| [eigen] non-linear optimization test summary |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives
]
- To: Eigen <eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [eigen] non-linear optimization test summary
- From: Hauke Heibel <hauke.heibel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 12:01:18 +0200
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; bh=3nPmSiJsk6zCn6r3ag9LxlNAz0v42sOlw4UxnqSfq7Q=; b=pxl+353DwgMeyxoLRUkx29Y9DjwjtQ2lC3LUVuiZOoFDh6QYBP3zgF8IsYyDoiBStq EXNKhUN3gbgW8bsIc9LGNhS+ss+Gv3uR0ZhiE4GOrcjsgda8AQA+hdmdq9zWvp3C1ExI e1B+FQmdVjlKnWndMk/qCksBxDh/c/Z3pPO5s=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=tIsKGHR5EN1ep7bFvdifkj2/PKWnZnzIsddfjlFHsEmBpErGiumVg8R7pJApX4GOkh U3DQrC28J4NQpIDghbooZ7Fgq3ACsr9Ka0X/yhqNB7xI2F5vvNkO/UEIuUbGbepGuAMq jvjRhr4OF3ytj6TEzBLGTt2M3EGMWjSbigJ0g=
Hi,
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
thresholds.
We have the following tests failing (on all systems):
NonLinearOptimization_7
NonLinearOptimization_8
NonLinearOptimization_10
NonLinearOptimization_12
NonLinearOptimization_7:
- 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.
NonLinearOptimization_8:
- 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.
NonLinearOptimization_10:
- 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.
NonLinearOptimization_12:
- 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