Experiment Tracking and Versioning during Model Training
Experiment Tracking and Versioning during Model Training
Experiment Tracking
Following is just a short list of things you might want to consider tracking for each experiment during its training process:
• The loss curve corresponding to the train split and each of the eval splits.
• The model performance metrics that you care about on all nontest splits, such as accuracy, F1, perplexity.
• The log of corresponding sample, prediction, and ground truth label. This comes in handy for ad hoc analytics and sanity check
• The speed of your model, evaluated by the number of steps per second or, if your data is text, the number of tokens processed per second.
• System performance metrics such as memory usage and CPU/GPU utilization. They’re important to identify bottlenecks and avoid wasting system resources.
• The values over time of any parameter and hyperparameter whose changes can
affect your model’s performance, such as the learning rate if you use a learning
rate schedule; gradient norms (both globally and per layer), especially if you’re
clipping your gradient norms; and weight norm, especially if you’re doing weight
decay
Popular & Widely Used Experiment Tracking Tools
These are mature, well-supported, and widely adopted.
1. MLflow
-
Why it's good: Open source, flexible, integrates with most ML/DL frameworks, good for experiment tracking, model registry, and reproducibility.
-
Best for: Teams that want open-source control and modularity.
-
Drawbacks: UI is basic; could require setup overhead.
2. Weights & Biases (W&B)
-
Why it's good: Rich UI, real-time logging, collaborative dashboard, integrates with most ML/DL tools.
-
Best for: Teams that want ease of use, visualization, and collaboration.
-
Free tier: Generous, but enterprise features are paid.
-
Drawbacks: Hosted by default (can be self-hosted, but takes work).
3. Comet
-
Why it's good: Similar to W&B, also with strong visualization tools and model registry.
-
Best for: Those needing flexible logging and visual comparison of experiments.
-
Bonus: Some users prefer Comet’s UI and offline mode to W&B.
🧪 More Specialized / Newer Tools
4. Neptune.ai
-
Why it's good: Strong metadata management, easy versioning, nice dashboard.
-
Best for: Research teams or production teams needing clear recordkeeping.
-
Drawbacks: Smaller community compared to W&B or MLflow.
5. Guild AI
-
Why it's good: CLI-first, lightweight, good for scripting-heavy or hardcore DevOps-style ML workflows.
-
Best for: DevOps-savvy ML engineers who want tight control.
-
Drawbacks: Minimal GUI, less "out-of-the-box" than others.
6. DVC (Data Version Control) + CML (Continuous ML)
-
Why it's good: Git-like experience for versioning data, models, and experiments.
-
Best for: MLOps teams already using Git extensively.
-
Drawbacks: More setup and integration needed; less interactive than W&B/Comet.
7. ClearML
-
Why it's good: All-in-one suite for experiment tracking, orchestration, and model deployment.
-
Free tier: Very generous, and can self-host.
-
Drawbacks: Slightly steeper learning curve.
🏢 Enterprise / Cloud-Integrated Tools
8. SageMaker Experiments
-
Why it's good: Native to AWS, good for those using SageMaker Studio.
-
Best for: Teams all-in on AWS.
-
Drawbacks: Less useful outside of AWS stack.
9. Vertex AI (Google Cloud)
-
Why it's good: Fully integrated into Google Cloud with experiment tracking and managed services.
-
Best for: GCP-based workflows.
-
Drawbacks: Limited outside GCP, costs can add up.
10. Azure ML
-
Why it's good: Integrated experiment tracking and pipelines, good for enterprise teams.
-
Best for: Microsoft ecosystem users.
🧩 Summary Table
Tool | Open Source | UI Quality | Cloud Integration | Best For |
---|---|---|---|---|
MLflow | ✅ | ⭐⭐ | ✅ (via plugins) | Modular setups, OSS fans |
Weights & Biases | ❌ (Free tier) | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ✅ | Research & collab-heavy teams |
Comet | ❌ (Free tier) | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ✅ | Deep experiment analysis |
Neptune.ai | ❌ (Free tier) | ⭐⭐⭐ | ✅ | Metadata-heavy workflows |
ClearML | ✅ | ⭐⭐⭐ | ✅ | Full MLOps stack |
DVC + CML | ✅ | ⭐⭐ | ✅ (via GitHub CI/CD) | Versioning-heavy workflows |
SageMaker Exp. | ❌ | ⭐⭐⭐ | AWS-native | AWS-only users |
Vertex AI | ❌ | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | GCP-native | GCP-based teams |
----------------
Versioning
ML systems are part code, part data, so you need to not only version your code but your data as well.
1. DVC (Data Version Control)
-
What it does: Git-style versioning for datasets and models. Tracks data files and connects them to code commits.
-
Why it’s good: CLI-based, integrates with Git, supports remote storage (S3, GCS, etc.).
-
Bonus: Can be used alongside CML for CI/CD workflows.
-
Best for: ML engineers and teams already using Git.
2. LakeFS
-
What it does: Git-like version control for object storage (e.g., S3), enabling branching and commit-like workflows.
-
Why it’s good: Allows atomic operations and reproducibility at scale.
-
Best for: Teams with large data lakes needing safe experimentation.
-
Bonus: Works well in production pipelines, not just experimentation.
3. Pachyderm
-
What it does: Data pipelines with versioned data at each stage.
-
Why it’s good: Combines data versioning and pipeline orchestration.
-
Best for: Teams needing data provenance across pipelines.
-
Drawbacks: Heavier to set up; often used in enterprise.
4. Delta Lake (by Databricks)
-
What it does: ACID-compliant storage layer on top of data lakes (like S3 or Azure Blob).
-
Why it’s good: Tracks versions of data, supports time travel.
-
Best for: Spark/Databricks ecosystems.
-
Bonus: Excellent for big data workflows and analytics too.
5. Quilt
-
What it does: Versioning for data stored in S3 with a visual data catalog.
-
Why it’s good: Data packages, preview in UI, metadata tagging.
-
Best for: Teams wanting a searchable catalog + version control.
6. Weight & Biases Artifacts
-
What it does: Tracks data, models, and files as “artifacts” alongside experiments.
-
Why it’s good: Easy integration with their experiment tracking platform.
-
Best for: Teams already using W&B.
-
Drawbacks: Tied to the W&B ecosystem.
7. Dagshub
-
What it does: Git-based platform for ML collaboration that integrates DVC and Git LFS.
-
Why it’s good: GitHub-like interface for ML projects.
-
Best for: Smaller teams wanting a visual + code-based experience.
-
Bonus: Hosted solution; great for open-source ML projects.
🧩 Quick Comparison
Tool | Git-Integrated | UI Available | Storage Backend | Best For |
---|---|---|---|---|
DVC | ✅ | Basic (CLI/UI plugin) | Local, S3, GCS, Azure | General-purpose ML pipelines |
LakeFS | ✅ | ✅ | Object storage | Data lake versioning |
Pachyderm | ✅ | ✅ | Object storage | Versioned data pipelines |
Delta Lake | ❌ (SQL-based) | ❌ | Data lakes | Big data + Spark users |
Quilt | ❌ | ✅ | S3 | Data catalog + lightweight versioning |
W&B Artifacts | ❌ | ✅ | Cloud | Integrated with W&B tracking |
Dagshub | ✅ | ✅ | S3, Git LFS | Collaborative ML teams |
If you're already using something like Git + MLflow, pairing it with DVC or LakeFS often makes sense. For larger orgs with big data infra, Delta Lake or Pachyderm might fit better.
Comments
Post a Comment