We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
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
DlibOptimizer currently has a hardcoded solver_epsilon (the magic 0.002):
DlibOptimizer
solver_epsilon
0.002
pyPESTO/pypesto/optimize/optimizer.py
Lines 672 to 678 in ead29b3
My current interpretation of that parameter (documentation is a bit sparse) is that it's the minimum absolute objective function improvement (https://github.com/davisking/dlib/blob/6d29e0c7d41dfdffb8c0a0f83995caae84df5083/dlib/global_optimization/global_function_search.cpp#L754). For that, this value is potentially rather high. I am not sure if we should override dlib's default at all (their default is 0), but at least it should be configurable by the user.
0
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Agreed, will make it something the user can change but with default of 0
Sorry, something went wrong.
PaulJonasJost
No branches or pull requests
DlibOptimizer
currently has a hardcodedsolver_epsilon
(the magic0.002
):pyPESTO/pypesto/optimize/optimizer.py
Lines 672 to 678 in ead29b3
My current interpretation of that parameter (documentation is a bit sparse) is that it's the minimum absolute objective function improvement (https://github.com/davisking/dlib/blob/6d29e0c7d41dfdffb8c0a0f83995caae84df5083/dlib/global_optimization/global_function_search.cpp#L754). For that, this value is potentially rather high. I am not sure if we should override dlib's default at all (their default is
0
), but at least it should be configurable by the user.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: