-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 43
Check if the new L-BFGS-B algorithm in scipy 1.15 is generally less precise or our test case was an exception #556
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Comments
To do find out if the new implementation is really different from the old one, use optimagic's benchmarking capabilities. The "More Wild" benchmark set would be a good choice. The only difference to the how-to-guide is that you need to combine the results from multiple invocations to
|
hi, i followed the steps and was able to generate the profile plots. |
Thanks @gauravmanmode for creating the plots. Ideally the two lines would have been exactly on top of each other, but at least none of them is strictly better than the other. Can you do a few more plots before we can be sure to close this:
You don't have to re-run the benchmark and can just create the plots from your previous results. |
Thank you very much for the new plots. I think we can close this issue then. There are differences between the two optimizers but they are tiny and it would not be justified to open an issue at scipy. |
In #555 we had to reduce the precision of a test case due to the new L-BFGS-B implementation in scipy 1.15; We should run a full benchmark or at least create a self-contained small example that shows the difference before we reach out to scipy maintainers. The test case here is not small enough because it uses optimagic constraints.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: