[SciPy-Dev] SciPy-Dev Digest, Vol 172, Issue 7

[Matt Newville]

Hi Andrew, All,

Apologies for replying to the digest....

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 11:00 AM, <scipy-dev-request at python.org> wrote:

>
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 13:06:19 +1100
> From: Andrew Nelson <andyfaff at gmail.com>
> To: scipy-dev <scipy-dev at python.org>
> Subject: [SciPy-Dev] Proposal - optimize callback given a state
>         keyword
> Message-ID:
>         <CAAbtOZeufOk-gn7yB8565riRd30m+ReJ+_jGGPYBGngLVsj-Zg at mail.gmail.
> com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hi all,
> I propose that the optimize callbacks be asked to accept a new state
> keyword in the future.
> The state keyword will be an `OptimizeResult` giving the state of the
> optimizer at that point.
> i.e. n_iterations, n_fun, (n_jac?), x, fun, etc.
>

Are you sure you want an OptimizeResult?

Maybe it would be sufficient and clearer to have the callback given "the
current iteration number" (a somewhat fuzzy concept, but useful
nonetheless) and "the current set of values for the variables", and maybe
"the current value of the residual"?  Is there more that is actually
reliable while the fit is proceeding and that a callback could use?   How
would you expect a callback function to use the current value of Jacobian,
for example?

--Matt Newville
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/scipy-dev/attachments/20180208/49cbdcc5/attachment.html>