ForceFreeStates - Investigate Solovev cutoff sensitivity after 2.0

Abierto
  • ¿Algo no está bien?
#610 0 comentarios 0 reacciones 0 asignados Ver en GitHub

Los mantenedores suelen responder en 3 días

Nadie ha tomado este issue todavía.

Evaluación

Dificultad
5/5
Tiempo estimado
Más de una semana
Aptitud para principiantes
35/100
Tipo de issue
Error
Claridad
Bastante claro
Estado de actividad
Activo
Stack tecnológico
julia
Área
performance

Línea de trabajo

Start by reviewing the Solovev cutoff scan and the related issues #481, #520, and #427; the payload names no files or test commands. Compare FFS energies, response, and coupling quantities across cutoffs near 1e-6, varying ODE tolerance and spatial resolution independently, and validate calculated-kinetic examples separately. Done means establishing acceptable errors, supported numerical ranges, focused regression coverage, and documentation.

Escrito por el modelo de indexación a partir del texto del issue.

Descripción

Follow-up to #555, scheduled for investigation after the 2.0 release. This issue records numerical questions to investigate without holding #555 up on additional convergence studies.

Related: #481 (separating crossing width from matching distance), #490 / #520 (forward-basis conditioning), and #427 (PE singular-coupling sampling radius). This issue focuses on validation of the Solovev examples rather than proposing another crossing implementation.

singfac_min controls the ForceFreeStates (FFS) integration/crossing near singular surfaces. Changing it can change the global solution and energy matrix, hence the response computed by PerturbedEquilibrium (PE), as well as downstream NTV torque. It is distinct from the PE singular-coupling diagnostic's sampling offset and from regularization_width.

The ideal-plus-NTV Solovev examples use kinetic_factor = 0 and prescribed regularization. Their torque should be interpreted as a diagnostic on a regularized ideal response, not a self-consistent kinetic torque. Numerical convergence at fixed regularization and physical sensitivity to the regularization are separate questions. The calculated-kinetic path (kinetic_source = "calculated", kinetic_factor = 1) needs separate validation.

After 2.0:

  • Revisit the Solovev cutoff scan and its reproducibility, including ODE-tolerance sensitivity and the conditioning concerns tracked in #481 and #520.
  • Test an intermediate-cutoff window around 1e-6 with independent ODE-tolerance and spatial-resolution checks. Track FFS energies, response, and coupling quantities; treat regularized NTV torque as a downstream diagnostic.
  • Separate finite-crossing error, small-cutoff numerical breakdown, and prescribed-regularization dependence. State the acceptable error for the quantity being validated.
  • Validate the calculated-kinetic examples independently rather than extrapolating from ideal-plus-postprocessing runs.
  • Add focused regression coverage and document the supported numerical range when established.

Treat 1e-6 as a practical choice to validate further, without assuming that smaller values are always safer or that 1e-4 is more accurate. No solver design is selected by this issue. This follow-up does not replace the normal human review and merge checks for #555.

Lenguaje dominante
Julia
Estrellas
11
Forks
7
Merge medio
3 d 22 h
PR fusionados (30 d)
70

Preparar el entorno

  • Sin Dockerfile ni archivo de Docker Compose
  • Tiene una plantilla de pull request
  • Sin guía de contribución

Primeros pasos

  1. Lee el issue completo y luego la guía de contribución del proyecto.
  2. Comenta en el issue que vas a ocuparte — evita que dos personas hagan lo mismo.
  3. Haz un fork del repositorio y trabaja en una rama.
  4. Abre un pull request que haga referencia al número del issue.

Más de OpenFUSIONToolkit/GPEC

Todos los issues de OpenFUSIONToolkit/GPEC

Issues similares

Más issues de Julia

Recibe los nuevos issues en tu correo

Un resumen breve de issues de GitHub para principiantes.