Closed michaelbynum closed 2 years ago
Good catch, I fixed this in the new formulation branch but didn't backport it to the old one. The checks are failing because of a compatibility thing with Pyomo 6.2, what should we do? Merge this and then I'll fix it, or fix and then you rebase?
I can just fix it in this PR?
Merging #17 (27aba43) into main (a89dca7) will not change coverage. The diff coverage is
100.00%
.
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #17 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 91.10% 91.10%
=======================================
Files 15 15
Lines 854 854
Branches 147 159 +12
=======================================
Hits 778 778
Misses 51 51
Partials 25 25
Impacted Files | Coverage Δ | |
---|---|---|
src/omlt/gbt/formulation.py | 88.05% <ø> (ø) |
|
src/omlt/neuralnet/relu.py | 91.39% <100.00%> (ø) |
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact)
,ø = not affected
,? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update a89dca7...27aba43. Read the comment docs.
I vote for merging this PR since all tests are passing. I think I am running into this issue on a simple example.
I will push a release shortly
In some cases, it is possible to compute an upper bound on
zhat
that is strictly negative. In such cases, setting the upper bound onz
to be equal to the upper bound onzhat
is incorrect and produces an infeasible model. Even ifzhat
is strictly negative,z
can still be0
.