# JumpProblem: controlling saving behavior

**URL:** <https://discourse.julialang.org/t/jumpproblem-controlling-saving-behavior/96716>\
**Category:** Modelling & Simulations\
**Created:** [March 28, 2023, 3:14pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/jumpproblem-controlling-saving-behavior/96716 "2023-03-28T15:14:35Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 8\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lmshk](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/lmshk/32/29632_2.png) [@lmshk](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/lmshk)\
**Post date:** [March 28, 2023, 3:14pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/jumpproblem-controlling-saving-behavior/96716/1 "2023-03-28T15:14:35Z")

</div>

I have a `JumpProcesses.JumpProblem` that I am stepping through piecewise (using `integrator = init(...)`/`step!(integrator, dt, true)`) and I would like to save states only during some of these intervals according to a fixed but complex schedule (depending only on `t`).

It seems like the following approach works correctly:

- setting `integrator.save_everystep = true` right before `step!`ing intervals where I wish to save everything, and resetting it to `false` right afterwards
- `savevalues!(integrator, true)` when I want to save only at specific time points after stepping there exactly using `step!(integrator, ..., true)`

Is there any reason why I shouldn’t be doing that? ([This](https://github.com/SciML/JumpProcesses.jl/issues/306) seems to indicate so.)

If so, how would I implement this correctly? Would I need to define multiple callbacks and switch them out manually by setting `integrator.cb`? (I cannot change `save_positions` since `DiscreteCallback` is immutable.)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![isaacsas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/f6c823/32.png) [@isaacsas](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/isaacsas)\
**Post date:** [March 28, 2023, 6:11pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/jumpproblem-controlling-saving-behavior/96716/2 "2023-03-28T18:11:41Z")

</div>

I wouldn’t recommend changing `save_everystep` by hand. Create your problem by passing `save_positions = (false,false)` i.e. in the call to `JumpProblem(...; save_positions = (false,false))`.

Can you just use a `SavingCallback`?

[https://docs.sciml.ai/DiffEqCallbacks/stable/output\_saving/#Output-and-Saving-Controls](https://docs.sciml.ai/DiffEqCallbacks/stable/output_saving/#Output-and-Saving-Controls)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lmshk](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/lmshk/32/29632_2.png) [@lmshk](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/lmshk)\
**Post date:** [March 29, 2023, 10:41am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/jumpproblem-controlling-saving-behavior/96716/3 "2023-03-29T10:41:54Z")

</div>

By setting `save_positions` on the Problem I am controlling the initial saving behavior; my question is about how I can change that after simulating for some `dt`. For example:

```julia
integrator = init(jump_problem, SSAStepper(), save_start = false)
integrator.save_everystep = false # cannot set this on init

step!(integrator, 1.0, true) # don't save from 0 to 1

integrator.save_everystep = true
step!(integrator, 1.0, true) # save all changes from 1 to 2
integrator.save_everystep = false

step!(integrator, 1.0, true) # don't save from 2 to 3
savevalues!(integrator, true) # save state at 3

solve!(integrator) # solve to end, save final state

```

This seems to work, but it feels like I am using it incorrectly.

> [@isaacsas](#):
>
> Can you just use a `SavingCallback`?

My understanding is that I would need to define one callback for each time interval that I want different saving behavior for, and then switch it out on the `integrator` – is that correct? And how would I do that, just by setting `integrator.cb`?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![isaacsas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/f6c823/32.png) [@isaacsas](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/isaacsas)\
**Post date:** [March 29, 2023, 1:35pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/jumpproblem-controlling-saving-behavior/96716/4 "2023-03-29T13:35:34Z")

</div>

Just to clarify, do you want to save at discrete time points that you know / specify, or do you want to save the exact state (i.e. at all jump times) over some sub-intervals?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lmshk](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/lmshk/32/29632_2.png) [@lmshk](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/lmshk)\
**Post date:** [March 29, 2023, 3:11pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/jumpproblem-controlling-saving-behavior/96716/5 "2023-03-29T15:11:02Z")

</div>

Both: I have a list of (non-overlapping, ordered, potentially zero-width) time intervals and I want to record all state changes (new states at all jumps) within the intervals, as well as the current state at the end of each of these intervals. (If an interval is zero-width, that means only saving the state at that time point.) I don’t want to save anything outside of these intervals.

(The reason is that I have another Gillespie implementation that I am configuring in this way, and now I am trying to build a SciML-based replacement which I would prefer to behave the same initially.)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![isaacsas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/f6c823/32.png) [@isaacsas](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/isaacsas)\
**Post date:** [March 29, 2023, 3:25pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/jumpproblem-controlling-saving-behavior/96716/6 "2023-03-29T15:25:02Z")

</div>

I guess another option is to make a `DiscreteCallback` where the condition is true whenever you are at the desired discrete times or within the desired time intervals. You can set `tstops` in `solve` for the discrete time points, and for the saving interval endpoints, to make sure you step to them exactly. Then your `affect!` function just saves the state using `savevalues!`. That seems like it would do what you want (if I’m understanding correctly).

That said, what you are with the integrator is a reasonable approach too (though I think of `save_everystep` is internal, but as your problem shows perhaps this shouldn’t be the case since mutating it might be needed for some models).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lmshk](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/lmshk/32/29632_2.png) [@lmshk](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/lmshk)\
**Post date:** [March 29, 2023, 3:51pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/jumpproblem-controlling-saving-behavior/96716/7 "2023-03-29T15:51:02Z")

</div>

Using a `DiscreteCallback` like this would imply checking the intersections at every step (though I guess that could be implemented in O(1) amortized by keeping a watermark).

I’ll keep using the current solution described above until I start hitting problems. Otherwise maybe another solution could be to schedule `PresetTimeCallback`s or similar, and then manipulate `integrator.save_everystep` from there – that should be allowed according to the `affect!` documentation for `DiscreteCallback` (or at least that’s how I would interpret it).

Thanks for your input!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![isaacsas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/f6c823/32.png) [@isaacsas](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/isaacsas)\
**Post date:** [March 29, 2023, 3:57pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/jumpproblem-controlling-saving-behavior/96716/8 "2023-03-29T15:57:12Z")

</div>

`PresetTimeCallbacks` just generate `DiscreteCallback`s, so I think they are still getting called every time step and checking if the current time is in their time list. But yes, if checking if the current time is a saving time is expensive relative to one-step of executing the simulation, hand-using the integrator interface will likely be better.