-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6
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
Methods to help in finding good parameters for the recurrences method #70
Comments
Yes for debugging mode. Unfortunately changing the -1 is really hard because downstream code assumes the special value is -1 when e.g. find the keys if attractors... We need to change it to not check it key is -1 but if key is negative in stead |
What's the best way to do this? Add a lot of
Yup. Is there a lot of code relying on this? If so, an alternative is maybe just throwing a warning message for each of the 3 cases. |
throwing a wraning would only work if debugging is turned on. Actually wait. Throwing warnings isn't a good idea because if you do a simulation with many initial conditions you get your console swarmed with warnings. SO only if debugging is on then warnings should be thrown... For debugging, I think the proper way to do it is using Julia's logging system: https://docs.julialang.org/en/v1/stdlib/Logging/ |
Documenter.jl turns debugging on if you set an environment variable: https://github.com/JuliaDynamics/doctheme/blob/master/build_docs_with_style.jl#L5 |
yeah i really want the debugging mode or "print more info mode" as well. In the past the recurrences mapper printed by default a message when it found an attarctor, but it was annoying to always handle keywords to stop this. A module-wide option for printing info is the best way forwards, via the logging infastructure. |
Yeah so do I, would be really useful. Logging sounds like a great idea. If no one does it before, I'll try it out when I have a bit more time. Also to mention: this would also be super useful for |
Good idea. Sometimes I check out the code for dev just to add special warning when I cannot find what I need. I will think also about the -1 requirement. It is used in the continuation method and maybe in other parts. But I don't think there is much code downstream. I would leave -1 for divergence. Sometimes +- Inf is considered as a basin (for example in the Hénon map). -2 and -3 as error code for attractors outside the grid and convergence error. |
In lots of cases,
AttractorsViaRecurrences
works great with the default parameters. But this isn't true all the time, especially for more complicated systems. Then, we need to fine-tune at least a bit the meta-parameters of the code - do we change the grid length? the grid range? the other parameters?It would be great if there was some method to help in identifying which meta-parameters can be improved for more accuracy or speed, or at least to know which meta-parameters aren't good.
A simple example of this is for cases in which attractors aren't found, and the method returns `-1'. Currently, this can mean that:
mx_chk_lost
steps out of the grid ormx_chk_safety
steps orhorizon_limit
Lifting the degeneracy from these by changing the codes for these from
-1
to-2
and-3
or something would already help. Also, before returning-X we could throw a warning. Similarly, would a debugging mode be good? This could throw
infoor 'warning
messages when each attractor is found saying why it was found.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: