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

What's the state of IDA(S) for sensitivity analysis? #458

Open
chaozg opened this issue Aug 9, 2024 · 1 comment
Open

What's the state of IDA(S) for sensitivity analysis? #458

chaozg opened this issue Aug 9, 2024 · 1 comment
Labels

Comments

@chaozg
Copy link

chaozg commented Aug 9, 2024

Hi there,

I recently discovered Sundials.jl and have been impressed with the performance of IDA(S) for my DAE problem. Thank you very much for your work on this!

I'm curious about the current state of IDA(S) for forward/adjoint sensitivity analysis. Specifically, can we perform sensitivity analysis with IDA(S) using the DAEProblem interface? If so, is there a demo or example that I could study?

Thanks again for your efforts, and I appreciate any guidance you can provide.

Regard,
Charlie

@chaozg chaozg added the question label Aug 9, 2024
@ChrisRackauckas
Copy link
Member

IIRC can already use IDA in SciMLSensitivity's ForwardSensitivity tooling. For adjoints, we just need to add a dispatch for DAEProblem in SciMLSensitivity's handling, and by doing so we don't need to have anything specific to Sundials there. We are currently missing that interface, but OrdinaryDiffEq's FBDF in mass matrix form is usually a faster way to handle DAEs and we'd recommend that for now.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants