#10333 closed enhancement (fixed)
An interface to Anders Buch's Littlewood-Richardson Calculator ``lrcalc``
Reported by: | mhansen | Owned by: | sage-combinat |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | major | Milestone: | sage-5.0 |
Component: | packages: optional | Keywords: | spkg package, Schubert calculus, Littlewood-Richardson, days30 |
Cc: | sage-combinat, asbuch, saliola | Merged in: | sage-5.0.beta2 |
Authors: | Mike Hansen, Anders Buch, Nicolas M. Thiéry, Anne Schilling | Reviewers: | Nicolas M. Thiéry, Anne Schilling |
Report Upstream: | N/A | Work issues: | |
Branch: | Commit: | ||
Dependencies: | Stopgaps: |
Description (last modified by )
The attached patch, and spkg implements an interface to Anders Buch's Littlewood-Richardson Calculator lrcalc
The "Littlewood-Richardson Calculator" is a C library for fast
computation of Littlewood-Richardson (LR) coefficients and products of
Schubert polynomials. It handles single LR coefficients, products of
and coproducts of Schur functions, skew Schur functions, and
fusion products. All of the above are achieved by counting LR
(skew)-tableaux (also called Yamanouchi (skew)-tableaux) of
appropriate shape and content by iterating through them.
Additionally, lrcalc
handles products of Schubert polynomials.
The web page of lrcalc
is: http://math.rutgers.edu/~asbuch/lrcalc/
Here is a short extract of the doc:
EXAMPLES:: sage: import sage.libs.lrcalc.lrcalc as lrcalc Compute a single Littlewood-Richardson coefficient:: sage: lrcalc.lrcoef([3,2,1],[2,1],[2,1]) #optional - lrcalc 2 Compute a product of Schur functions; return the coefficients in the Schur expansion:: sage: lrcalc.mult([2,1], [2,1]) #optional - lrcalc {[3, 3]: 1, [4, 2]: 1, [3, 1, 1, 1]: 1, [4, 1, 1]: 1, [2, 2, 2]: 1, [3, 2, 1]: 2, [2, 2, 1, 1]: 1}
Add optional package lrcalc-1.1.6beta.spkg
Apply: trac_10333-lrcalc-final.patch
Making lrcalc into a standard package in the next Sage release is the topic of the followup ticket: #11563
Attachments (3)
Change History (47)
comment:1 Changed 6 years ago by
- Status changed from new to needs_review
comment:2 Changed 6 years ago by
- Type changed from PLEASE CHANGE to enhancement
comment:3 Changed 6 years ago by
- Reviewers set to Anne Schilling
comment:4 Changed 6 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-4.7 to sage-4.7.1
comment:5 Changed 6 years ago by
- Keywords spkg package Schubert calculus Littlewood-Richardson added
I fixed some more typos and omissions on the doctest.
Positive review on the mathematics and features.
Could someone complete the technical review?
Cheers,
Anne
comment:6 Changed 6 years ago by
- Keywords days30 added
comment:7 Changed 6 years ago by
for the bot:
Apply: trac_10333-lrcalc-final.patch
comment:8 Changed 6 years ago by
- Reviewers changed from Anne Schilling to Nicolas Thiery, Anne Schilling
comment:9 Changed 6 years ago by
Hi,
I used the occasion to do something I had promissed Anders a while ago: namely to add a standard GNU build system (autoconf/automake) to the original lrcalc sources. With this, the SPKG becomes trivial. I'll upload shortly a preversion of it. If Anders agrees with the changes, and once he will have done an official release, I'll upload a final version of the spkg.
Mike: could you review now the three little files: SPKG.txt, spkg-install and spkg-check? Those are unlikely to change.
comment:10 Changed 6 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
- Summary changed from Add an optional interface for lrcalc to An interface to Anders Buch's Littlewood-Richardson Calculator ``lrcalc``
comment:11 Changed 6 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
comment:12 Changed 6 years ago by
I fixed a couple tiny typos in lrcalc.pyx, and uploaded an updated patch. For me this part is good to go.
comment:13 follow-up: ↓ 14 Changed 6 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
According to the vote on http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/browse_thread/thread/2e7114375f6f88a5/, there is a consensus on making lrcalc a standard package, after a one release probation period in order to follow the official rule. See: #11563
comment:14 in reply to: ↑ 13 Changed 6 years ago by
Can we now set a positive review on this patch?
Anne
comment:15 follow-up: ↓ 16 Changed 5 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_info
(pending an answer, if no one knows whether this ticket should be reviewed...)
comment:16 in reply to: ↑ 15 Changed 5 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_info to needs_review
Replying to ncohen:
(pending an answer, if no one knows whether this ticket should be reviewed...)
As far as I know, everything is fine with the ticket except that Nicolas is waiting for confirmation from Anders Buch about the spkg. Nicolas, is everything ok now on this front?
Anne
comment:17 Changed 5 years ago by
Got it ! Then what about setting it to needs_info in the meantime sothat it does not appear in the list of tickets needing a review ? I am trying to deal with some of them, and it would be nice to sort out the tickets which actually need one, those which are to be forgotten until some external event takes place, and those that are totally abandonned :-)
Nathann
comment:18 Changed 5 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_info
- Work issues set to Need final permission from Anders
Done.
comment:19 Changed 5 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
comment:20 Changed 5 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_info to needs_review
- Work issues Need final permission from Anders deleted
After discussion with Anders, I have rolled a new (beta) release of lrcalc, based on:
- lrcalc-1.1.5.tar.gz
- schmult-1.1.5.tar.gz
- an autotools build system
which Anders will later polish into an official 1.1.6 release. The spkg is basically identical to the previous 1.1.5b, except for some updated files in the lrcalc sources (README/AUTHOR/TODO), and the header installation configuration. Anders gave his +1 on the changes. I have installed the spkg together with the patch on sage 4.7.2 and sage-5.0.prealpha0, and in both cases, all test pass.
The patch is unchanged and has a positive review.
Anne (and others!): could you try out the new spkg? If it works fine for you, I guess we can set a positive review. Feel free to untar the spkg, and check the files src/README, src/AUTHORS, src/TODO, src/NEWS.
Cheers,
Nicolas
comment:21 Changed 5 years ago by
- Cc asbuch added
- Description modified (diff)
comment:22 Changed 5 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
I tried out the new package and ran the tests. Everything seemed to work. Positive review.
Anne
comment:23 Changed 5 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-4.8 to sage-5.0
comment:24 Changed 5 years ago by
- Component changed from combinatorics to optional packages
comment:25 follow-up: ↓ 26 Changed 5 years ago by
- Status changed from positive_review to needs_work
I get a warning building the documentation (this is without the optional spkg installed):
/mnt/usb1/scratch/jdemeyer/merger/sage-5.0.beta1/devel/sage/doc/en/reference/sage/libs/lrcalc/lrcalc.rst:7: WARNING: autodoc can't import/find module 'sage.libs.lrcalc.lrcalc', it reported error: "No module named lrcalc", please check your spelling and sys.path
comment:26 in reply to: ↑ 25 ; follow-up: ↓ 29 Changed 5 years ago by
- Cc saliola added
Replying to jdemeyer:
I get a warning building the documentation (this is without the optional spkg installed):
/mnt/usb1/scratch/jdemeyer/merger/sage-5.0.beta1/devel/sage/doc/en/reference/sage/libs/lrcalc/lrcalc.rst:7: WARNING: autodoc can't import/find module 'sage.libs.lrcalc.lrcalc', it reported error: "No module named lrcalc", please check your spelling and sys.path
Yikes. Is there an idiom to conditionally include a piece of documentation in the reference manual depending on the presence or not of a spkg? (analogue of the is_package_installed in module.list.py).
If not, may we just kill the beast, and make lrcalc right away a standard spkg (#11563)?
Cheers,
comment:27 follow-up: ↓ 28 Changed 5 years ago by
Maybe this should be discussed on sage-devel? I don't have an opinion either way.
comment:28 in reply to: ↑ 27 Changed 5 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
Replying to jdemeyer:
Maybe this should be discussed on sage-devel? I don't have an opinion either way.
Ok, I just relaunched the discussion there:
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/msg/9a7b4987ae974b2b
comment:29 in reply to: ↑ 26 ; follow-up: ↓ 30 Changed 5 years ago by
Yikes. Is there an idiom to conditionally include a piece of documentation in the reference manual depending on the presence or not of a spkg? (analogue of the is_package_installed in module.list.py).
If you don't include the documentation in the reference manual (by that, I mean no modification to the file doc/en/reference/libs.rst
), does the warning still shows up when building the documentation?
What is the status of the documentation for other optional packages?
comment:30 in reply to: ↑ 29 Changed 5 years ago by
Salut Sébastien!
Replying to slabbe:
Yikes. Is there an idiom to conditionally include a piece of documentation in the reference manual depending on the presence or not of a spkg? (analogue of the is_package_installed in module.list.py).
If you don't include the documentation in the reference manual (by that, I mean no modification to the file
doc/en/reference/libs.rst
), does the warning still shows up when building the documentation?
I guess not, so worst case that will be the way to go. But not having the documentation linked to does not feel good.
What is the status of the documentation for other optional packages?
I did not find that many, and as far as I could see, the documentation was not linked to ...
Cheers,
comment:31 Changed 5 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_work to positive_review
Oh well, I just stripped the link to the lrcalc from libs.rst. Ugly, but if that's the price to pay to abide to the rules ...
Jeroen: I am allowing myself to put back the positive review to catch your attention. Feel free to unset it if you find it innappropriate.
comment:32 follow-up: ↓ 33 Changed 5 years ago by
- Status changed from positive_review to needs_work
One more thing: the spkg should follow the format of http://sagemath.org/doc/developer/producing_spkgs.html#the-file-spkg-txt. In particular, the Changelog
should be formatted differently.
comment:33 in reply to: ↑ 32 Changed 5 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
Replying to jdemeyer:
One more thing: the spkg should follow the format of http://sagemath.org/doc/developer/producing_spkgs.html#the-file-spkg-txt. In particular, the
Changelog
should be formatted differently.
Oops. Thanks for spotting this. I updated the spkg accordingly. Do you mind reviewing the new SPKG.txt?
comment:34 follow-up: ↓ 35 Changed 5 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
Actually, the documentation still doesn't work:
/mnt/usb1/scratch/jdemeyer/merger/sage-5.0.beta2/devel/sage/doc/en/reference/sage/libs/lrcalc/lrcalc.rst:7: WARNING: autodoc can't import/find module 'sage.libs.lrcalc.lrcalc', it reported error: "No module named lrcalc", please check your spelling and sys.path /mnt/usb1/scratch/jdemeyer/merger/sage-5.0.beta2/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/misc/edit_module.py:docstring of sage.misc.edit_module.edit_devel:14: WARNING: Inline interpreted text or phrase reference start-string without end-string.
comment:35 in reply to: ↑ 34 Changed 5 years ago by
Replying to jdemeyer:
Actually, the documentation still doesn't work:
/mnt/usb1/scratch/jdemeyer/merger/sage-5.0.beta2/devel/sage/doc/en/reference/sage/libs/lrcalc/lrcalc.rst:7: WARNING: autodoc can't import/find module 'sage.libs.lrcalc.lrcalc', it reported error: "No module named lrcalc", please check your spelling and sys.path /mnt/usb1/scratch/jdemeyer/merger/sage-5.0.beta2/local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/sage/misc/edit_module.py:docstring of sage.misc.edit_module.edit_devel:14: WARNING: Inline interpreted text or phrase reference start-string without end-string.
I don't understand. Why is this lrcalc.rst file generated, whereas no such file is generated for, e.g. the analoguous sage/numerical/backends/coin_backend.pyx?
comment:36 follow-ups: ↓ 37 ↓ 38 Changed 5 years ago by
When I click on trac_10333-lrcalc-final.patch, it still has a line adding sage/libs/lrcalc/lrcalc
to doc/en/reference/libs.rst
. That's presumably the problem.
comment:37 in reply to: ↑ 36 ; follow-up: ↓ 39 Changed 5 years ago by
Replying to jhpalmieri:
When I click on trac_10333-lrcalc-final.patch, it still has a line adding
sage/libs/lrcalc/lrcalc
todoc/en/reference/libs.rst
. That's presumably the problem.
Nicolas, could you please also put the updated patch on the sage-combinat server.
Thanks,
Anne
Changed 5 years ago by
comment:38 in reply to: ↑ 36 Changed 5 years ago by
Replying to jhpalmieri:
When I click on trac_10333-lrcalc-final.patch, it still has a line adding
sage/libs/lrcalc/lrcalc
todoc/en/reference/libs.rst
. That's presumably the problem.
What's the heck? How did I do this?
Oh well; fixed. Thanks for spotting it!
comment:39 in reply to: ↑ 37 Changed 5 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
Nicolas, could you please also put the updated patch on the sage-combinat server.
Done.
comment:40 follow-up: ↓ 41 Changed 5 years ago by
Jeroen: I let you set back the positive review. Sorry for all the back and forth.
comment:41 in reply to: ↑ 40 Changed 5 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
Replying to nthiery:
Jeroen: I let you set back the positive review. Sorry for all the back and forth.
The line referring to doc/en/reference/libs.rst seems to be gone now, so I set this back to positive review. Hopefully it will work now!
Anne
comment:42 Changed 5 years ago by
- Merged in set to sage-5.0.beta2
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from positive_review to closed
comment:43 Changed 5 years ago by
Yippee :-)
Thanks everyone!
comment:44 Changed 5 years ago by
- Reviewers changed from Nicolas Thiery, Anne Schilling to Nicolas M. Thiéry, Anne Schilling
Together with Anders Buch, I went through this patch at Sage Days 30 and checked all functionalities. We added further doctests and also access to fusion coefficients (which was not in the previous version of this patch).
From the mathematical point of view, I give this a positive review. Could someone please do a quick technical review of the patch?
Thanks!
Anne
Apply: trac_10333-lrcalc-final.patch