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
It is surprising to be that there is no code/argument to set the error bound in constructing the sample mesh. I'm thinking that one should be able set the error bound in constructing the sample mesh. e.g. If I wanted less than 1% error the sample mesh would contain much more elements than if I wanted less than 25% error.
Maybe I'm missing something. Maybe I should be reading the original papers.
Thanks,
Nachiket
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Based on your question I think you are expecting that the sampling of DOFs is performed in SampleMeshManager. Am I right? The SampleMeshManager is used to construct a FiniteElementSpace containing the sampled variables determined with for instance the DEIM. It does not sample itself.
I think the answer on issue #187 will give clarity.
@JacobLotz Thanks, your answer makes it more clear. After looking at the code, DEIM/S_OPT/GNAT determines the sample_dofs and then the SampleMeshManager builds a FiniteElementSpace. As for my question about the error, I guess the error is implicitly determined by the number for basis vectors/reduced space dimension for V', 'X', 'H'. DEIM/S_OPT/GNAT will determine the best dofs to sample, given the basis vectors and basis size. There is no direct parameter to set the error of the ROM and then determine a sample mesh.
I might be missing something, but I was looking at the following code to construct a sample mesh
libROM/examples/prom/nonlinear_elasticity_global_rom.cpp
Lines 885 to 900 in c3bfef5
It is surprising to be that there is no code/argument to set the error bound in constructing the sample mesh. I'm thinking that one should be able set the error bound in constructing the sample mesh. e.g. If I wanted less than 1% error the sample mesh would contain much more elements than if I wanted less than 25% error.
Maybe I'm missing something. Maybe I should be reading the original papers.
Thanks,
Nachiket
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: