ForceFreeStates - Investigate Solovev cutoff sensitivity after 2.0

Aperta
  • Qualcosa non va?
#610 0 commenti 0 reazioni 0 assegnatari Vedi su GitHub

I maintainer di solito rispondono entro 3 giorni

Nessuno ha ancora preso questa issue.

Valutazione

Difficoltà
5/5
Tempo stimato
Più di una settimana
Idoneità per principianti
35/100
Tipo di issue
Bug
Chiarezza
Abbastanza chiara
Stato di attività
Attiva
Stack tecnologico
julia
Ambito
performance

Direzione di ricerca

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.

Scritto dal modello di indicizzazione a partire dal testo della issue.

Descrizione

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.

Lingua principale
Julia
Stelle
11
Fork
7
Merge medio
4g 3h
PR unite (30g)
70

Preparare l'ambiente

  • Nessun Dockerfile né file Docker Compose
  • Ha un modello di pull request
  • Nessuna guida per i contributori

Come iniziare

  1. Leggi tutta la issue e poi la guida ai contributi del progetto.
  2. Commenta sulla issue per dire che te ne occupi tu — evita che due persone facciano lo stesso lavoro.
  3. Fai un fork del repository e lavora su un branch.
  4. Apri una pull request che faccia riferimento al numero della issue.

Altre issue di OpenFUSIONToolkit/GPEC

Tutte le issue di OpenFUSIONToolkit/GPEC

Issue simili

Altre issue su Julia

Ricevi le nuove issue nella tua casella

Un breve riepilogo di issue GitHub adatte ai principianti.