Dear All, Following the discussion regarding DE and simulating annealing, I have made a PR for proposing a new implementation for simulating annealing (that is a generalized one). https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/6197 (already kindly commented by Ralf and Andrew). The homemade (parallelized) benchmarks are showing very good results especially in terms of successful rate. Since, Andrew has fixed the benchmark code for python3. In order to consider this enhancement proposal, what do you guys recommend me to do. The idea is to benchmark it with the new fixed benchmark (using the PR branch for having this new optimizer). I presented a poster in EuroSciPy in Erlangen describing the performance of this approach and had a nice talk with Olivier Grisel about it. Any thoughts to move this forward? Thanks a lot in advance. Sylvain. -----Original Message----- From: SciPy-Dev [mailto:scipy-dev-bounces@scipy.org] On Behalf Of scipy-dev-request@scipy.org Sent: jeudi 8 septembre 2016 10:19 To: scipy-dev@scipy.org Subject: SciPy-Dev Digest, Vol 155, Issue 12 Send SciPy-Dev mailing list submissions to scipy-dev@scipy.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to scipy-dev-request@scipy.org You can reach the person managing the list at scipy-dev-owner@scipy.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of SciPy-Dev digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: misc.bytescale bug (Greg Dooper) 2. Re: cKDTree (Ralf Gommers) 3. Re: cKDTree (Ralf Gommers) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2016 23:37:46 -0600 From: Greg Dooper <greg.dooper@gmail.com> To: SciPy Developers List <scipy-dev@scipy.org> Subject: Re: [SciPy-Dev] misc.bytescale bug Message-ID: <CAKYMPC8XqK1kACAj9fPDNEmMhypVj4aMGcpLyRau7uLK1YVsqQ@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" I have a pull request up for this bug ( https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/6554). I should probably squash some of the commits together, but I'd rather wait on feedback first. -Greg On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 11:10 PM, Warren Weckesser < warren.weckesser@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 12:56 AM, Greg Dooper <greg.dooper@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello, It seems like there is a bug in misc.bytescale. Or I am not understanding what the intended behavior should be. What I think is a bug shows up when you try to bytescale an array with both cmin/cmax parameters and low/high parameters.
I think it's a pretty simple fix that I would like to tackle.
What is the next step for me? Creating an issue on github with some example code and data?
Yes, that would be great. Be sure to include an example that demonstrates the problem.
Warren
Thanks for the input.
-Greg Dooper
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/scipy-dev/attachments/20160907/2a3ad533/att...> ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2016 20:11:51 +1200 From: Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> To: SciPy Developers List <scipy-dev@scipy.org> Subject: Re: [SciPy-Dev] cKDTree Message-ID: <CABL7CQi1ZZh4JKxTHb+4ztRa-t71eYhwCT0ZmqFE9kXXbhWuQQ@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Pauli Virtanen <pav@iki.fi> wrote:
Tue, 06 Sep 2016 20:23:05 +0200, Sylvain Corlay kirjoitti: [clip]
This sort of raises the question of the scope of scipy. Should scipy go through the same sort of "big split" as Jupyter or more ? la d3js? Is amount of specialized knowledge required to understand a methods part of what defines the line of division in what should be or not be in scipy?
To write a bit more on this, although I think it's difficult to give hard rules on what "generally useful and generally agreed to work" means, I would perhaps weigh the following against each other:
- Is the method used/useful in different domains in practice? How much domain-specific background knowledge is needed to use it properly?
- Consider the stuff already in the module. Is what you are adding an omission? Does it solve a problem that you'd expect the module be able to solve? Does it supplement an existing feature in a significant way?
- Consider the equivalence class of similar methods / features usually expected. Among them, what would in principle be the minimal set so that there's not a glaring omission in the offered features remaining? How much stuff would that be? Does including a representative one of them cover most use cases? Would it in principle sound reasonable to include everything from the minimal set in the module?
- Is what you are adding something that is well understood in the literature? If not, how sure are you that it will turn out well? Does the method perform well compared to other similar ones?
- Note that the twice-a-year release cycle and backward-compat policy makes correcting things later on more difficult.
The scopes of the submodules also vary, so it's probably best to consider each as if a separate project --- "numerical evaluation of special functions" is relatively well-defined, but "commonly needed optimization algorithms" less so.
On a meta-level, it's probably also bad to be too restrictive on the scope, as telling people to go away can result to just that.
Thanks Pauli, this and your other mail are the best summary yet of how to judge suitability for inclusion. I propose to stick this almost verbatim in the developer docs. Ralf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/scipy-dev/attachments/20160908/7d53013f/att...> ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2016 20:18:56 +1200 From: Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> To: SciPy Developers List <scipy-dev@scipy.org> Subject: Re: [SciPy-Dev] cKDTree Message-ID: <CABL7CQhhT6VYaWSq4r1fKtMq3TMBksSnN4PM+Xotejycja+qDQ@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 6:23 AM, Sylvain Corlay <sylvain.corlay@gmail.com> wrote:
I understand (especially about the scikits), although I was surprised by some recently added features in scipy, such as differential evolution
DE is more of a "recipe" which has been studied empirically for which there is no theoretical convergence rate. Even though it may "work well" for certain problems, it causes some issues such as defining on which basis it should even be "improved", and what should be the foundation for a change. (Recently a result on convergence in probability (with no error rate) on a bounded domain has been published, but no result exists on the speed of convergence afaik...)
Evolutionary optimization is definitely cool and may work strikingly well for certain problems, but I was surprised that it got elected to inclusion in scipy. DE would have been a nice seed for a scikit-evolution.
For those interested in stochastic algorithms for global multivariate optimization for which we have proven convergence results and an abundant literature, we have at least the two following categories of methods
- *MCMC* (Markov Chain Monte Carlo) which comprises simulated annealing, for which there are nice results of convergence in distribution. - *Robbins-Monro* methods, which comprise stochastic gradient methods, for which we have almost-sure convergence and central-limit - type theorems.
I think it's fair to summarize the reason for the current status and inclusion of DE as: theoretical convergence rates and papers are nice, but code that actually works on a good set of benchmarks is way more important. Some years ago we had only bad global optimizers. We did have simulated annealing, but it just didn't work for most problems. No one stepped up to improve it, so we deprecated and removed it. DE was benchmarked quite thoroughly (on the benchmark functions from benchmarks/benchmarks/test_go_benchmark_functions.py) and came out looking good. It solved problems that the only other good optimizer we had (basinhopping) did not do well on. So that means there was value in adding it. Cheers, Ralf
This sort of raises the question of the scope of scipy. Should scipy go through the same sort of "big split" as Jupyter or more ? la d3js? Is amount of specialized knowledge required to understand a methods part of what defines the line of division in what should be or not be in scipy?
Sylvain
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 8:08 PM, Jacob Vanderplas < jakevdp@cs.washington.edu> wrote:
As for adding more functionality along those lines, I would advocate creation of a new package or perhaps a scikit. As we've seen with scikit-learn, useful features can filter-up into scipy (e.g. sparse.csgraph) and the development of new features within an independent package is *much* easier than development from within a scipy PR. Jake
Jake VanderPlas Senior Data Science Fellow Director of Research in Physical Sciences University of Washington eScience Institute
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Sylvain Corlay <sylvain.corlay@gmail.com
wrote:
Would you guys consider in scope for scipy to have implementation of faster nearest neighbor search methods than KdTree?
Some methods are fairly simple... e.g principal axis tree which use the principal direction of the dataset to split the dataset into smaller subsets. As soon as intrinsic dimensionality is significantly smaller than the dimension of the space, it is significantly faster.
Besides, only having to compute the (an approximate) principal axis is much faster than doing an actual PCA.
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 4:14 AM, Jacob Vanderplas < jakevdp@cs.washington.edu> wrote:
From my own casual benchmarks, the new scipy cKDTree is much faster than any of the scikit-learn options, though it still only supports axis-aligned euclidean-like metrics (where sklearn's BallTree supports dozens of additional metrics). The cKDTree also has a limited range of query types compared to scikit-learn's trees, Jake
Jake VanderPlas Senior Data Science Fellow Director of Research in Physical Sciences University of Washington eScience Institute
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 12:46 AM, Da?id <davidmenhur@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4 September 2016 at 23:00, Robert Lucente <rlucente@pipeline.com> wrote:
Please note that I am a newbie and just a lurker.
I noticed in a recent email that cKDTree was mentioned.
Q: What is the relationship if any between SciPy an scikit-learn when it comes to cKDTree?
The reason that I ask are the following 2 links
https://jakevdp.github.io/blog/2013/04/29/benchmarking-neare st-neighbor-searches-in-python/
Note that these benchmarks are from 2013 and 2014. Scipy's KDTree has seen its performance recently improved, twice. Scikit's last update to its KDTree was in 2015. So, we need to run the benchmarks again.
/David. _______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/scipy-dev/attachments/20160908/597b9be4/att...> ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev ------------------------------ End of SciPy-Dev Digest, Vol 155, Issue 12 ******************************************