Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Relax the tolerance in IpoptSolver. #22426

Merged

Conversation

hongkai-dai
Copy link
Contributor

@hongkai-dai hongkai-dai commented Jan 8, 2025

Previously we set the tolerance to 1.05E-10, this tolerance is too tight and causing numeric problems. We switch back to IPOPT default tolerance.

This is motivated by #22361 (review)


This change is Reviewable

@hongkai-dai
Copy link
Contributor Author

@drake-jenkins-bot mac-arm-sonoma-unprovisioned-clang-wheel-experimental-release please

Previously we set the tolerance to 1.05E-10, this tolerance is too tight and causing numeric problems. We switch back to IPOPT default tolerance.
Copy link
Contributor Author

@hongkai-dai hongkai-dai left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

+@RussTedrake for feature review please, thanks!

Reviewable status: LGTM missing from assignee RussTedrake(platform), needs at least two assigned reviewers, missing label for release notes (waiting on @hongkai-dai)

@RussTedrake
Copy link
Contributor

:lgtm: thanks!

Copy link
Contributor

@RussTedrake RussTedrake left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Reviewed 4 of 4 files at r1, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: 1 unresolved discussion, needs at least two assigned reviewers, missing label for release notes (waiting on @hongkai-dai)


solvers/test/ipopt_solver_test.cc line 209 at r1 (raw file):

  IpoptSolver solver;
  ConfigureIpopt(&solver);
  TestQPDualSolution1(solver, {} /* solver_options */, /*tol=*/1e-4);

btw -- i see. that is pretty loose. but i still think this is a good chance given all of the failures we've seen.

@jwnimmer-tri jwnimmer-tri added the release notes: fix This pull request contains fixes (no new features) label Jan 10, 2025
@jwnimmer-tri jwnimmer-tri self-assigned this Jan 10, 2025
Copy link
Collaborator

@jwnimmer-tri jwnimmer-tri left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

:lgtm: platform

Reviewed 4 of 4 files at r1, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: 1 unresolved discussion

Copy link
Contributor Author

@hongkai-dai hongkai-dai left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Reviewable status: :shipit: complete! all discussions resolved, LGTM from assignees jwnimmer-tri(platform),RussTedrake(platform)


solvers/test/ipopt_solver_test.cc line 209 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, RussTedrake (Russ Tedrake) wrote…

btw -- i see. that is pretty loose. but i still think this is a good chance given all of the failures we've seen.

Agreed. I think it is better to have a solver that solves problems with inaccurate solution, rather than a solver that gives more accurate solutions sometimes but fails elsewhere.

@hongkai-dai hongkai-dai merged commit 9624836 into RobotLocomotion:master Jan 11, 2025
10 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
release notes: fix This pull request contains fixes (no new features)
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants