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

expose additional balancer settings #133

Closed
bstabler opened this issue Apr 26, 2021 · 0 comments
Closed

expose additional balancer settings #133

bstabler opened this issue Apr 26, 2021 · 0 comments
Assignees

Comments

@bstabler
Copy link
Contributor

bstabler commented Apr 26, 2021

We learned in the ODOT statewide model application that we could use an order of magnitude less balancer iterations, which cut runtime by 50%, and still achieve very similar results. We only changed the already exposed setting
MAX_BALANCE_ITERATIONS_SEQUENTIAL: 1000 in our tests. Long term, we may want to expose the additional settings in
balancer.py.

@bstabler bstabler self-assigned this Aug 18, 2021
@bstabler bstabler changed the title expose balancer settings, including iterations for reduced runtime expose balancer settings Aug 25, 2021
@bstabler bstabler changed the title expose balancer settings expose additional balancer settings Aug 25, 2021
bstabler added a commit that referenced this issue Aug 25, 2021
bstabler added a commit that referenced this issue Aug 26, 2021
* update package version number as well

* Allow non-binary incidence (#123)

* Allow non-binary incidence

* style

* update tests to pass

* add some progress indication

* tidy up validation script, use histogram for a histogram

* fix render and some typos

* increment version

* deprecate py2.7

* Multiprocess (#130)

* [Bugfix] Allow seed and meta geography to be the same (#139)

* Fixes bug where if the seed geography is the same as the meta_geography, pandas has a small panic attack and the run will fail.

* add cytoolz to the "requirements"

* fix another activitysim change

* Absolute bounds (#136)


* adding upper/lower bounds to weighting use case

* #137, #134, #133, #131

Co-authored-by: Jamie Cook <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Blake Rosenthal <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Ben Stabler <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Leah Flake <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant