|Re: [eigen] non-linear optimization test summary|
[ Thread Index |
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives
- To: eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [eigen] non-linear optimization test summary
- From: Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 06:42:29 -0400
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=Pg2yYZWmGx8ihPOz/sQZI466RQnScBZMkJwsFwdgqig=; b=KuG1SaG4KfiHyFungqOYlqyOepiaFvD2hdKNNJh9NfytZE27G/KV3uQmYkFY/Ws7oM VbHukziSEXefrdws0BKZpqgTDb5n0dSeAu4XygOVvN8XeWeqi5jleyPOhgJakBhh27xt oNZEXvHj/9rUhWv8XRTWHrWVvCwr6jIPlCn+4=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=lWUhspRijpsmbJi4b34WsrxYE1h9hrjfIGzw3i9AMocGEWzrjjltGGXWYssrkGYOlz g1do/Bcp+IUCA+NHwOXjE+s7gyDp7ZpR32QJLpuzjfP40nc6x9B5fTCDqVMhhWqWmiBA ou7/28B+XDQla7sqT1UnlNbCqOk4xjdVTy8HI=
We have discussed this a lot with Thomas already, we're a bit clueless
about them. These failures started to appear with a seemingly
unrelated changeset. If it were just 602->606, I'd say add fuzziness.
But these numbers of iterations can vary a lot more, sometimes much
larger, sometimes much smaller. In this test I have had a 98 (while
602 was expected) and the worst is that this was not reproducible on
Thomas machine. Since these numbers of iterations are so erratic, my
guess was that the termination criteria used by this iterative
algorithm was wrong; but a quick look at the code hasn't revealed
2010/6/11 Hauke Heibel <hauke.heibel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> I am just posting this as a summary and to get some idea in which
> tests I really start looking into and where we simply adapt the
> We have the following tests failing (on all systems):
> - number of function evaluations(line 1341, 603-606 where 602 is expected)
> My guess is that here something fuzzy with an upper limit of function
> evaluations might be more appropriate.
> - squared norm (line 1019, 1.42986e-25, 1.42932e-25, 1.42897e-25,
> 1.42977e-25 where 1.4309e-25 expected)
> Probably again, we need to be more fuzzy.
> - info return result (2 where 3 expected)
> - number of function evaluations (on line 1180 we get 289 where 284 is expected)
> Maybe here we need to look more deeply into what is going wrong
> because the info value should probably be the same.
> - number of function evaluations (on line 1428 we get 498, 509 where
> 490 is expected and on line 1429 we get 378 where 378 is expected)
> Once again we need fuzzyness.
> I don't know whether I recall it well, but did not you (Thomas and
> Benoit) already have a discussion about that topic once on IRC?
> - Hauke