK’s 6 new HPC centers represent the cutting edge of hardware technology. They provide a crucial component of our national hardware infrastructure, will contribute to research in HPC itself and will doubtless be of huge benefit to computational science. Furthermore, all of the funded proposals include significant engagement with the national Research Software Engineering community – the vital bridge between many researchers and HPC.

Co-development of research software with effort from both RSEs and researchers can be an extremely powerful model. Combine this with further collaboration between RSEs and compute providers and we have an environment that I think is both very exciting and capable of helping to close the rich/poor compute divide.

As an RSE who works with both researchers and University-level HPC providers, I ask for 3 things to be considered by these new regional centres.

  • Enjoy your new compute-ferraris. I look forward to seeing how hard you can push them.
  • You will be learning new good practice in how to provide HPC services. Disseminate this to those of us running smaller services.
  • There’s plenty of room at the bottom! Help us to support the new wave of computational researchers.

Thanks to languages such as MATLAB, Python and R, general purpose programming has been fully democratized. I look forward to working with these new centres to help democratize high performance computing.

 

January 19th, 2017

There are lots of Widgets in ipywidgets. Here’s how to list them

from ipywidgets import *
widget.Widget.widget_types

At the time of writing, this gave me

{'Jupyter.Accordion': ipywidgets.widgets.widget_selectioncontainer.Accordion,
 'Jupyter.BoundedFloatText': ipywidgets.widgets.widget_float.BoundedFloatText,
 'Jupyter.BoundedIntText': ipywidgets.widgets.widget_int.BoundedIntText,
 'Jupyter.Box': ipywidgets.widgets.widget_box.Box,
 'Jupyter.Button': ipywidgets.widgets.widget_button.Button,
 'Jupyter.Checkbox': ipywidgets.widgets.widget_bool.Checkbox,
 'Jupyter.ColorPicker': ipywidgets.widgets.widget_color.ColorPicker,
 'Jupyter.Controller': ipywidgets.widgets.widget_controller.Controller,
 'Jupyter.ControllerAxis': ipywidgets.widgets.widget_controller.Axis,
 'Jupyter.ControllerButton': ipywidgets.widgets.widget_controller.Button,
 'Jupyter.Dropdown': ipywidgets.widgets.widget_selection.Dropdown,
 'Jupyter.FlexBox': ipywidgets.widgets.widget_box.FlexBox,
 'Jupyter.FloatProgress': ipywidgets.widgets.widget_float.FloatProgress,
 'Jupyter.FloatRangeSlider': ipywidgets.widgets.widget_float.FloatRangeSlider,
 'Jupyter.FloatSlider': ipywidgets.widgets.widget_float.FloatSlider,
 'Jupyter.FloatText': ipywidgets.widgets.widget_float.FloatText,
 'Jupyter.HTML': ipywidgets.widgets.widget_string.HTML,
 'Jupyter.Image': ipywidgets.widgets.widget_image.Image,
 'Jupyter.IntProgress': ipywidgets.widgets.widget_int.IntProgress,
 'Jupyter.IntRangeSlider': ipywidgets.widgets.widget_int.IntRangeSlider,
 'Jupyter.IntSlider': ipywidgets.widgets.widget_int.IntSlider,
 'Jupyter.IntText': ipywidgets.widgets.widget_int.IntText,
 'Jupyter.Label': ipywidgets.widgets.widget_string.Label,
 'Jupyter.PlaceProxy': ipywidgets.widgets.widget_box.PlaceProxy,
 'Jupyter.Play': ipywidgets.widgets.widget_int.Play,
 'Jupyter.Proxy': ipywidgets.widgets.widget_box.Proxy,
 'Jupyter.RadioButtons': ipywidgets.widgets.widget_selection.RadioButtons,
 'Jupyter.Select': ipywidgets.widgets.widget_selection.Select,
 'Jupyter.SelectMultiple': ipywidgets.widgets.widget_selection.SelectMultiple,
 'Jupyter.SelectionSlider': ipywidgets.widgets.widget_selection.SelectionSlider,
 'Jupyter.Tab': ipywidgets.widgets.widget_selectioncontainer.Tab,
 'Jupyter.Text': ipywidgets.widgets.widget_string.Text,
 'Jupyter.Textarea': ipywidgets.widgets.widget_string.Textarea,
 'Jupyter.ToggleButton': ipywidgets.widgets.widget_bool.ToggleButton,
 'Jupyter.ToggleButtons': ipywidgets.widgets.widget_selection.ToggleButtons,
 'Jupyter.Valid': ipywidgets.widgets.widget_bool.Valid,
 'jupyter.DirectionalLink': ipywidgets.widgets.widget_link.DirectionalLink,
 'jupyter.Link': ipywidgets.widgets.widget_link.Link}
January 12th, 2017

If you are a researcher and are currently writing scripts or developing code then I have a suggestion for you. If you haven’t done it already, get yourself a willing volunteer and send them your code/analysis/simulation/voodoo and ask them to run it on their machine to see what happens. Bonus points are awarded for choosing someone who uses a different operating system from you!

This simple act is one of the things I recommend in my talk Is Your Research Software Correct and it can often help improve both code and workflow.

It quickly exposes patterns that are not good practice. For example, scattered references to ‘/home/walkingrandomly/mydata.dat’ suddenly don’t seem like a great idea when your code buddy is running windows. The ‘minimal tweaking’ required to move your analysis from your machine to theirs starts to feel a lot less minimal as you get to the bottom of the second page of instructions.

Crashy McCrashFace

When I start working with someone new, the first thing I ask them to do is to provide access to their code and simple script called runme or similar that will build and run their code and spit out an answer that we agree is OK. Many projects stumble at this hurdle! Perhaps my compiler is different to theirs and objects to their abuse (or otherwise) of the standards or maybe they’ve forgotten to include vital dependencies or input data.

Email ping-pong ensues as we attempt to get the latest version…zip files with names like PhD_code_ver1b_ForMike_withdata_fixed.zip get thrown about while everyone wonders where Bob is because he totally got it working on Windows back in 2009.

git clone

‘Hey Mike, just clone the git repo and run the test suite. It should be fine because the latest continuous integration run didn’t throw up any issues. The benchmark code and data we’d like you to optimise is in the benchmarks folder along with the timings and results from our most recent tests. Ignore the papers folder, that just reproduces all of the results from our recent papers and links to Zenodo DOIs’

‘…………’

‘Are you OK Mike?’

‘I’m…..fine. Just have something in my eye’

 

August 24th, 2016

I sometimes give a talk called Is Your Research Software correct (github repo, slide deck) where I attempt to give a (hopefully) entertaining overview of some of the basic issues in modern research software practice and what can be done to make the world a little better.

One section of this talk is a look at some case studies where software errors caused problems in research. Ideally, I try to concentrate on simple errors that led to profound scientific screw-ups. I want the audience to think ‘Damn! *I* could have made that mistake in my code‘.

Curating this talk has turned me into an interested collector of such stories. This is not an exercise in naming and shaming (after all, the odds are that its only a matter of time before I, or one of my collaborators, makes it into the list — why set myself up for a beating?). Instead, it is an exercise in observing the problems that other people have had and using them to enhance our own working practices.

Thus begins a new recurring WalkingRandomly feature.

Excel corrupts genetics data

Today’s entry comes courtesy of a recent paper by Mark Ziemann, Yotam Eren and Assam El-OstaEmail – ‘Gene name errors are widespread in the scientific literature‘ where they demonstrate that the supplementary data files for hundreds of papers in genetics have been corrupted by Microsoft Excel which has helpfully turned gene symbols into dates and floating point numbers.

The paper gives advice to reviewers on how to spot this particular error and the authors have also published the code used for the analysis. I’ve not run it myself so can only attest to its existence, not it’s accuracy.

I’ve not dealt with genetic data directly myself so ask you — what would you have used instead of Excel? (my gut tells me R or Python but I have no details to offer).

Do you have a story to contribute?

If you are interested in contributing a story where a software glitch caused problems in research, please contact me to discuss details.

Update (31st August 2016)

One of the authors of the paper, Mark Ziemann, has written a follow up of the Excel work on his blog: http://genomespot.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/my-personal-thoughts-on-gene-name-errors.html