-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 356
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Enable use of different Jacobian implementations with 1D solver #1836
Draft
speth
wants to merge
17
commits into
Cantera:main
Choose a base branch
from
speth:sparse-jacobian
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+1,165
−580
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
First step toward allowing Jacobians implemented using different matrix storage and factorization methods.
One step toward allowing alternative Jacobian implementations
Formulas for perturbation size are based roughly on those used in CVODES.
speth
force-pushed
the
sparse-jacobian
branch
from
January 27, 2025 02:56
bb71f0a
to
9eeb7cf
Compare
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1836 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 74.39% 74.37% -0.02%
==========================================
Files 382 386 +4
Lines 53354 53484 +130
Branches 9030 9038 +8
==========================================
+ Hits 39691 39779 +88
- Misses 10608 10647 +39
- Partials 3055 3058 +3 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
speth
force-pushed
the
sparse-jacobian
branch
from
January 27, 2025 04:14
2ceb303
to
eb3c836
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Changes proposed in this pull request
PreconditionerBase
(now renamedSystemJacobian
) to be able represent both preconditioners (Sim1D
(MultiJac
to be a derived class ofPreconditionerBase
and avoid direct inheritance fromBandMatrix
OneDim
to allow setting the implementation ofSystemJacobian
to useSystemJacobian
implementation that uses Eigen's sparse direct LU factorizationOneDim
more flexible. In some cases, different perturbations can reduce the number of residual and Jacobian evaluations required to converge. However, this is not universal so the default values are mostly unchanged.If applicable, fill in the issue number this pull request is fixing
This is preliminary work toward several planned improvements:
Note: some of the earlier performance gains that I saw turned out to require Jacobian settings that were not as robust as I'd hoped. I think getting reliably better Jacobians and cutting down the Jacobian evaluation time will be best addressed by work towards semi-analytical evaluation, as we've done in the 0D solver.
Checklist
scons build
&scons test
) and unit tests address code coverage