You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
After a small back-and-forth with Chris on slack, we found that the direct sensitivity analysis interfaces for ODEs are not consistent between the forward and adjoint methods. Specifically, I am considering the choice of sensitivity algorithm.
The documentation for ODEForwardSensitivityProblem gives the following signature with alg as a positional argument:
Since sensealg is a keyword argument for the common solve interface and the direct adjoint sensitivity interface, users (i.e. me) may accidently and unfruitfully try to specify sensealg as a keyword argument in a call to ODEForwardSensitivityProblem.
Perhaps the positional argument alg, should be changed to a keyword argument sensealg in line with the remaining interfaces?
Best regards,
Marcus
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
mschytt
changed the title
Consistently in sensealg arguments
Consistency in sensealg arguments
Aug 1, 2024
Hi👋
After a small back-and-forth with Chris on slack, we found that the direct sensitivity analysis interfaces for ODEs are not consistent between the forward and adjoint methods. Specifically, I am considering the choice of sensitivity algorithm.
The documentation for ODEForwardSensitivityProblem gives the following signature with
alg
as a positional argument:but in the explanation of the syntax, it accidently mentions a positional argument
sensealg
:Since
sensealg
is a keyword argument for the common solve interface and the direct adjoint sensitivity interface, users (i.e. me) may accidently and unfruitfully try to specify sensealg as a keyword argument in a call to ODEForwardSensitivityProblem.Perhaps the positional argument
alg
, should be changed to a keyword argumentsensealg
in line with the remaining interfaces?Best regards,
Marcus
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: