Skip to content
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

JOSS review: examples and numerical validation #242

Open
fabian-sp opened this issue Jul 4, 2022 · 2 comments
Open

JOSS review: examples and numerical validation #242

fabian-sp opened this issue Jul 4, 2022 · 2 comments
Labels
documentation Improvements or additions to documentation priority

Comments

@fabian-sp
Copy link

This is related to the review of FunFact for JOSS (see openjournals/joss-reviews#4502)

I understand that your package can do (or approximate) arbitrary tensor decompositions with optimization. As the underlying properties of these optimization problems (convexity, uniqueness of solutions etc.) are not fully clear to me, I think it would be very nice to have some certainty that this approach works for standard decomposition such as SVD or the Tucker decomposition (i.e. that the optimizer converges to a reasonably good decomposition).

Moreover, for these special cases one could compare the result of FunFact with standard libraries for SVD or the libraries you mention for specialized tensor decomposition.

I see that this example (https://funfact.readthedocs.io/en/latest/examples/matrix-approximation/) already goes into this direction, but I think it might be nice to have a more numerical comparison of the decomposed factors. I haven't found any unit tests doing this, but maybe I just did not find them :)

Thanks a lot!

@yhtang
Copy link
Owner

yhtang commented Jul 5, 2022

Thanks for pointing this out. We can set up some self-consistency tests to check if FunFact can find solutions close enough to those found by 'standard solvers' for convex problems such as SVD and eigendecomposition.

@yhtang yhtang added priority documentation Improvements or additions to documentation labels Jul 5, 2022
@fabian-sp
Copy link
Author

Yes, I think this would be a great addition to the package!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
documentation Improvements or additions to documentation priority
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants