-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 281
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
Minor fixes for PARAFAC2 (#263 and more) #267
Minor fixes for PARAFAC2 (#263 and more) #267
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #267 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 87.26% 87.28% +0.02%
==========================================
Files 91 91
Lines 4553 4563 +10
==========================================
+ Hits 3973 3983 +10
Misses 580 580
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
Awesome, thanks @MarieRoald! I've bumped the current version to |
Setting it 1000*eps led to problems with single precision, so we set it to 1e-13 which is similar to 1000*eps for double precision
I added the version number, and I also changed the absolute tolerance to 1e-13, since 1000*eps was too large for the single-precision backends. |
Thank you @MarieRoald, merging! |
This pull request fixes some small issues with the PARAFAC2 code
Parafac2
class to have the same arguments and docstring as theparafac2
The added absolute tolerance and new maximum number of iterations were also based on the MATLAB code by Rasmus Bro (available here: http://www.models.life.ku.dk/algorithms).
@JeanKossaifi, before we can merge this, we should update the version number in the documentation (see the todos on line 185, 203, 378 and 396 of the _parafac2.py file). What would be the right version number?
Also, when I built the sphinx documentation, I noticed that there were no special formatting for the
versionchanged
HTML class. Maybe we should update the CSS?