Allow the use of fully overlapping blocks for LLR #82
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…the non-overlapping function to avoid having a lot of repeated code.
|
Hello @SebastianFlassbeck, thank you for your contribution! I will merge this with the 0.15 release, which will come with the GPU support PR |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The option to use fully overlapping blocks for LLR was inaccessible since prox! used non-overlapping blocks as a default. I made a wrapper function that now either calls the overlapping or non-overlapping proximal operator. Merging the two functions in one seemed messy since the overlapping case needs additional allocations which are not needed in the non-overlapping case.
To avoid a lot of repeated code, I changed the implementation of the fully overlapping function to call proxLLRNonOverlapping!. I didn't investigate if this makes a difference in the computation time.
Further, the norm is not implemented for fully overlapping blocks since it seems to only work for 2D patches currently. I remarked as much in the docstring.
Best,
Sebastian