Hi Luc,
Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> Jörg Schaible a écrit :
>> Hi Luc,
>>
[snip]
>> we're definitely on the right track. After changing the loop in
>> TestProblem3 the tests run through. However, now I have two failing
>> tests:
>
> The two tests are in fact the same test repeated. The first occurrence
> is in the deprecated package estimation which will be removed at some
> point in the future and the second test is in the new
> optimization.general package.
>
> Could you change in the MinPackTest.java from either package the
> checkTheoreticalMinCost method to add a print statement as in the
> example below and send the result you get when running MinPackTest ?
>
>
> public boolean checkTheoreticalMinCost(double rms) {
> double threshold = costAccuracy * (1.0 + theoreticalMinCost);
> if (Math.abs(Math.sqrt(m) * rms - theoreticalMinCost) > threshold) {
> System.out.println("rms = " + rms +
> ", m = " + m +
> ", sqrt(m)*rms = " +
> Math.abs(Math.sqrt(m) * rms) +
> ", threshold = " + threshold +
> ", delta = " +
> Math.abs(Math.sqrt(m) * rms -
> theoreticalMinCost));
> }
> return Math.abs(Math.sqrt(m) * rms - theoreticalMinCost) <=
> threshold;
> }
>
> I guess I simply put too tight thresholds in the tests and that
> numerical instability or different optimizations in JVMs may change the
> result and break the test. The previous print statement would allow me
> to compare the numerical values with what I get here and decide if the
> results are acceptable and the test threshold must be enlarged or if
> there is a real problem here.
rms = 65.50657291427613,
m = 20,
sqrt(m)*rms = 292.9543000187359,
threshold = 2.93954306151134E-6,
delta = 6.132398084446322E-6
Hope this helps,
Jörg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
