public inbox for gsl-discuss@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tuomo Keskitalo <Tuomo.Keskitalo@iki.fi>
To: GSL Discuss Mailing List <gsl-discuss@sourceware.org>
Subject: GSL ODE-solvers' status
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:30:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <fc6a6552-263e-5c94-9ba9-fef90da2c2d7@iki.fi> (raw)

Dear all,

Patrick found this recent blog post by Christopher Rackauckas, who is 
the developer of DifferentialEquations.jl, which contains a wide 
selection of ODE-solvers for Julia:

http://www.stochasticlifestyle.com/comparison-differential-equation-solver-suites-matlab-r-julia-python-c-fortran/

Christopher also has given an informative talk at the Julia Developers 
conference:

https://www.juliabloggers.com/video-introduction-to-differentialequations-jl/

I'm happy to see that there has been at least some progress on ODE 
solving methods! Unfortunately, I am no longer really up-to-date with 
this field. If someone has the opportunity to work on GSL ODE-solvers, I 
try to point towards potential places of improvement. The methods 
suggested by Cristoph in his presentation are:

On explicit side:
- Bogacki-Shampine 3/2 method
- Tsitouras 5/4 Runge-Kutta method
- Verner 7/6 Runge-Kutta method
On implicit side:
- Rosenbrock 2/3 method
- Radau IIA Runge-Kutta variable order method
- CVODE_BDF. GSL's msbdf is based on this method.

More information on these are surely available in 
DifferentialEquations.jl source codes.

Also, for time stepping, there appears to be some PI-controller based 
method for adjusting step size, which is very interesting.

Finally, Cristoph does not talk in favor of extrapolation methods, but I 
have previously wondered how much better bsimp would fare, if the 
internal iteration would be modified so that it continues only up to 
user given tolerances, instead of near machine precision.

It would be interesting to see if these (old and) new methods would 
yield significant improvements compared to those existing now in 
ode-initval2, or would improvements remain marginal?

As for GSL ode-initval2 framework: Room for improvement exists in better 
co-operation of GSL stepper and control routines. For multistep methods, 
it is not good that method order is adjusted internally by stepper and 
step size is adjusted independently by control routines.

Final tip for all ODE-solver users: Benchmark different steppers for 
your problem. Depending on the problem and your tolerance requirements, 
you may get significant improvements just by changing the stepper.

BR,
Tuomo

-- 
Tuomo.Keskitalo@iki.fi
http://iki.fi/tuomo.keskitalo

                 reply	other threads:[~2017-10-22 10:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=fc6a6552-263e-5c94-9ba9-fef90da2c2d7@iki.fi \
    --to=tuomo.keskitalo@iki.fi \
    --cc=gsl-discuss@sourceware.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).