Closed DhairyaLGandhi closed 2 months ago
Could you add a test that differentiates through an SDEProblem
solve? That way we can verify the new gradients work and ensure they continue to do so
Attention: Patch coverage is 0%
with 23 lines
in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.
Project coverage is 31.64%. Comparing base (
1238b2b
) to head (ae40a6c
). Report is 11 commits behind head on master.
Files | Patch % | Lines |
---|---|---|
ext/SciMLBaseZygoteExt.jl | 0.00% | 19 Missing :warning: |
ext/SciMLBaseChainRulesCoreExt.jl | 0.00% | 4 Missing :warning: |
:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
Checklist
Additional context
SDESolution
doesn't seem to exist anymore. The more appropriate type seems to beRODESolution
. This PR removes mentions of SDESolution and replaces them withRODESolution
. Further, one of the adjoints was incorrect. It was definining an adjoint over SDEProblem, but instead tries returning SDESolution in the forwards pass. Not sure how this passed tests thoughAdd any other context about the problem here.