If you think there's a bug, one thing you can do is compare Julia's implementation to another implementation for the same problem and same starting point. You have to be careful not to read code that has an incompatible license (either proprietary or GPL), or you become "tainted" and can't contribute fixes related to anything you read.
One safe thing to do is modify your own objective function simply to print out the location it's being fed for evaluation---that way you can find out whether the sequence of points is the same, without ever looking at the algorithm's source code. You can control the initial step with the `initial_step` keyword. --Tim On Monday, January 25, 2016 12:15:16 AM Patrick Kofod Mogensen wrote: > How did you verify that? Or are you guessing? Did you @show the iteration > counter's increment? If not, how do you know it starts high? > > On Sunday, January 24, 2016 at 7:45:48 PM UTC+1, [email protected] wrote: > > thanks but that s not the issue. for some reasons. the number of > > iterations is really high to begin with > > > > On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 7:01:56 PM UTC-6, Kristoffer Carlsson wrote: > >> Look at the source > >> https://github.com/JuliaOpt/Optim.jl/blob/master/src/nelder_mead.jl > >> The number of iterations is not necessarily the same as the number of > >> objective function evaluations
