fix Jacobian culculation of ikeda map#37
Merged
Conversation
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Summary
About
By comparing with ForwardDiff, I noticed that the analytic Jacobian for the Ikeda map is not correct, and its source https://www.math.arizona.edu/~ura-reports/001/huang.pojen/2000_Report.html has expired.
This PR replaces the Jacobian with the correct closed-form expression, adds a robust test comparing it to the ForwardDiff Jacobian over randomized state and parameter grids, and includes a symbolic validation script (Mathematica/Wolfram).
Correct Jacobian (derivation sketch)
Ikeda map:
For
we have
Hence
where$\quad r^2=x^2+y^2$ .
Julia Test
For various parameters and random points, the analytical Jacobian and the ForwardDiff Jacobian are verified to be approximately the same.
Output
Symbolic verification with Wolfram Mathematica
Also, I verified it's correct by comparing it with Mathematica's result.
Output
True