[SciPy-Dev] improvements of optimize package
Charles R Harris
Fri Sep 16 22:18:27 CDT 2011
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Denis Laxalde <firstname.lastname@example.org>wrote:
> As discussed recently on the -user list , I've started thinking
> about possible improvements of the optimize package, in particular
> concerning the consistency of functions signature, parameters/returns
> names, etc. I've posted a proposal on the wiki of my gihub account .
> In brief, the proposal is two-fold:
> - First, concerning the standardization of functions signature, I
> would propose in particular to gather solver settings in a
> dictionary (named `options`) and to generalized the use of the
> `infodict`, `ier`, `mesg` outputs which respectively correspond
> solver statistics, exit flag and information message. I've tried
> also to choose simple yet informative variables names.
> - Then, as discussed in the aforementioned thread, the implementation
> of unified interfaces (or wrappers) to several algorithms with
> similar purpose is proposed. There definition is basically taken
> from the classification of the optimize package documentation .
> I've also try to list the impact of the proposed changes on the
> existing functions as well. Also, having started working on the code, I
> would say that most of this is feasible. Yet, many choices are somehow
> arbitrary and are thus subject to discussions so: comments welcome!
> Denis Laxalde
> 1: http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/scipy-user/2011-September/030444.html
> 3: http://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/optimize.html
The 1-d root finders need stopping conditions in the parameter list.
Currently they have both absolute and relative step size, which are used
together. I think that both should be kept.
I think we could dispense with the brenth and ridder solvers as I don't
see that they solve any problem that the other solvers can't deal with. Does
anybody use them?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the SciPy-Dev