Le 31/12/2011 15:50, Sébastien Brisard a écrit : > Hi, > In rev 1226041, I committed a patch proposed by Christian (see > MATH-692). Unfortunately, I didn't notice that this patch causes the > failure of Well1024aTest. Since this morning, I've been looking into > that failure. I don't think that any of Christian's proposed > modifications is to be incriminated. Rather, I'm wondering whether > Well1024a is reliable. Indeed, varying the seed in > Well1024aTest.makeGenerator() causes failure of various unit tests > - SEED = 100 causes testNextPoissonConsistency() to fail, > - SEED = 1000 causes testNextIntPositiveRange(), > testNextLongNegativeRange() and testNextLongPositiveRange() to fail, > while *all* tests pass with SEED = 1001. I think this probability of > failure is well above the 0.001 threshold of the chi-square test. > > I'm not very familiar with this part of CM, and would very much like > to know what you think.
I am sorry not to have any time to look at this these days. Well 1024 has been checked with respect to the reference C implementation though. Perhaps we should check it again. Luc > > NOTE: in rev 1226096, I set the SEED to 1001, so as to make Gump stop > complaining. Obivously, this is a very dirty trick. > > Sébastien > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
