Feature description
As per title.
Motivation
As a follow up to #320, I'm suggesting that we greatly relax the performance tests for pybop.SciPyMinimize and pybop.GradentDescent. Both of these optimisers are flaky throughout the test suite, and don't seem to fair any better within the examples. We'll also need to update the documentation to ensure users understand that these optimisers are not actively tested for performance.
Alternatively, if anyone wants to dive into the SciPyMinimize problems, they seem to be more stochastic than grad descent, which seems to require ongoing LR calibration.
I'd be interested to hear others' thoughts on this (@agriyakhetarpal, @NicolaCourtier, @martinjrobins, etc). Perhaps #255 will alievate some of the issues with Minimize by opening up better arg passing, but I'm not overly hopeful. Either way, this issue can wait until #255 is merged so that we can test.
Possible implementation
No response
Additional context
No response
Feature description
As per title.
Motivation
As a follow up to #320, I'm suggesting that we greatly relax the performance tests for
pybop.SciPyMinimizeandpybop.GradentDescent. Both of these optimisers are flaky throughout the test suite, and don't seem to fair any better within the examples. We'll also need to update the documentation to ensure users understand that these optimisers are not actively tested for performance.Alternatively, if anyone wants to dive into the SciPyMinimize problems, they seem to be more stochastic than grad descent, which seems to require ongoing LR calibration.
I'd be interested to hear others' thoughts on this (@agriyakhetarpal, @NicolaCourtier, @martinjrobins, etc). Perhaps #255 will alievate some of the issues with Minimize by opening up better arg passing, but I'm not overly hopeful. Either way, this issue can wait until #255 is merged so that we can test.
Possible implementation
No response
Additional context
No response