-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 17
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add optional relaxation to ADMM solver #118
Conversation
bwohlberg
commented
Dec 3, 2021
- Add optional relaxation to ADMM solver.
- Simplify ADMM step implementation.
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #118 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 90.49% 90.84% +0.35%
==========================================
Files 42 42
Lines 2987 2983 -4
==========================================
+ Hits 2703 2710 +7
+ Misses 284 273 -11
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
|
||
def z_and_u_step(self, u_list, z_list): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I suspect the code was written this way so that the z_and_u_step
could be jitted (jitted functions should be pure, no side effects). However, z_and_u_step
was not actually jitted as far as I can tell. So I don't mind the refactor.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That was my suspicion too. If we decide there is some benefit to jitting, we can refactor again, but for now this simpler structure makes more sense.