Open jeremy-myers opened 1 year ago
So here is the terse documentation on the LBFGS solver https://github.com/sandialabs/pyttb/blob/6a6f0b70150be0fe2d43cf9301ffb19094664dd8/pyttb/gcp/optimizers.py#L425. Are you saying the LBFGS documentation should be more verbose, or we should be more explicit about gcp_opt controlling higher level print details and the solvers separately controlling the low level prints? I guess additionally we could make the print iteration defaults align between LBFGS and our StochasticSolvers if currently different
My suggestions in order of priority:
pyttb
solvers should control what is sent to the user. E.g., in the case of LBFGS (or some other solver), capture the output or provide a hook (if possible) to get the necessary information every printitn
iterations that is formatted in pyttb
and sent to output. From a user's POV, having to look through lots of different solver outputs is very confusing.
info
). Cluttering output with multiple variants of output from different solvers puts pyttb
on the hook to make sure our users can make sense/use of this.
Minimal working example
However, constructing
LBFGSB
withiprint=
works:If this is intended behavior, it should be documented.