![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/96dd777e397ab128fedab46af97a3a4a.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 3:02 PM Matthew Brett <matthew.brett@lis.ac.uk> wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 4:22 PM Robert Kern <robert.kern@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 10:30 AM Matthew Brett <matthew.brett@lis.ac.uk>
wrote:
I think I'm right that we've had our own custom implementation of Powell for a very long time - it looks to me (from git blame) that Travis O put a version of the current code in with commit b94c30dcb (April 2002).
For what it's worth, it's not so much "our own custom implementation" so much as following a particular published variant that was explained (but not originally published in) Numerical Recipes. Interestingly, that chapter claims that the modification is to assist Powell's method in handling long skinny valleys.
Sorry - by "custom" I only meant that we didn't import the code directly from somewhere else.
I guess, from checking http://numerical.recipes/book/book.html - that this is Acton's (1970, 1990) modification of the method, referenced as:
Acton, F.S. 1970, Numerical Methods That Work; 1990, corrected edition (Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America), pp. 464–467.[2]
One of my favorites back in the day. Worth a read, if only for his entertaining comments on the practice of numerical methods and their occasional misapplication.
? Is it really true that the modification assists Powell in handling long skinny valleys? If so, does it work less well in other situations? Has anyone compared the algorithms across a good range of problems? Should we also provide an unmodified Powell?
Chuck