You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
A first quick & dirty test yielded mixed results: sometimes the robust-laplacian is marginally faster, sometimes our own. The main problem is that the number of steps it takes to get below epsilon varies which in turn makes for a bad comparison: if three steps get you within 1% of the target epsilon it will run a fourth which will (a) take much longer and (b) overshoot the target.
The results from robust-laplacian look better though. Might be because of the mollify_factor?
Note to self: check out https://github.com/nmwsharp/robust-laplacians-py for the mesh contraction.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: