commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
Subject Re: [math] [GUMP@vmgump]: Project commons-math (in module apache-commons) failed
Date Tue, 17 May 2011 08:22:15 GMT

----- "Phil Steitz" <> a écrit :

> On 5/16/11 3:47 PM, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
> > On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 02:39:01PM -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
> >> On 5/16/11 3:44 AM, Dr. Dietmar Wolz wrote:
> >>> Nikolaus Hansen, Luc and me discussed this issue in Toulouse.
> > Reading that, I've been assuming that...
> >
> >>> We have two options to handle this kind of failure in tests of
> stochastic
> >>> optimization algorithms:
> >>> 1) fixed random seed - but this reduces  the value of the test 
> >>> 2) Using the RetryRunner - preferred solution
> >>>
> >>> @Retry(3) should be sufficient for all tests.
> >>>
> >> The problem with that is that it is really equivalent to just
> >> reducing the sensitivity of the test to sensitivity^3 (if, e.g,
> the
> >> test will pick up anomalies with stochastic probability of less
> than
> >> alpha as is, making it retry three times really just reduces that
> >> sensitivity to alpha^3).  I think the right answer here is to find
> >> out why the test is failing with higher than, say .001 probability
> >> and fix the underlying problem.  If the test itself is too
> >> sensitive, then we should fix that.  Then switch to a fixed seed
> for
> >> the released code, reverting to random seeding when the code is
> >> under development.
> > ... they had settled on the best approach for the class at hand.
> Whatever rationale was discussed should be summarized here, on the
> public list.

We did not looked at the code itself when we met, but rather spoke about stochastic
tests at large. Nikolaus said using an optimization algorithm as a black box is
clearly not a good thing, Dietmar said stochastics tests are useful and may fail
sometimes, and I said unit tests in a continuous integration process are needed
and should not fail randomly. All these statements are true I think, they only differ
as they look at the problem from a different point of view. It was basically the
same thing we already said on the list some months ago about the statistics
tests, when we finally choose to set up a retry procedure (was it for Chi square or
for Pascal distribution ?).

There is unfortunately no perfect answer. We talked about both the fixed seed approach
and the retry procedure, and Dietmar did not like the fixed seed, so we chose the other

>From old memories, I think Ted proposed something different about generating random
numbers that was used in Mahout. Ted, could you explain us again what you proposed ?

> > [I.e. we had raised the possibility that there could a bug in the
> code that
> > triggered test failures, but IIUC they now concluded that the code
> is fine
> > and that failures are expected to happen sometimes.]
> I would like to understand better why that is the case.  If failures
> happen sometimes in test, does that means that bad results are
> expected to be returned sometimes?  If so, have we documented that?
> > It still seems strange that it is always the same 2 tests that
> fail.
> > Is there an explanation to this behaviour, that we might add as a
> comment
> > in the test code?
> I agree here, and possibly in the javadoc for the application code. 
> If the code is prone to generating spurious results sometimes, we
> need to make that clear in the javadoc.

It really depends on the function you optimize, with or without local
minima. Perhaps this test case is for a known difficult problem, I didn't
look at this.


> Phil
> >
> > Gilles
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > For additional commands, e-mail:
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message