Discrepancies with other test suites

Aperta
  • Qualcosa non va?
#37 12 commenti 1 reazione 0 assegnatari Vedi su GitHub

I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 1 giorno

Nessuno ha ancora preso questa issue.

Valutazione

Difficoltà
4/5
Tempo stimato
3-5 giorni
Idoneità per principianti
35/100
Tipo di issue
Bug
Chiarezza
Da chiarire
Stato di attività
Tranquilla
Stack tecnologico
julia
Ambito
testing-qa

Direzione di ricerca

Non sono indicati file, test o punti di ingresso. Inizia esaminando le voci dei problemi non spuntate e confrontando le loro implementazioni con gli articoli, i modelli AMPL e i risultati CUTEst citati; completare significa risolvere ogni discrepanza e aggiornare la checklist con le evidenze.

Scritto dal modello di indicizzazione a partire dal testo della issue.

Descrizione

In #36 it was discovered that these implementations differ from CUTEst. In several cases that were checked by hand against the original paper, there were some errors in this package but also at least as many in CUTEst. Consequently one should be agnostic about how one interprets these. For the record (at the time of testing, Oct 12 2019, with 168 problems), here are the discrepancies:

  • broydn7d (AMPL model at https://github.com/mpf/Optimization-Test-Problems is wrong)
  • brybnd
  • fletchcr (TH: eyeball-check we agree with AMPL, couldn't access paper)
  • genrose (TH: differs from CUTEst only by a constant offset of 1.0)
  • hs46 (TH: eyeball-check we agree with AMPL)
  • hs47 (TH: eyeball-check we agree with AMPL)
  • hs55 (TH: eyeball-check we agree with AMPL)
  • hs70 (CUTEst gives NaN here)
  • hs83 (TH: eyeball-check we agree with AMPL)
  • hs93
  • hs100
  • hs104
  • hs105
  • hs113
  • hs114
  • morebv (we were buggy but the remaining discrepancy seems to be a CUTEst bug, see https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/6650344)
  • nondia (was buggy here too but was fixed in #36; remaining discrepancy is an error in CUTEst and https://github.com/mpf/Optimization-Test-Problems)
  • penalty3 (TH: eyeball-check ours looks OK vs http://www.cs.cas.cz/matonoha/download/V1081.pdf)
  • powellsg (ours was buggy)
  • sbrybnd (there are claims of a typo in Luskan that are fixed here, that agrees with their squaring of the unscaled problem brybnd)
  • scosine
  • sinquad (ours had an error in component 1, fixed, remaining discrepancy is eyeball-correct)

A check mark means that someone has looked at the original paper and decided that the implementation here is correct, or that any discrepancies have been resolved. (Just checking against AMPL does not mean the paper has been checked.)

Lingua principale
Julia
Stelle
90
Fork
48
Nessuna PR unita negli ultimi 30g

Preparare l'ambiente

Come iniziare

  1. Leggi tutta la issue e poi la guida ai contributi del progetto.
  2. Commenta sulla issue per dire che te ne occupi tu — evita che due persone facciano lo stesso lavoro.
  3. Fai un fork del repository e lavora su un branch.
  4. Apri una pull request che faccia riferimento al numero della issue.

Altre issue di JuliaSmoothOptimizers/OptimizationProblems.jl

Tutte le issue di JuliaSmoothOptimizers/OptimizationProblems.jl

Issue simili

Altre issue su Julia

Ricevi le nuove issue nella tua casella

Un breve riepilogo di issue GitHub adatte ai principianti.