SciMLBenchmarks.jl: Comparison with Fixed timestep methods

Specific Domains Modelling & Simulations
1

Hi,

I have run a benchmark to compare adaptive and fixed step size method DPRKN12():

tols=abstols=reltols=[1e-8, 1e-9, 1e-10, 1e-11, 1e-12, 1e-13, 1e-14, 1e-15]
dts= [15., 25.,35., 50., 65., 75., 100., 125.]

setups = [
           Dict(:alg=>DPRKN12(),:adaptive=>true)
           Dict(:alg=>DPRKN12(),:adaptive=>false,:dts=>dts)   
]

solnames = ["DPRKN12 (adaptive)", "DPRKN12 (fixed)"]

wp1 = WorkPrecisionSet(prob,abstols,reltols,setups;appxsol=test_solx2nd,save_everystep=false,numruns=10,names=solnames);

plot(wp1)

I got the following warning which I relate to "Dict(:alg=>DPRKN12(),:adaptive=>false,:dts=>dts) " code. Did I make something wrong?

“┌ Warning: Warning: Unrecognized keyword arguments found. Future versions will error.
│ The only allowed keyword arguments to solve are: …”

Thanks,
M.

2

Can you share what it said? ... is not very informative when what comes after that tells you exactly what caused the issue.

1 Like
3

Okay, this is the full message:

Blockquote
┌ Warning: Warning: Unrecognized keyword arguments found. Future versions will error.
│ The only allowed keyword arguments to solve are:
│ (:dense, :saveat, :save_idxs, :tstops, :d_discontinuities, :save_everystep, :save_on, :save_start, :save_end, :initialize_save, :adaptive, :abstol, :reltol, :dt, :dtmax, :dtmin, :force_dtmin, :internalnorm, :controller, :gamma, :beta1, :beta2, :qmax, :qmin, :qsteady_min, :qsteady_max, :qoldinit, :failfactor, :calck, :alias_u0, :maxiters, :callback, :isoutofdomain, :unstable_check, :verbose, :merge_callbacks, :progress, :progress_steps, :progress_name, :progress_message, :timeseries_errors, :dense_errors, :calculate_errors, :initializealg, :alg, :save_noise, :delta, :seed, :alg_hints, :kwargshandle, :trajectories, :batch_size, :sensealg, :advance_to_tstop, :stop_at_next_tstop)
│ See https://diffeq.sciml.ai/stable/basics/common_solver_opts/ for more details.
│
│ Set kwargshandle=KeywordArgError for an error message and more details.
│ Set kwargshandle=KeywordArgSilent to ignore this message.
└ @ DiffEqBase /home/mikel/.julia/packages/DiffEqBase/ziNGu/src/solve.jl:210
Blockquote

4

Are you on an old version? The next thing that it would print out is the name of the extra argument? Can you share ]st?

5

I am using Julia 1.6.6 version and ] st info is:

[6e4b80f9] BenchmarkTools v1.3.1
[2b5f629d] DiffEqBase v6.83.1
[f3b72e0c] DiffEqDevTools v2.29.0
[5789e2e9] FileIO v1.14.0
[0e44f5e4] Hwloc v2.0.0
[7073ff75] IJulia v1.23.3
[58bc7355] IRKGaussLegendre v0.1.1
[033835bb] JLD2 v0.4.22
[b964fa9f] LaTeXStrings v1.3.0
[0db19996] NBInclude v2.3.0
[1dea7af3] OrdinaryDiffEq v5.71.0
[d96e819e] Parameters v0.12.3
[91a5bcdd] Plots v1.27.6
[731186ca] RecursiveArrayTools v2.26.3
[189a3867] Reexport v1.2.2
[37e2e46d] LinearAlgebra

Which extra argument do you mean to print?
Anyway, I would like to clarify that the result is correct (I attach the result of the plot(w1)). The drawback is that the warning messages fill the Jupyter document.

plotw1

6

What happens if you do ]up? You’re on old versions. If that doesn’t work, ]add DiffEqDevTools@2.31

7

I do ] up, and warning messages have disappeared.

Thank a lot

  • For another time, I will previously update to the latest version.
8

Sorry, but I’m making some improvements to our IRKGL16 implementation and I have a new question. In the future, can we use kwargs keyword arguments in the ODEProblem definition?

 ODEProblem(f::ODEFunction,u0,tspan,p=NullParameters();kwargs...)

Now, we use kwargs arguments in the IRKGL16() mixed precision implementation and the execution shows the following warning message:

 prob= ODEProblem(NbodyODE!,u0,tspan,Gm1;lpp=lpp)
 sol=solve(prob,IRKGL16(), reltol=1e-20, abstol=1e-20, adaptive=true)

┌ Warning: Unrecognized keyword arguments found. Future versions will error.
│ The only allowed keyword arguments to `solve` are:
│ (:dense, :saveat, :save_idxs, :tstops, :d_discontinuities, :save_everystep, :save_on, :save_start, :save_end, :initialize_save, :adaptive, :abstol, :reltol, :dt, :dtmax, :dtmin, :force_dtmin, :internalnorm, :controller, :gamma, :beta1, :beta2, :qmax, :qmin, :qsteady_min, :qsteady_max, :qoldinit, :failfactor, :calck, :alias_u0, :maxiters, :callback, :isoutofdomain, :unstable_check, :verbose, :merge_callbacks, :progress, :progress_steps, :progress_name, :progress_message, :timeseries_errors, :dense_errors, :weak_timeseries_errors, :weak_dense_errors, :calculate_errors, :initializealg, :alg, :save_noise, :delta, :seed, :alg_hints, :kwargshandle, :trajectories, :batch_size, :sensealg, :advance_to_tstop, :stop_at_next_tstop, :default_set, :second_time, :prob_choice)
│ 
│ See https://diffeq.sciml.ai/stable/basics/common_solver_opts/ for more details.
│ 
│ Set kwargshandle=KeywordArgError for an error message.
│ Set kwargshandle=KeywordArgSilent to ignore this message.
└ @ DiffEqBase /home/mikel/.julia/packages/DiffEqBase/HDcso/src/solve.jl:816

Unrecognized keyword arguments: [:lpp]

Áfter update, I understand I am using the last version,

 [6e4b80f9] BenchmarkTools v1.3.1
  [2b5f629d] DiffEqBase v6.94.4
  [f3b72e0c] DiffEqDevTools v2.31.0
  [5789e2e9] FileIO v1.15.0
  [0e44f5e4] Hwloc v2.0.0
  [7073ff75] IJulia v1.23.3
  [58bc7355] IRKGaussLegendre v0.1.2
  [033835bb] JLD2 v0.4.22
  [b964fa9f] LaTeXStrings v1.3.0
  [0db19996] NBInclude v2.3.0
  [1dea7af3] OrdinaryDiffEq v6.19.3
  [d96e819e] Parameters v0.12.3
  [91a5bcdd] Plots v1.31.5
  [731186ca] RecursiveArrayTools v2.31.2
  [189a3867] Reexport v1.2.2
  [37e2e46d] LinearAlgebra

Thank you in advance for your help

M.

9

Yes. lpp isn’t a valid keyword argument though. If it’s an algorithm-specific argument, then it should go into the algorithm, i.e. IRKGL16(;lpp=lpp) or IRKGL16(lpp).

10

“lpp” is not algorithm-specific argument.
Do you have an example where kwargs keyword arguments are applied ?

Regards,
M.

11

What do you mean? The list is just https://diffeq.sciml.ai/stable/basics/common_solver_opts/

What does it do?

12

I was wrong and I have already fixed the problem with the “lpp” argument.
Thank you, and I hope to finish the improvements in the IRKGL16 implementation soon.

1 Like
13

Good to hear. Yeah I saw some of the benchmarks and it looks really good!