Activity

1. DavidMStraub

   self-assigned this

   on Jul 21, 2026
2. DavidMStraub commented on Jul 22, 2026

   

   DavidMStraub

   on Jul 22, 2026 · Hidden as outdated

   Author

   show commentMore actions
3. DavidMStraub commented on Sep 24, 2026

   

   DavidMStraub

   on Sep 24, 2026

   CollaboratorAuthor

   More actions

   The issue description is outdated, but the feature request still useful: using PathSim's internal DAE solver, we can run even the DFN model without cosimulation.

   @milanofthe I launched an investigation into implementing this - it's straightforward, but needs a change in PathSim core. I could open a PR for it.

   Claude:

   ---

   Upstream requirements for running PyBaMM DAE models (DFN, lead_acid.Full) with PathSim solvers

   A prototype based on SemiExplicitDAE runs DFN, DFN with lumped thermal, MPM, NewmanTobias and lead_acid.Full with ESDIRK43 and matches PyBaMM/IDAKLU to within 0.05 mV. It only works by overriding non-public parts of SemiExplicitDAE, so two additions to its public API are needed:

   1. Analytic reduced Jacobian (required for all DAE models). Accept optional partial Jacobians (∂f_dyn/∂x, ∂f_dyn/∂z, ∂f_alg/∂x) and form the reduced Jacobian from them instead of using finite differences through the constraint solve. With finite differences, a DFN run covered only 2.6 s of simulated time in 150 s of wall time. With the analytic Jacobian it covers 600 s in 9–29 s.
   2. Configurable tolerance for the algebraic solve (required for lead_acid.Full). The fixed absolute tolerance of 1e-9 cannot be reached by badly conditioned models: in lead_acid.Full the residual stalls at about 2e-7, so every solve runs to the iteration limit. Scaling the residual inside func_alg works around this, but the scale factor is model-dependent.

   Optional: reusing the Jacobian across Newton iterations within a stage would make DFN about 3× faster, but it isn't required.
4. milanofthe commented on Sep 24, 2026

   

   milanofthe

   on Sep 24, 2026

   Member

   More actions

   Go ahead with the PR in pathsim we can discuss details there.

   👍React with 👍1Reacted by David Straub