Closed accosmin closed 5 years ago
Should run the benchmark using test functions with higher number of dimensions. The authors have shown results for more than 50 dimensions.
In the original paper they use c1=0.1 and c2=0.9 which is different than the defaults suggested by Nocedal&Wright (c1=1e-4, c2=0.9) for CGD methods.
Currently it produces similar results with the More&Thuente version when using an improved cg-descent-based step initialization and a safeguard interpolation.
CG_DESCENT line search is not working like advertised in the relevant paper: