A New ODE-Based Julia Implementation of the Anaerobic Digestion Model No. 1 Greatly Outperforms Existing DAE-Based Java and Python Implementations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Anaerobic Digestion Model 1 is the quasi-industry standard for modelling anaerobic digestion, and it has seen several new implementations in recent years. It is assumed that these implementations would give the same results; however, a thorough comparison of these implementations has never been reported. This paper considers four different implementations of ADM1: one in Julia, one in Java, and two in Python. The Julia code is a de novo implementation of the ODE formulation of ADM1 that is reported here for the first time. The existing Java and Python codes implement the more common DAE formulation. Therefore, this paper also examines how DAE implementations compare to ODE implementations in terms of computational speed as well as solutions returned. As expected, the ODE and DAE forms both return comparable solutions. However, contrary to popular belief, the Julia ODE implementation is faster than the DAE implementations, namely by one to three orders of magnitude of compute time, depending on the simulation scenario and the reference implementation used for comparison.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".