Skip to content
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

AB adaptive #2

Open
wants to merge 10 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

AB adaptive #2

wants to merge 10 commits into from

Conversation

obiajulu
Copy link
Owner

@obiajulu obiajulu commented Jun 6, 2016

No description provided.

for j = 0:s
# Assign in correct order for multiplication below
# (a factor depending on j and s) .* (an integral of a polynomial with -(-1:s-1), except -(j-1), as roots)
p_int = polyint(poly(diagm(-[-1:j - 2; j:s-1])))
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

the diagm is actually not needed (I think).

@obiajulu
Copy link
Owner Author

obiajulu commented Jun 28, 2016

So, I was working on dense output, and the problem that I am currently running into the polynomial interpolation away from the step points is not too accurate. I could change the stepsize so the value at each time in tspan is calculated with the implicit CE loop, which will make the interpolation much more accurate. However, then of course the algorithm would only be freely adaptive when the tspan contains the beginning and end.

@mauro3
Copy link

mauro3 commented Jun 28, 2016

? My understanding was that you get a interpolation polynomial out which should be accurate anywhere within its support to the specified order. Isn't this polynomial used for the integration on which the method is based. If it wasn't accurate inbetween, wouldn't that mean that the method doesn't work either? Maybe I need to re-read, can you point me to the relevant sections?

@obiajulu
Copy link
Owner Author

Yeah, on a second pass over, it may not be this. The reason why I started to think in this direction is because the basic interpolation is akin to an explicit method, with no Correction-Evaluation step. I was wondering if this was enough to introduce extra error, however, I'll still testing around.

@mauro3
Copy link

mauro3 commented Jun 29, 2016

I don't think so. And even if, at most this would be reducing the order by 1, probably not enough to notice easily.

@obiajulu
Copy link
Owner Author

Yeah, after running some graphs, I can tell it is a coding issue. I just need to rework the dense output code.

b_imp = am_imp_coefficients3
b_exp = ms_coefficients4
else
#calculating higher order coefficients for implicit Adam Multon method
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Adam Moulton method

@obiajulu obiajulu force-pushed the ob/a-b_adaptive branch 3 times, most recently from ba6b1ea to 62e2b9c Compare July 2, 2016 02:45
@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented Jul 13, 2016

Current coverage is 91.58% (diff: 89.44%)

No coverage report found for master at a0ef97d.

Powered by Codecov. Last update a0ef97d...481bbf7

end


#Based on Hairer equation 5.9. Calculates b, ϕ, ϕstar for
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Based on Hairer equation III.5.9, p.399.

Just make the document more clear

ChrisRackauckas and others added 6 commits September 1, 2016 07:57
On tableau was in terms of 1/2 instead of 1//2, etc.
example of a user defined type
Update Simple_Differential_Equation.ipynb
We add two new solvers for ODE.jl, and relocate the old multistep solver
ode_ms, namely ode_am and ode113. ode_am is a fixed step method similiar
to ode_ms, but uses a PECE step. ode113 is a variable step size and
variable order method using the same underlying theory as ode_am.For more
documentation, refer to Hairer et al Volume 1 on Adam Methods.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants