Fix Initial condition on Lanczos #391
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #391 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 99.76% 99.76%
=======================================
Files 71 71
Lines 7221 7224 +3
=======================================
+ Hits 7204 7207 +3
Misses 17 17 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Co-authored-by: Vaibhav Kumar Dixit <vaibhavyashdixit@gmail.com>
1. make them not using a random matrix but a nice one we can even use the minimizer of 2. test that even if the gradient is _exactly_ zero Lanczos does no longer fail.
kellertuer
changed the title
kellertuer
added
the
Ready-for-Review
mateuszbaran
approved these changes
Jun 6, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
If you start Lacnzos directly in a mnimizer, the first closed form solution yields NaNs. This is now fixed by checking this in the first order condition (which also does not make sense when we are exactly at a minimiser).
This fixes #390.
🛣️ Roadmap