123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168 |
- .. _chapter-solving_faqs:
- .. default-domain:: cpp
- .. cpp:namespace:: ceres
- =======
- Solving
- =======
- #. How do I evaluate the Jacobian for a solved problem?
- Using :func:`Problem::Evaluate`.
- #. How do I choose the right linear solver?
- When using the ``TRUST_REGION`` minimizer, the choice of linear
- solver is an important decision. It affects solution quality and
- runtime. Here is a simple way to reason about it.
- 1. For small (a few hundred parameters) or dense problems use
- ``DENSE_QR``.
- 2. For general sparse problems (i.e., the Jacobian matrix has a
- substantial number of zeros) use
- ``SPARSE_NORMAL_CHOLESKY``.
- 3. For bundle adjustment problems with up to a hundred or so
- cameras, use ``DENSE_SCHUR``.
- 4. For larger bundle adjustment problems with sparse Schur
- Complement/Reduced camera matrices use ``SPARSE_SCHUR``.
- If you do not have access to these libraries for whatever
- reason, ``ITERATIVE_SCHUR`` with ``SCHUR_JACOBI`` is an
- excellent alternative.
- 5. For large bundle adjustment problems (a few thousand cameras or
- more) use the ``ITERATIVE_SCHUR`` solver. There are a number of
- preconditioner choices here. ``SCHUR_JACOBI`` offers an
- excellent balance of speed and accuracy. This is also the
- recommended option if you are solving medium sized problems for
- which ``DENSE_SCHUR`` is too slow but ``SuiteSparse`` is not
- available.
- .. NOTE::
- If you are solving small to medium sized problems, consider
- setting ``Solver::Options::use_explicit_schur_complement`` to
- ``true``, it can result in a substantial performance boost.
- If you are not satisfied with ``SCHUR_JACOBI``'s performance try
- ``CLUSTER_JACOBI`` and ``CLUSTER_TRIDIAGONAL`` in that
- order. They require that you have ``SuiteSparse``
- installed. Both of these preconditioners use a clustering
- algorithm. Use ``SINGLE_LINKAGE`` before ``CANONICAL_VIEWS``.
- #. Use :func:`Solver::Summary::FullReport` to diagnose performance problems.
- When diagnosing Ceres performance issues - runtime and convergence,
- the first place to start is by looking at the output of
- ``Solver::Summary::FullReport``. Here is an example
- .. code-block:: bash
- ./bin/bundle_adjuster --input ../data/problem-16-22106-pre.txt
- iter cost cost_change |gradient| |step| tr_ratio tr_radius ls_iter iter_time total_time
- 0 4.185660e+06 0.00e+00 2.16e+07 0.00e+00 0.00e+00 1.00e+04 0 7.50e-02 3.58e-01
- 1 1.980525e+05 3.99e+06 5.34e+06 2.40e+03 9.60e-01 3.00e+04 1 1.84e-01 5.42e-01
- 2 5.086543e+04 1.47e+05 2.11e+06 1.01e+03 8.22e-01 4.09e+04 1 1.53e-01 6.95e-01
- 3 1.859667e+04 3.23e+04 2.87e+05 2.64e+02 9.85e-01 1.23e+05 1 1.71e-01 8.66e-01
- 4 1.803857e+04 5.58e+02 2.69e+04 8.66e+01 9.93e-01 3.69e+05 1 1.61e-01 1.03e+00
- 5 1.803391e+04 4.66e+00 3.11e+02 1.02e+01 1.00e+00 1.11e+06 1 1.49e-01 1.18e+00
- Ceres Solver v1.12.0 Solve Report
- ----------------------------------
- Original Reduced
- Parameter blocks 22122 22122
- Parameters 66462 66462
- Residual blocks 83718 83718
- Residual 167436 167436
- Minimizer TRUST_REGION
- Sparse linear algebra library SUITE_SPARSE
- Trust region strategy LEVENBERG_MARQUARDT
- Given Used
- Linear solver SPARSE_SCHUR SPARSE_SCHUR
- Threads 1 1
- Linear solver threads 1 1
- Linear solver ordering AUTOMATIC 22106, 16
- Cost:
- Initial 4.185660e+06
- Final 1.803391e+04
- Change 4.167626e+06
- Minimizer iterations 5
- Successful steps 5
- Unsuccessful steps 0
- Time (in seconds):
- Preprocessor 0.283
- Residual evaluation 0.061
- Jacobian evaluation 0.361
- Linear solver 0.382
- Minimizer 0.895
- Postprocessor 0.002
- Total 1.220
- Termination: NO_CONVERGENCE (Maximum number of iterations reached.)
- Let us focus on run-time performance. The relevant lines to look at
- are
- .. code-block:: bash
- Time (in seconds):
- Preprocessor 0.283
- Residual evaluation 0.061
- Jacobian evaluation 0.361
- Linear solver 0.382
- Minimizer 0.895
- Postprocessor 0.002
- Total 1.220
- Which tell us that of the total 1.2 seconds, about .3 seconds was
- spent in the linear solver and the rest was mostly spent in
- preprocessing and jacobian evaluation.
- The preprocessing seems particularly expensive. Looking back at the
- report, we observe
- .. code-block:: bash
- Linear solver ordering AUTOMATIC 22106, 16
- Which indicates that we are using automatic ordering for the
- ``SPARSE_SCHUR`` solver. This can be expensive at times. A straight
- forward way to deal with this is to give the ordering manually. For
- ``bundle_adjuster`` this can be done by passing the flag
- ``-ordering=user``. Doing so and looking at the timing block of the
- full report gives us
- .. code-block:: bash
- Time (in seconds):
- Preprocessor 0.051
- Residual evaluation 0.053
- Jacobian evaluation 0.344
- Linear solver 0.372
- Minimizer 0.854
- Postprocessor 0.002
- Total 0.935
- The preprocessor time has gone down by more than 5.5x!.
|