rickmwalsh at gmail.com
Sun Feb 19 14:54:17 PST 2017
On 19 February 2017 at 23:33, Robert Helling <helling at atdotde.de> wrote:
> I just pushed a branch to Github: https://github.com/atdotde/
> One of the patches is supposed to fix an error that made our desaturation
> artificially fast. Now, the deco times are slightly more conservative. But
> it seems they are too conservative for the benchmark.
> I guess Rick did the benchmark (I don’t have it here). Rick, could you
> please look into the source of the benchmark what the assumptions on the
> saturation/desaturation rates are there and why the computed times differ
> so much?
> Yes, I think all the VPM-B benchmark values were taken by me running the
same plans through the VPM-B Fortran program. I recall over email we also
compared with other current implementations, but for consistency and
repeatability we decided to go with the original as the standard. I don't
have the VPM-B input and output files with me at the moment, but they
should still be on my laptop at home. In any case, I'm pretty confident I
transcribed the runtimes correctly in the testplan.cpp, and the ascent
descent rates are the same.
In the tests, we test the Subsurface runtime against the VPM-B benchmark,
allowing +/- (1% runtime + 1 min) difference from the standard, as well as
against they last known Subsurface value with zero tolerance for
difference. If the test "fails" against the known Subsurface time, this
isn't necessarily a bad thing - it just flags that we've changed something
in the code. We don't want the comparison to the standard benchmark fail
beyond the tolerance, unless we're really sure we're doing the right thing.
Note, we have a subsurface_conservatism_factor variable in deco.c, which is
used to increase the critical radii by 1.2%, which increases the
conservatism slightly. With the saturation/desaturation values being set
to zero, which appears (in your changes to testplan.cpp on GitHub) to
increase the deco time, we could try reducing or eliminating the
conservatism factor variable. Unfortunately, I have no time for checking
this myself at the moment.
For Buehlmann planner tests, I think our benchmark value was the Subsurface
value at the time we create the tests, as we were satisfied with how the
planner was performing, and had nothing "better" to compare it to.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the subsurface