Handling (non-negativity) constraints #2327
Assignees
Labels
Comments
|
Oh, for the handling of plain (non)negativity/positivity constraints we don't need to upgrade sundials. We have CVodeSetConstraints already available. Only for the more general constraint handling (#2329) we'll have to upgrade. |
|
Okay, after a brief test, this won't help with cases where the Jacobian cannot be evaluated (produces NaN) for negative |
dweindl
added a commit
to dweindl/AMICI
that referenced
this issue
Mar 4, 2024
In addition to the current `Model.setStateIsNonNegative`, this adds the option to set additional (non)negativity/positivity constraints to be enforced by the solver. See [CVodeSetConstraints](https://sundials.readthedocs.io/en/latest/cvode/Usage/index.html#c.CVodeSetConstraints) for details. Related to AMICI-dev#2327.
dweindl
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Mar 7, 2024
In addition to the current `Model.setStateIsNonNegative`, this adds the option to set additional (non)negativity/positivity constraints to be enforced by the solver. See [CVodeSetConstraints](https://sundials.readthedocs.io/en/latest/cvode/Usage/index.html#c.CVodeSetConstraints) for details. Related to #2327.
|
Note:
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
In many applications, our models are subject to physical constraint, such that the model state has to be non-negative. Due to numerical issues, this is however not always ensured in practice. Currently, this is optionally handled via
Model.{setStateIsNonNegative|allStatesNonNegative}, which boils down to takingmax(0, state).As of v6.2.0[1], SUNDIALS supports handling such constraints via projection functions. This would be the preferable mechanism for handling non-negativity- or more general constraints.
This will, however, first require upgrading SUNDIALS (#1565).[1] Note: relevant memory leaks fixed in v6.4.0The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: