Hi, Thanks for the interest in Commons Math.
Currently all the optimisation code is in commons-math-legacy. I think the gradient based methods would fit in: org.apache.commons.math4.legacy.optim.nonlinear.scalar.gradient Can your implementations be adapted to work with the existing interfaces? The decision to move the entire 'optim' package to a new module allows a redesign of interfaces. The old and new can coexist but ideally we would want to support only one optimisation architecture. Have a look at the current classes and let us know what you think. Regards, Alex On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 at 15:36, François Laferrière <francoislaferrie...@yahoo.fr.invalid> wrote: > > Hello, > Sorry, previous message was a mess.... > Based on Apache common math, I have implemented some commonplace optimization > algorithms that could be integrated in ACM. This includes > > - Gradient Descent (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradient_descent) > > - Newton Raphson > (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_method_in_optimization) > > - BFGS > (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broyden–Fletcher–Goldfarb–Shanno_algorithm) > > They are implemented in such a way that other algorithms of the same family > (Newton) can be implemented easily from existing building blocks. > I clone http://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/commons-math.git but I am a bit > lost in the module structure. Should I put my code in one existing > commons-math4-* module (if so which one?) or should I create a new module > (for instance commons-math-optimization) ? > Many thanks in advance > François Laferrière > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
