Re: control-2.3.51 released in package forum - please upload

[Sergei Steshenko]

----- Original Message -----
> From: Lukas Reichlin <address@hidden>
> To: marco atzeri <address@hidden>
> Cc: Sergei Steshenko <address@hidden>; Octave Forge <address@hidden>; 
> help-octave <address@hidden>; Alexander Hansen <address@hidden>
> Sent: Monday, June 4, 2012 9:16 PM
> Subject: Re: control-2.3.51 released in package forum - please upload
> 
> 
> On 04.06.2012, at 18:56, marco atzeri wrote:
> 
>>  On 6/4/2012 5:37 PM, Lukas Reichlin wrote:
>>>  On 03.06.2012, at 21:45, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  I would not call your ATLAS defective. For various reasons, results 
> from ATLAS and Reference BLAS/LAPACK can differ. Remember that ATLAS stands 
> for 
> _Automatically_ _Tuned_ Linear Algebra Software :-)
>>> 
>>>  Your results from the failing tests are probably not wrong: Just 
> compare the observed and the expected state-space models. There are several 
> ways 
> to do this:
>>>  - poles and zeros should be the same
>>>  - Hankel singular values should be the same
>>>  - plots from time and frequency responses look the same
>>>  - solve the equations below for the diagonal transformation matrix T, 
> its entries should be -1 and 1. (Because in your example, the absolute values 
> are the same)
>>> 
>>>  Aexp = T \ Aobs * T
>>>  Bexp = T \ Bobs
>>>  Cexp =      Cobs * T
>>> 
>>>  To sum up: if there is a state transformation between observed and 
> expected model, your results are correct.
>>> 
>>>  Remember that the SLICOT authors recommend reference BLAS/LAPACK and 
> use it for their test cases (which I use for test_control). If confidence in 
> correct results is more important to you than a few milliseconds speed 
> advantage 
> from automatic tuning, then you should follow their advice.
>>> 
>>>  Hope this helps,
>>>  Lukas
>>> 
>> 
>>  Lukas,
>>  I had same of Sergei's faults (2 of 3) and I am using the
>>  reference blas/lapack 3.4.1
>> 
>>  I expect a package test function to behave reasonable correctly
>>  for most of the system. Borderline case or alternative valid solution
>>  should be avoided.
>> 
>>  Regards
>>  Marco
> 
> Hmm, that's interesting. I used reference blas/lapack 3.4.1 on Mac OS X 10.6 
> and 10.7 without any failing tests.
> 
> Lukas

Guys,

I think many of you got my point correctly: if there are no failures, they 
should not be reported as failures.

Regards,
  Sergei.








>