Skip to content
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

Non-split physics for all explicit or IMEX time discretisations #578

Open
wants to merge 20 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

atb1995
Copy link
Collaborator

@atb1995 atb1995 commented Nov 26, 2024

Currently you can only have physics when using IMEX RK, Explicit RK (Predictor) or IMEX SDC by using SpitPhysicsTimestepper. I will add the capability to do this, and a unit test to show it has the same results as SplitPhysicsTimestepper.

@atb1995 atb1995 self-assigned this Nov 26, 2024
@atb1995 atb1995 marked this pull request as draft November 26, 2024 14:50
@tommbendall tommbendall added the enhancement Involves adding a new capability label Dec 2, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@tommbendall tommbendall left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for this Alex. I've got two main thoughts:

  • is the test demonstrating that the physics is correct?
  • the explicit 'predictor' physics isn't what I was expecting so needs checking and testing

gusto/time_discretisation/imex_runge_kutta.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
gusto/time_discretisation/explicit_runge_kutta.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
integration-tests/model/test_nonsplit_physics.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

stepper.run(0, tmax=tmax)

error = norm(stepper.fields('f') - f_end) / norm(f_end)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't know if this test is too slack? I think we are mainly testing the transport her and less testing whether the physics is correct.

Could we:
(a) check against the result from a split-physics time stepper (which would have the downside of being inefficient unless we make the split-physics value be a KGO)
or (b) find a coupled physics test with a known solution?

@tommbendall tommbendall added the research problem Involves new science, with possibly unknown outcome label Dec 14, 2024
@atb1995 atb1995 marked this pull request as ready for review January 7, 2025 17:14
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement Involves adding a new capability research problem Involves new science, with possibly unknown outcome
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants