Open Access
Table 5
2D hybrid Rosenbrock performance benchmark.
| Method | Time (s) | Eff (%) | Kenits |
|---|---|---|---|
| SAR | 19.15±0.20 | 9.51±0.38 | 14.65±0.59 |
| SMD | 19.14±0.14 | 4.15±0.28 | 6.40±0.41 |
| SGG | 19.44±0.26 | 9.03±0.53 | 13.70±0.69 |
| GAO | 19.41±0.13 | 8.89±0.48 | 13.51±0.74 |
| ETL | 19.59±0.18 | 9.04±0.50 | 13.61±0.83 |
| dyn-u | 38.28±2.85 | 8.04±0.81 | 0.34±0.02 |
| dyn-s | 21.74±0.93 | 2.18±0.06 | 0.59±0.03 |
| dyn-rs | 16.52±0.42 | 2.72±0.09 | 0.77±0.02 |
Notes. reddemcee’s adaptive algorithms compared to dynesty’s sampling methods with the 2D Rosenbrock function. From left to right: Time – run time in seconds, Eff – sampling efficiency or percentage of independent samples, and kenits – thousand effective samples per second.
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.