[Numpy-discussion] NEP: Random Number Generator Policy
robert.kern at gmail.com
Sun Jun 3 21:04:55 EDT 2018
On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 6:01 PM <josef.pktd at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 8:36 PM, Robert Kern <robert.kern at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 4:35 PM Eric Wieser <wieser.eric+numpy at gmail.com>
>>> You make a bunch of good points refuting reproducible research as an
>>> argument for not changing the random number streams.
>>> However, there’s a second use-case you don’t address - unit tests. For
>>> better or worse, downstream, or even our own
>>> unit tests use a seeded random number generator as a shorthand to produce
>>> some arbirary array, and then hard-code the expected output in their tests.
>>> Breaking stream compatibility will break these tests.
>> By the way, the reason that I didn't mention this use case as a
>> motivation in the Status Quo section because, as I reviewed my mail
>> archive, this wasn't actually a motivating use case for the policy. It's
>> certainly a use case that developed once we did make these
>> (*cough*extravagant*cough*) guarantees, though, as people started to rely
>> on it, and I hope that my StableRandom proposal addresses it to your
>> satisfaction. I could add some more details about that history if you
>> think it would be useful.
> I don't think that's accurate.
> The unit tests for stable random numbers were added when Enthought
> silently changed the normal random numbers and we got messages from users
> that the unit tests fail and they cannot reproduce our results.
> [SciPy-Dev] seeded randn gets different values on osx
> (I don't find an online copy, this is from my own mail archive)
The policy was in place Nov 2008.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NumPy-Discussion