|Model||Model Reference||Lines||Language||Main Loop||TLM||ADM||comment||HES||AD References|
|LIBOR||Brace et al. (1997)||approx. 100||C||-||5.4/80||3.7||-||-||Giles (2007)|
|Two-stream||Pinty et al. (2006)||approx. 330||C||-||1.7||3.8||-||23/7||Lavergne et al. (2006), Pinty et al. (2007)|
|ROF (Computer Vision)||Pock et al. (2007)||approx. 60||C||-||1.6||1.9||-||-||Pock et al. (2007)|
|TAUij (1 core routine)||Gerhold (2005)||130||C||-||-||2.3||-||-||Voßbeck et al. (2008)|
|EULSOLDO||Cusdin and Müller (2003)||140||C||-||2.2||3.2||-||-||Voßbeck et al. ( 2004 , 2008 )|
In most of the applications the TLM computes the product of Jacobian times one vector. Whereever there is more than one vector we print: CPU time ratio / # of vectors.
The entry "Yes" means that there is a TLM, but we don't have the performance, whereas "-" means that there is no TLM.
In all examples the CPU time for the derivative of a scalar valued function is given.
Note that a 2 level checkpointing scheme (see, e.g. Giering and Kaminski, 2002) consumes the CPU time of about one additional function evaluation. For example the adjoint of IMBETHY has a CPU time ratio of about 3.6 - 1 = 2.6 for short integrations, which do not require a checkpointing scheme. 3 level checkpointing costs two additional function evaluations.
If the number of columns is not equal one, we print: CPU time ratio / # of columns.
"-" means that there is no Hessian code.