Difference between revisions of "ParSA Results"

From UConn PAN
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 14: Line 14:
 
|[[Image:demas1.png|thumb|The best solution found amongst several simulated annealing runs.]]
 
|[[Image:demas1.png|thumb|The best solution found amongst several simulated annealing runs.]]
 
|}
 
|}
{|align=right
+
{|align=center
 
|[[Image:truth2.png|thumb|The back diamond surface used to generate the interferogram in the test problem.]]
 
|[[Image:truth2.png|thumb|The back diamond surface used to generate the interferogram in the test problem.]]
 
|[[Image:demas2.png|thumb|The best solution found amongst several simulated annealing runs.]]
 
|[[Image:demas2.png|thumb|The best solution found amongst several simulated annealing runs.]]

Revision as of 06:39, 2 June 2008

Solutions

Interferograms

The set of images to the right depict the test interferogram analyzed using ParSA and the best interferogram solution found by ParSA. When compared visually, the two interferograms are nearly indistinguishable. This comparison shows that the solution found by the ParSA algorithm is a good one.

The test interferogram created from three random surfaces.
The best solution found amongst several simulated annealing runs.

Surfaces

The front diamond surface used to generate the interferogram in the test problem.
The best solution found amongst several simulated annealing runs.
The back diamond surface used to generate the interferogram in the test problem.
The best solution found amongst several simulated annealing runs.

Performance

Log of probability versus non-convergence versus log of run length for alpha=0.5.
Log of probability versus non-convergence versus log of run length for alpha=0.9.