Hi,
I just installed the latest gsll and gsl (1.14) on red-hat/linux/64-bit sbcl 1.0.34 on . A couple observations on (what I think are) minor unit-tests errors and failures.
*** CHOLESKY:
The following error
CHOLESKY: Function CHOLESKY-INVERT (gsl_linalg_cholesky_invert) is not available in the currently loaded release 1.14 of GSL; it was introduced in release 1.12.
does not make sense since gsl_linalg_cholesky_invert is present in gsl1.14 (http://www.gnu.org/software/gsl/manual/html_node/Cholesky-Decomposition.html) - admittedly, I did not dig into the c code to verify if the code and documentation are out of line
*** ELLIPTIC-FUNCTIONS: failure shows up when doing (lisp-unit:run-tests), but not when doing the individual tests:
GSL> (lisp-unit:run-tests) ... ELLIPTIC-FUNCTIONS: (MULTIPLE-VALUE-LIST (JACOBIAN-ELLIPTIC-FUNCTIONS 0.2d0 0.81d0)) failed: Expected (0.19762082367187703d0 0.9802785369736752d0 0.9840560289645665d0 0.0d0 0.0d0 0.0d0) but saw (0.19762082367187703d0 0.9802785369736752d0 0.9840560289645665d0 0.5000000000000027d0 7.618282373747058d-16 2.5991577338697564d-13) ...
GSL> (lisp-unit:run-tests elliptic-functions) ELLIPTIC-FUNCTIONS: 2 assertions passed, 0 failed.
Does GSL set-up some of lisp-unit's precision variables *epsilon* or *significant-figures*?
*** MATHIEU: failure can be eliminated with lower precision:
GSL> (let ((lisp-unit::*epsilon* 1d-15)) (lisp-unit:run-tests mathieu)) produces two errors, but
GSL> (let ((lisp-unit::*epsilon* 1d-13)) (lisp-unit:run-tests elliptic-functions)) ELLIPTIC-FUNCTIONS: 2 assertions passed, 0 failed.
*** TDIST
When doing the bulk test run, it produces three failures, two of which could be eliminated with slightly higher tolerances: TDIST: (MULTIPLE-VALUE-LIST (TDIST-PINV 0.6475836176504334d0 1.0d0)) failed: Expected (0.500000000000001d0) but saw (0.5000000000000003d0) TDIST: (MULTIPLE-VALUE-LIST (TDIST-QINV 0.3524163823495667d0 1.0d0)) failed: Expected (0.5d0) but saw (0.5000000000000002d0)
But these two failures do not show up when doing an individual test run (lisp-unit:run-tests tdist)
The one remaining error might be due to the reference data out of order:
Expected ((0.14989366374481017d0 0.6794142879291215d0 -1.615833951108472d0 -1.6008862825783456d0 -1.7010935505767397d0 -0.04370959749808691d0 0.12761159276595174d0 -0.019731218255494867d0 -0.6534666117199732d0 0.2035771324523077d0 !!!1.77650300477611d0!!!)) but saw ((0.14989366374481017d0 0.6794142879291215d0 ***2.3228005857300897d0*** -1.615833951108472d0 -1.6008862825783456d0 -1.7010935505767397d0 -0.04370959749808691d0 0.12761159276595174d0 -0.019731218255494867d0 -0.6534666117199732d0 0.2035771324523077d0))
Third element in observed (marked with ***) is absent in the reference list. After that, the elements seem to agree pairwise (but offset by one location), until the last element. There the !!! element in the reference list is absent from the expected list.
Cheers,
Mirko
All fixed, see below.
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Mirko Vukovic mirko.vukovic@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I just installed the latest gsll and gsl (1.14) on red-hat/linux/64-bit sbcl 1.0.34 on . A couple observations on (what I think are) minor unit-tests errors and failures.
*** CHOLESKY:
The following error
CHOLESKY: Function CHOLESKY-INVERT (gsl_linalg_cholesky_invert) is not available in the currently loaded release 1.14 of GSL; it was introduced in release 1.12.
does not make sense since gsl_linalg_cholesky_invert is present in gsl1.14 (http://www.gnu.org/software/gsl/manual/html_node/Cholesky-Decomposition.html)
- admittedly, I did not dig into the c code to verify if the code and
documentation are out of line
This had me stumped until I figured out what you must have done. The message should be clearer now, but will still be there unless you follow the instructions :-).
*** ELLIPTIC-FUNCTIONS: failure shows up when doing (lisp-unit:run-tests), but not when doing the individual tests:
GSL> (lisp-unit:run-tests) ... ELLIPTIC-FUNCTIONS: (MULTIPLE-VALUE-LIST (JACOBIAN-ELLIPTIC-FUNCTIONS 0.2d0 0.81d0)) failed: Expected (0.19762082367187703d0 0.9802785369736752d0 0.9840560289645665d0 0.0d0 0.0d0 0.0d0) but saw (0.19762082367187703d0 0.9802785369736752d0 0.9840560289645665d0 0.5000000000000027d0 7.618282373747058d-16 2.5991577338697564d-13) ...
GSL> (lisp-unit:run-tests elliptic-functions) ELLIPTIC-FUNCTIONS: 2 assertions passed, 0 failed.
Does GSL set-up some of lisp-unit's precision variables *epsilon* or *significant-figures*?
Fixed; the problem is that gsl_sf_elljac_e does not provide any error estimates. As a historical side-note, this is the longest-standing bug in GSLL, because this is the first function I ported (my original motivation for creating GSLL was because I needed to compute these functions). For that reason, it made it into the documentation with the same erroneous assumption; that too has been fixed.
*** MATHIEU: failure can be eliminated with lower precision:
GSL> (let ((lisp-unit::*epsilon* 1d-15)) (lisp-unit:run-tests mathieu)) produces two errors, but
GSL> (let ((lisp-unit::*epsilon* 1d-13)) (lisp-unit:run-tests elliptic-functions)) ELLIPTIC-FUNCTIONS: 2 assertions passed, 0 failed.
Fixed Mathieu, see above for elliptic.
*** TDIST
When doing the bulk test run, it produces three failures, two of which could be eliminated with slightly higher tolerances: TDIST: (MULTIPLE-VALUE-LIST (TDIST-PINV 0.6475836176504334d0 1.0d0)) failed: Expected (0.500000000000001d0) but saw (0.5000000000000003d0) TDIST: (MULTIPLE-VALUE-LIST (TDIST-QINV 0.3524163823495667d0 1.0d0)) failed: Expected (0.5d0) but saw (0.5000000000000002d0)
But these two failures do not show up when doing an individual test run (lisp-unit:run-tests tdist)
The one remaining error might be due to the reference data out of order:
Expected ((0.14989366374481017d0 0.6794142879291215d0 -1.615833951108472d0 -1.6008862825783456d0 -1.7010935505767397d0 -0.04370959749808691d0 0.12761159276595174d0 -0.019731218255494867d0 -0.6534666117199732d0 0.2035771324523077d0 !!!1.77650300477611d0!!!)) but saw ((0.14989366374481017d0 0.6794142879291215d0 ***2.3228005857300897d0*** -1.615833951108472d0 -1.6008862825783456d0 -1.7010935505767397d0 -0.04370959749808691d0 0.12761159276595174d0 -0.019731218255494867d0 -0.6534666117199732d0 0.2035771324523077d0))
Fixed by wholesale port of all GSL tdist tests to GSLL; there are 278 of them, and they should always pass. The old tests have been eliminated.
Most of the tests in GSLL are ones I made up. After I discovered that GSL has its own tests (including tolerances) I've just ported those. So it's not worth trying to fix my tests; it's better to use GSL's. The downside is that it's a fair amount of work, but I think I have a way to make it go faster. I'm still showing some failures on gamma, levy, and exponential, so those will be my next priority.
Liam
-
Liam Healy -
Mirko Vukovic