Closed
Conversation
Owner
|
Thank you for the contribution! The introduction of a constraint here is pretty interesting. As it happens, I'm actually aiming to have Diffrax support semi-explicit DAEs at the WDYT? |
Author
|
Ok, lets wait for you to finish and I would love to give it a try - epscially for symplectic integrators. |
Open
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR adds RATTLE solver for constrained Hamiltonian dynamics. It's very similar to #303 with the addition of implicit constrain.
I use this solver for HMC on implicitly defined manifolds in jax_chmc and it may be useful to have it in diffrax.
This is the first solver with constraints so I am not sure if the abstraction is correct.
Since the constrain function is used in the solver step, maybe it's better to introduce another type of
Term?