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

Default algorithm should have checks for Adjoints limitations #1116

Closed
prbzrg opened this issue Sep 19, 2024 · 4 comments · Fixed by #1145
Closed

Default algorithm should have checks for Adjoints limitations #1116

prbzrg opened this issue Sep 19, 2024 · 4 comments · Fixed by #1145
Labels

Comments

@prbzrg
Copy link
Member

prbzrg commented Sep 19, 2024

Describe the bug 🐞

I'm getting

ERROR: LoadError: autojacvec choice SciMLSensitivity.TrackerVJP(false) is not supported by GaussAdjoint

When I don't specify sensealg.
I think the default algorithm for selecting sensealg doesn't check for limitation of each Adjoint.

@prbzrg prbzrg added the bug label Sep 19, 2024
@ChrisRackauckas
Copy link
Member

What's an MWE for this?

@ChrisRackauckas
Copy link
Member

There is no default to TrackerVJP, so it cannot be the default algorithm?

@prbzrg
Copy link
Member Author

prbzrg commented Sep 23, 2024

In the function automatic_sensealg_choice in the file:
https://github.com/SciML/SciMLSensitivity.jl/blob/master/src/concrete_solve.jl
choosing vjp happen before choosing Adjoint and passing vjp to it
the selection is separated and independent of each other.

@prbzrg
Copy link
Member Author

prbzrg commented Sep 23, 2024

It's possible that TrackerVJP get selected


and then we pass it to GaussAdjoint
GaussAdjoint(autojacvec = vjp)

ChrisRackauckas added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 9, 2024
Fixes #1116 . I don't have a case that actually hits this though, no MWE provided, so I can't add a test but it's at least a thing that needs to be done.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants
@ChrisRackauckas @prbzrg and others