Ultranest version 4

[JohannesBuchner]

Dear users,

you recently interacted with UltraNest on github. I just pushed a new version, 4.1, to conda and pypi. You can find the changes and merged pull requests (huge thanks!) in HISTORY.rst

I would really appreciate if you downloaded it and tested it in your workflows. In particular, the default algorithm MLFriends is now run with a slightly different way of computing a local distance metric (layer_class=MaxPrincipleGapAffineLayer instead of AffineLayer), and I wonder whether that makes fits slightly more efficient (or not!).

Step samplers have been gifted a new diagnostic (relative jump distance), which I am currently writing up as a paper.

@comane @odstrcilt @newmandb @HoisW @OGdodge @gregorydavidmartinez @adipol-ph @facero @gregorydavidmartinez @lwelzel @jpl-jengelke @ahnitz @PieterVuylsteke @ikhebgeenaccount @jacopok

If you find any problems, please open a new issue.

[facero]

Hi

Thanks. Will test it soon in my workflow. Just looked at the History.rst and it seems there is a typo in the dates of the release (2023 => 2024).

Le dim. 18 févr. 2024, 12:38, Johannes Buchner @.***> a écrit :

Dear users,

you recently interacted with UltraNest on github. I just pushed a new version, 4.1, to conda and pypi. You can find the changes and merged pull requests (huge thanks!) in HISTORY.rst https://github.com/JohannesBuchner/UltraNest/blob/master/HISTORY.rst

I would really appreciate if you downloaded it and tested it in your workflows. In particular, the default algorithm MLFriends is now run with a slightly different way of computing a local distance metric (layer_class=MaxPrincipleGapAffineLayer instead of AffineLayer), and I wonder whether that makes fits slightly more efficient (or not!).

Step samplers have been gifted a new diagnostic (relative jump distance), which I am currently writing up as a paper.

@comane https://github.com/comane @odstrcilt https://github.com/odstrcilt @newmandb https://github.com/newmandb @HoisW https://github.com/HoisW @OGdodge https://github.com/OGdodge @gregorydavidmartinez https://github.com/gregorydavidmartinez @adipol-ph https://github.com/adipol-ph @facero https://github.com/facero @gregorydavidmartinez https://github.com/gregorydavidmartinez @lwelzel https://github.com/lwelzel @jpl-jengelke https://github.com/jpl-jengelke @ahnitz https://github.com/ahnitz @PieterVuylsteke https://github.com/PieterVuylsteke @ikhebgeenaccount https://github.com/ikhebgeenaccount @jacopok https://github.com/jacopok

If you find any problems, please open a new issue.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/JohannesBuchner/UltraNest/issues/121, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACCAQYUPSCXBS343MVM23ADYUHY2VAVCNFSM6AAAAABDOECGU6VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43ASLTON2WKOZSGE2DAOJWHAYTSOA . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

[JohannesBuchner]

Very good, thank you!

[jacopok]

Hi, I made a quick test with some low-dimensional, simple fits I was running (5 parameters), and I am observing no major difference in the run time on my machine from version 3.6 to version 4.1. I did not investigate this thoroughly - the fits took on the order of a few seconds, and the number of seconds was the same after the update.

[JohannesBuchner]

Thanks for the report @jacopok!