Skip to content

Zb/illico fixes#4102

Open
zboldyga wants to merge 6 commits intoscverse:ig/illicofrom
zboldyga:zb/illico-fixes
Open

Zb/illico fixes#4102
zboldyga wants to merge 6 commits intoscverse:ig/illicofrom
zboldyga:zb/illico-fixes

Conversation

@zboldyga
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@zboldyga zboldyga commented May 5, 2026

  • Closes #
  • Tests included or not required because:

@zboldyga
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

zboldyga commented May 5, 2026

@ilan-gold this is a work in progress but opening a draft to keep you in the loop. This PR is scoped only to fixes to the current illico integration. The 3 commits here correspond with unique fixes

As for the groupby change, I want to double-check this and refine a bit more, but the prior version has dependencies on the illico internal api/decisions, and is slower than the proposed approach (~a few seconds runtime for some datasets I tested, could be more for bigger ones).

@ilan-gold
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Nice this looks like a great start (and a big cleanup over what I had!)

@zboldyga zboldyga marked this pull request as ready for review May 7, 2026 21:12
@zboldyga
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

zboldyga commented May 7, 2026

@ilan-gold OK I reviewed carefully and I feel this is sufficient / complete for the scope of this PR.

Kind of note to self here, but overall if/when illico is more tightly integrated the whole flow from X to final stats can involve fewer operations. I suspect the unstack step won't be needed (the _to_iter function will be removed later, and it's tests as well).

@ilan-gold
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@zboldyga This looks good overall. Just to understand, was this responsible for the performance difference?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants