when trying to replicate the old kriging's behavior by choosing correlation lengths to produce correlations=1 (what the old kriging used for this problem), I forgot to take the square root of 0.5 (so in last night's check in I had 0.5 instead of sqrt(0.5) for correlation_lengths) this has been corrected BUT the behavior/output is still different ... the answer (minimum objective function) I'm getting is different in the 8th significant figure and minimization is terminating after 739 true functions evaluations instead of the 1190 that the old kriging took.  both are using numerical gradients and a constant trend... I can't explain the difference, other than ascribing it to different round off error... 
when trying to replicate the old kriging's behavior by choosing correlation lengths to produce correlations=1 (what the old kriging used for this problem), I forgot to take the square root of 0.5 (so in last night's check in I had 0.5 instead of sqrt(0.5) for correlation_lengths) this has been corrected BUT the behavior/output is still different ... the answer (minimum objective function) I'm getting is different in the 8th significant figure and minimization is terminating after 739 true functions evaluations instead of the 1190 that the old kriging took.  both are using numerical gradients and a constant trend... I can't explain the difference, other than ascribing it to different round off error... 

Question: Since the new Kriging isn't behaving like the old Kriging, do we really want 15 sig figs of sqrt(0.5) or should I truncate at 7 (or fewer) sig figs?



git-svn-id: c6750f7dd89925e309f580f56430152d063ff36c@95 aa0779c3-6ec2-4b84-a212-a405c134cd8d

pemryan/DAKOTA,pemryan/DAKOTA,pemryan/DAKOTA,pemryan/DAKOTA,pemryan/DAKOTA,pemryan/DAKOTA,pemryan/DAKOTA