commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Sterijevski <>
Subject Re: [math] OpenGamma library
Date Fri, 14 Oct 2011 20:24:27 GMT
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Luc Maisonobe <>wrote:

> Le 14/10/2011 20:08, Greg Sterijevski a écrit :
>  I looked more closely at the package and it am impressed with the breadth
>> of
>> material covered. Moreover, this package will do to finance what Mahout is
>> doing to companies like SAS and SPSS. Having spent a good part of my
>> career
>> in finance, this package (and others) will put a lot of small 'analytics'
>> companies out of business (as well as people like me). There is excellent
>> coverage of pricing models (options and otherwise), fitting techniques (as
>> it pertains to term structures, volatility surfaces and so forth), but the
>> most impressive thing is that all of the functionality is presented in
>> framework. You can integrate what is called front office functionality
>> (trading, pricing, hedging) with middle and back office (risk and
>> clearing)
>> operations. Most closed source packages are not this good.
>> So, a bit amateurish on the 'optimization' front, but the big picture is
>> very strong. Comparable closed source packages like this would run upward
>> of
>> 1M USD.
>> -Greg
>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Phil Steitz<>
>>  wrote:
>>  On 10/14/11 7:47 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> I just saw this article, that might be of interest for some of the
>>>> [math] devs. They claim to have found an optimization that is 1.6
>>>> times faster than Commons Math :
>>> Thanks for sharing this.  We can certainly look at the specific case
>>> and evaluate pros and cons; but it looks like there may be some
>>> interesting areas for collaboration.  The license and CLA-type
>>> thingy look compatible and it looks like there are [math]
>>> dependencies and maybe some [math] source already used in there, so
>>> it would be great to get some collaboration going.
> Yes, this would be a very good thing. Our linear algabra is not fast, we
> already know that. I think we need to address several different needs like
> simple API, numerical accuracy, robustness and speed. We concentrated on
> robustness up to now, mainly because our SVD was really really bad on this
> point. Now that this part seems to be OK, I would very much like to see some
> speed improvements (and sparse matrices too, as we also suck at this).
> Our block matrices implementation seems to improve some operations
> computation time, but it has a very awkward design and is not backed by any
> theoretical studies so it is probably also amateurish with respect to cache.
> I designed and wrote it but would really be happy to get rid of it and have
> it replaced by something more efficient. I would also like to know how it
> behaves in the article bench.
> So a big +1 for collaboration if the author is ready for this.
> Luc
>>> Phil


I believe that the BlockMatrix approach you have taken is actually quite
good and might yield a bit more stable optimization improvement than simple
loop unrolling. Consider operations on non-overlapping blocks. You could
easily dispatch those in parallel. I agree that it is a bit painful to use,
but in solver (for example) it is very quick. I would not be quick to
dispatch it. Its taken me a couple of months to appreciate its subtle
elegance. There is many more tricks you can play with your approach. Also,
don't forget the timings they present are for one very specific
operation-one where the block approach is at a slight disadvantage.

One place where the Open Gamma approach is better is using single dimension
arrays, but that's not compatible with your block approach. If you recall, I
asked to add a SymmetricMatrix implementation storing the data in a single
dimension array with compressed row major storage. That proposal was not
well received. I suspect when the time comes to debate 'their' approach with
the commons approach the same issues will crop up.

On other aspects, the group will not like use of factories. They seem to be
everywhere in the code. Again, there is reticence in this community with
respect to non constructor construction.


  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message