You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
We would like to integrate a function for zfit that integrates a (blackbox) function up to a certain accuracy. So we are not interested in the number of dimensions but would like the algorithm to continue until the accuracy is reached (or maybe a max_iter value). Is that too much black-magic? Or what do you think?
Proposed solution
So far I am not quite sure on the internals and maybe it's also worth to have a new high level function for this logic.
Are you available/want to contribute?
Yes
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Right now in order to integrate you have to provide a number of iterations and a number of events per iterations.
What you would like instead is to provide a target accuracy (say, 1%) and let the program iterate until said accuracy is reached, wright? (maybe providing a max. number of iterations so it doesn't hang forever).
And maybe, if after reaching the maximum number of iterations the desired accuracy is not obtained, bump the number of events per iterations and start again (also with some max.)
I think both would be doable as high level functions as you propose. Although maybe it also makes sense as part of the interface. I'll give it some thought, thanks for the suggestion.
It shouldn't even require too much black magic. To first approximation you want an if here:
Yes indeed, that would be approximately my thought, just to make sure that this also runs within the tensorflow graph if possible, something like inside a while_loop
The problem
We would like to integrate a function for zfit that integrates a (blackbox) function up to a certain accuracy. So we are not interested in the number of dimensions but would like the algorithm to continue until the accuracy is reached (or maybe a
max_iter
value). Is that too much black-magic? Or what do you think?Proposed solution
So far I am not quite sure on the internals and maybe it's also worth to have a new high level function for this logic.
Are you available/want to contribute?
Yes
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: