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

Replace maths library with Python libraries #3418

Merged
merged 13 commits into from
Feb 12, 2025
Merged

Conversation

timothy-nunn
Copy link
Contributor

Removing some of the maths routines that can be replaced with simple routines from libraries like numpy and scipy.

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Dec 11, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 80.88235% with 13 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 31.37%. Comparing base (67f90e6) to head (972dd21).

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
process/pfcoil.py 14.28% 12 Missing ⚠️
process/availability.py 50.00% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3418      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   31.21%   31.37%   +0.15%     
==========================================
  Files          81       81              
  Lines       19432    19477      +45     
==========================================
+ Hits         6065     6110      +45     
  Misses      13367    13367              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

sigma, umat, vmat, ierr, work2 = ml.svd(
nrws, np.asfortranarray(gmat), truth, truth
)
umat, sigma, vmat = svd(gmat)
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The changes to PF coil require a bit of explaining. The single value decomposition from scipy returns different results to the maths library implementation. This causes the integration tests to fail, but none of the regression tests.

In some cases, like test_solv the values of ccls changed, but their sum did not.
In test_efc, the ccls values changed (one of the PF coils groups ended up with 0 current!?) but the ssq value did not, weirdly, ssq is calculated from the ccls.

Overall, I suspect this is nothing to worry about, but its worth careful consideration before approving.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I see, this is tricky. There are some quite substantial (to me) differences in the test results; we just need to be happy that this is due to differences in the SVD implementations and not any mistakes in the refactoring. It's particularly strange about the sum and ssq values, as you say.

@timothy-nunn timothy-nunn self-assigned this Dec 11, 2024
@timothy-nunn timothy-nunn marked this pull request as ready for review December 11, 2024 11:41
@timothy-nunn timothy-nunn force-pushed the convert-maths-library branch 3 times, most recently from bb1f726 to d51c80d Compare January 8, 2025 17:22
@timothy-nunn timothy-nunn force-pushed the convert-maths-library branch 2 times, most recently from 43bf5be to f66dfef Compare February 4, 2025 09:50
Copy link
Contributor

@jonmaddock jonmaddock left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Great, just the question of the SVD differences. I'm not sure how serious these differences are; it looks correct, but maybe we need to convince ourselves fully.

0.58040662653667285,
0.42974674788703021,
0.42974674788703021,
174.22748790786324,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm sure this is intentional, but can you explain why curpfb and curfps values have been swapped?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Im not sure this is happening anymore

tests/integration/test_pfcoil_int.py Show resolved Hide resolved
assert_array_almost_equal(
work2, np.array([-2.22044605e-16, -1.73205081e00, 0.00000000e00])
)
assert_array_almost_equal(ccls, np.array([-0.069036, 0.488642, 0.080394]))
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

These are quite different, as you say.

sigma, umat, vmat, ierr, work2 = ml.svd(
nrws, np.asfortranarray(gmat), truth, truth
)
umat, sigma, vmat = svd(gmat)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I see, this is tricky. There are some quite substantial (to me) differences in the test results; we just need to be happy that this is due to differences in the SVD implementations and not any mistakes in the refactoring. It's particularly strange about the sum and ssq values, as you say.

process/pfcoil.py Show resolved Hide resolved
@timothy-nunn
Copy link
Contributor Author

The SVD differences can be explained as follows. The original SVD implementation does not return a correctly factorised matrix. The following code demonstrates that when attempting to recreate the original matrix (https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/generated/scipy.linalg.svd.html) for the test_solv, the outputs do not create a 3x3 matrix of all 2's when running with OLD=True, but do when running with OLD=False (the new integration test values).

import numpy as np

OLD = True

if OLD:
    U = np.array([
        [-0.81649658, -0.57735027, 0.0],
        [0.40824829, -0.57735027, -0.70710678],
        [0.40824829, -0.57735027, 0.70710678],
    ])
    V = np.array([
        [-0.81649658, -0.57735027, 0.0],
        [0.40824829, -0.57735027, -0.70710678],
        [0.40824829, -0.57735027, 0.70710678],
    ])
    s = np.array([5.1279005e-16, 6.0000000e00, 0.0000000e00])
else:
    U = np.array([
        [-0.57735027, -0.57735027, -0.57735027],
        [-0.57735027, -0.21132487, 0.78867513],
        [-0.57735027, 0.78867513, -0.21132487],
    ])
    V = np.array([
        [-0.57735027, -0.57735027, -0.57735027],
        [0.0, -0.70710678, 0.70710678],
        [0.81649658, -0.40824829, -0.40824829],
    ])
    s = np.array([6.0, 0.0, 0.0])


# reconstruct
sigma = np.zeros((3, 3))
for i in range(3):
    sigma[i, i] = s[i]

a1 = np.dot(U, np.dot(sigma, V))

print(f"Checking {'old' if OLD else 'new'} SVD results")
print("Original matrix was 3x3 all 2's")
print(a1)

@timothy-nunn timothy-nunn merged commit 6537260 into main Feb 12, 2025
18 checks passed
@timothy-nunn timothy-nunn deleted the convert-maths-library branch February 12, 2025 13:19
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants