Hi Ralf, On Fri, 8 Jan 2021 at 12:15, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 11:35 AM Andrea Gavana <andrea.gavana@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Ralf,
On Fri, 8 Jan 2021 at 11:07, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 10:21 AM Andrea Gavana <andrea.gavana@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear SciPy Developers & Users,
long time no see :-) . I thought to start 2021 with a bit of a bang, to try and forget how bad 2020 has been... So I am happy to present you with a revamped version of the Global Optimization Benchmarks from my previous exercise in 2013.
Hi Andrea, this is awesome! Thanks for sharing!
I am happy you like it :-) .
This could be really useful to link to and use as a guide for providing recommendations for solvers to use in the scipy.optimize tutorials. It's good to see that SciPy overall is much more competitive than it was in 2013. Overall it seems SHGO is our most accurate solver, and making it faster seems worthwhile. That shouldn't be very difficult, given that it's all pure Python still.
I have to say that, compared to back in 2013, the addition of SHGO and DualAnnealing to SciPy has made the global optimization world in SciPy much more powerful, pretty much at the top of what can currently be done with open source solvers.
MCS isn't open source, but both DIRECT and BiteOpt are MIT-licensed and seem the best candidates to be considered for inclusion in SciPy.
I couldn't find a license restriction for MCS, but maybe I haven't looked hard enough... Do you have a link for it? I am just curious.
MCS itself doesn't contain any license information, but it depends on MINQ which has a link in "All versions of MINQ are licensed" on this page: https://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/software/minq/. It's only free for non-commercial use.
Ah, OK, thank you, I didn't think about that. Of course, assuming SciPy had another, different "bound constrained indefinite quadratic programming" module then we could easily swap it :-) . Andrea.