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

Getting print statements despite verbosity=0 #111

Closed
TorkelE opened this issue Aug 3, 2023 · 6 comments
Closed

Getting print statements despite verbosity=0 #111

TorkelE opened this issue Aug 3, 2023 · 6 comments

Comments

@TorkelE
Copy link

TorkelE commented Aug 3, 2023

When I do:

bprob = BifurcationProblem(F, oprob.u0, oprob.p, (@lens _[1]);
                           recordFromSolution = (x, p) -> x[1], J = J)

bopts = ContinuationPar(dsmax = dsmax,          
                        dsmin = dsmin,          
                        ds = sqrt(dsmin*dsmax),           
                        maxSteps = maxSteps,     
                        pMin = p_span[1],      
                        pMax = p_span[2],      
                        detectBifurcation = 3)

bf = bifurcationdiagram(bprob, PALC(), 2, (args...) -> bopts; verbosity=0)

I still get print statements (although not as many as with e.g. verbosity=2:

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
───▶ Automatic computation of bifurcation diagram

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
──▶ New branch, level = 2, dim(Kernel) = 1, code = 0, from bp #1 at p = 2.5001045616107502, type = bp
- #  1,       bp at p ≈ +2.50010456 ∈ (+2.50010456, +2.50026103), |δp|=2e-04, [    guess], δ = ( 1,  0), step = 363, eigenelements in eig[364], ind_ev =   1
┌ Warning: The bifurcating eigenvalue is not that close to Re = 0. We found 0.01606274549196582 !≈ 0.  You can perhaps increase the argument `nev`.
└ @ BifurcationKit ~/.julia/packages/BifurcationKit/DlOaK/src/NormalForms.jl:35
┌ Info: It seems the point is a Saddle-Node bifurcation.
│ The normal form is aδμ + b1⋅x + b2⋅x^2 + b3⋅x^3
│  with coefficients 
└ (a = 0.10430111622527061, b1 = 1.0707818278261385, b2 = 6.6017054417911, b3 = -0.10215187667991692).
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
──▶ New branch, level = 2, dim(Kernel) = 1, code = 0, from bp #2 at p = 1.6379627854217809, type = bp
- #  2,       bp at p ≈ +1.63796279 ∈ (+1.63796279, +1.63796279), |δp|=2e-11, [converged], δ = (-1,  0), step = 618, eigenelements in eig[619], ind_ev =   1
┌ Info: It seems the point is a Saddle-Node bifurcation.
│ The normal form is aδμ + b1⋅x + b2⋅x^2 + b3⋅x^3
│  with coefficients 
└ (a = -1.047208951553584, b1 = 5.683984001987023, b2 = 1.4149690753031312, b3 = -24.88438055921906).

Is there a way to get rid of these as well (and not get any printed stuff)?

For reference, here is the full code:

using Catalyst

model3 = @reaction_network begin
    @parameters S D τ v0 n η
    (v0 + (S*σ)^n / ((S*σ)^n + (D*A3)^n + 1),1.), ∅ ↔ σ
    (σ/τ,1/τ), ∅ ↔ A1
    (A1/τ,1/τ), ∅ ↔ A2
    (A2/τ,1/τ), ∅ ↔ A3
end
model = model3

p = [0.0, 0.25, 10.0, 0.1, 3, 0.]
p_span = (1.0, 4.0)
p_sym = :S
v_idx = 1

dsmax=(p_span[2]-p_span[1])/1000.0
dsmin=dsmax/1000.0
maxSteps=100000

p_start = updated_p(p, p_sym, p_span[1])
u0 = fill(p_start[3], length(species(model)))

oprob = ODEProblem(model, u0, (0.0, 0.0), p_start; jac = true)
F = (u,p) -> oprob.f(u, p, 0)
J = (u,p) -> oprob.f.jac(u, p, 0)

bprob = BifurcationProblem(F, oprob.u0, oprob.p, (@lens _[p_idx(p_sym)]);
                           recordFromSolution = (x, p) -> x[v_idx], J = J)

bopts = ContinuationPar(dsmax = dsmax,          
                        dsmin = dsmin,          
                        ds = sqrt(dsmin*dsmax),           
                        maxSteps = maxSteps,     
                        pMin = p_span[1],      
                        pMax = p_span[2],      
                        detectBifurcation = 3)

bf = bifurcationdiagram(bprob, PALC(), 2, (args...) -> bopts; verbosity=0)
@rveltz
Copy link
Member

rveltz commented Aug 3, 2023

No, I was lazy.
I can fix it tonight on master. Is enough or do you need a new tag?

@TorkelE
Copy link
Author

TorkelE commented Aug 3, 2023

master should be fine, thanks a lot 👍

@rveltz
Copy link
Member

rveltz commented Aug 3, 2023

should be good on master.

@TorkelE
Copy link
Author

TorkelE commented Aug 3, 2023

Thanks :)

@rveltz
Copy link
Member

rveltz commented Aug 4, 2023

should we close?

@TorkelE
Copy link
Author

TorkelE commented Aug 4, 2023

Sorry, was meaning to but seems I pushed the wrong button!

@TorkelE TorkelE closed this as completed Aug 4, 2023
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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants