;; Numerical Integration: Better Refinements? ;; Here are some very simple functions which we might want to test integration ;; methods on: (defn square [x] (* x x)) (defn sine [x] (Math/sin x)) (defn step [x] (if (< x 1/2) 0.0 1.0)) (defn inverse [x] (/ x)) ;; Here are some NewtonCotes formulae for approximate integration: (defn trapeziumrule [f a b] (* 1/2 ( b a) (+ (f a) (f b)))) (defn simpsonrule [f a b] (let [midpoint (+ a (/ ( b a) 2))] (* 1/6 ( b a) (+ (f a) (* 4 (f midpoint)) (f b))))) (defn simpson38rule [f a b] (let [midpoint1 (/ (+ a a b) 3) midpoint2 (/ (+ a b b) 3)] (* 1/8 ( b a) (+ (f a) (* 3 (f midpoint1)) (* 3 (f midpoint2)) (f b))))) (defn boolesrule [f a b] (let [midpoint1 (/ (+ a a a b) 4) midpoint2 (/ (+ a a b b) 4) midpoint3 (/ (+ a b b b) 4)] (* 1/90 ( b a) (+ (* 7 (f a)) (* 32 (f midpoint1)) (* 12 (f midpoint2)) (* 32 (f midpoint3)) (* 7 (f b)))))) ;; We can use any of these rules to get estimate of the integral of a function over an interval: (simpsonrule inverse 1 3) ; 10/9 ;; If we halve the interval and use the rule over both halves, then we can use the rule to ;; get a better estimate by adding the estimates for the halfintervals (+ (simpsonrule inverse 1 2) (simpsonrule inverse 2 3)) ; 11/10 ;; We can guess at the error involved in the estimate by taking the difference ;; between these two estimates, on the basis that splitting the interval usually ;; makes most of the error go away. ( (simpsonrule inverse 1 3) (+ (simpsonrule inverse 1 2) (simpsonrule inverse 2 3))) ; 1/90 ;; So we'd expect that the first estimate is out by a bit more than 1/90, and ;; that the second is out by rather less than 1/90 ;; For the inverse function, which can be integrated symbolically, we know the ;; true answer: ( (Math/log 3) (Math/log 1)) ; 1.0986122886681098 (/ 10.0 9) ; 1.1111111111111112 (/ 11.0 10) ; 1.1 ;; So the errors are really: ( 1.0986122 10/9) ; 0.0124989111111109 ; which is ~ 1/90 ( 1.0986122 11/10) ; 0.00138780000000005 ; which is ~ 1/900 ;; This method of guessing the error is deeply suspect, and can go wrong, but I ;; won't go into details. ;; I think it's good enough for our purposes as long as the functions we want to ;; integrate are reasonably well behaved and we take small enough intervals. ;; So we can easily make a function which gives us the more refined of the two ;; estimates, together with a guess as to how close it is to the truth. (defn approxwitherror[rule f a b] (let [guess (rule f a b) midpoint (/ (+ a b) 2) betterguess (+ (rule f a midpoint) (rule f midpoint b)) errorestimate ( guess betterguess) abserrorestimate (if (> errorestimate 0) errorestimate ( errorestimate))] [betterguess abserrorestimate])) ;; Let's try it out on a few cases, on the particularly nasty integral of 1/x over [0.01,100] ;; This is the true answer ( (Math/log 100) (Math/log 0.01)) ; 9.210340371976184 (approxwitherror trapeziumrule inverse 0.01 100) ; [2500.999775019998 2499.000174980002] ;; We guess 2500, and we think we're out by at most 2499, which is just true (approxwitherror simpsonrule inverse 0.01 100) ; [835.4437770204454 832.5559396728856] (approxwitherror simpson38rule inverse 0.01 100) ; [627.4427811912234 624.2442845054817] (approxwitherror boolesrule inverse 0.01 100) ; [391.7824297523125 388.1576179566068] ;; When we split the interval into two halves [0.01, 50.05] [50.05,100] (approxwitherror trapeziumrule inverse 0.01 50.05) ; [1252.2495505293746 1250.2503495705255] (approxwitherror trapeziumrule inverse 50.05 100) ; [0.7072645364881702 0.041486462512828726] ;; Our guess tells us that the great majority of the error is in the first sub interval ;; We might want to refine that first, before bothering with the other one: ;; We'll now split [0.01, 25.025][25.025,50.05][50.05,100] (approxwitherror trapeziumrule inverse 0.01 25.025) ; [626.6241012183343 624.6256989814656] (approxwitherror trapeziumrule inverse 25.025 50.05) ; [0.7083333333333333 0.04166666666666663] (approxwitherror trapeziumrule inverse 50.05 100) ; [0.7072645364881702 0.041486462512828726] ;; Again, one subinterval seems to be responsible for the majority of our errors. ;; We could keep a list of intervals, sorted by the estimated error, and always refine the one ;; with the largest guessed error. (defn interval>errorstruct [rule f [a b]] (let [[guess errorguess] (approxwitherror rule f a b)] [errorguess, guess, [a,b]])) (def errorstructs (map (partial interval>errorstruct trapeziumrule inverse) [[0.01,25.025][25.025 50.05][50.05 100]])) errorstructs ;; ([624.6256989814656 626.6241012183343 [0.01 25.025]] ;; [0.04166666666666663 0.7083333333333333 [25.025 50.05]] ;; [0.041486462512828726 0.7072645364881702 [50.05 100]]) ;; And now we need a function to refine the interval with the largest error (defn refine[rule f errorstructs] (let [sortedstructs (reverse (sort errorstructs)) [_ _ [a b]] (first sortedstructs) remains (rest sortedstructs) midpoint (/ (+ a b) 2) subinterval1 (interval>errorstruct rule f [a midpoint]) subinterval2 (interval>errorstruct rule f [midpoint b])] (cons subinterval1 (cons subinterval2 remains)))) ;; Now with every call to refine, we refine the interval with the largest error estimate (refine trapeziumrule inverse errorstructs) ;; ([311.93889676733556 313.93570379188156 [0.01 12.5175]] ;; [0.04159457274964806 0.7079060863675477 [12.5175 25.025]] ;; [0.04166666666666663 0.7083333333333333 [25.025 50.05]] ;; [0.041486462512828726 0.7072645364881702 [50.05 100]]) (def successivetrapeziumrefinements (iterate (partial refine trapeziumrule inverse) errorstructs)) ;; Here's what it looks like after a few iterations (nth successivetrapeziumrefinements 5) ;; ([18.81475746721543 20.764864658796014 [0.01 0.7917187499999999]] ;; [0.040533241059784286 0.7015625070966475 [0.7917187499999999 1.5734374999999998]] ;; [0.04109463731966401 0.7049306354620377 [1.5734374999999998 3.136875]] ;; [0.041379306898238544 0.7066276281534741 [3.136875 6.26375]] ;; [0.04152264848816445 0.7074793872568832 [6.26375 12.5175]] ;; [0.04159457274964806 0.7079060863675477 [12.5175 25.025]] ;; [0.04166666666666663 0.7083333333333333 [25.025 50.05]] ;; [0.041486462512828726 0.7072645364881702 [50.05 100]]) ;; We can get our best guess for the whole thing and our total error estimate ;; by reducing this list (reduce + (map first (nth successivetrapeziumrefinements 5))) ; 19.104035002910425 (reduce + (map second (nth successivetrapeziumrefinements 5))) ; 25.708968772954105 ;; After a hundred refinements.. (reduce + (map first (nth successivetrapeziumrefinements 100))) ; 0.010431101535137086 (reduce + (map second (nth successivetrapeziumrefinements 100))) ; 9.213824736866899 ;; After a thousand refinements.. (reduce + (map first (nth successivetrapeziumrefinements 1000))) ; 1.0913238861095381E4 (reduce + (map second (nth successivetrapeziumrefinements 1000))) ; 9.210376750235199 ;; That's not bad, (the real answer is 9.210340371976184), but it's running very slowly. ;; We could try with a higher order rule (def successiveboolerefinements (iterate (partial refine boolesrule inverse) errorstructs)) (reduce + (map first (nth successiveboolerefinements 1000))) ; 4.420942778526893E15 (reduce + (map second (nth successiveboolerefinements 1000))) ; 9.210340371976176 ;; In this case, that seems to work very well, but the run time is appalling. ;; The problem is that we have a longer and longer list of intervals at every ;; step, and every step, we have to sort this list. That's an n^2 algorithm, ;; which won't scale well. ;; What we should do here is use a priority queue. Clojure doesn't have an ;; immutable version, although it's possible to fake one with a sorted map. ;; But rather than do that, I'm going to drop out of the functional paradigm ;; altogther, and use the heap implementation from Java in a mutable fashion, ;; looping and popping and adding. (defn improveloop [rule f a b count] (let [pq (java.util.PriorityQueue. count (comparator (fn[a b](> (first a)(first b)))))] (.add pq (interval>errorstruct rule f [a b])) (loop [pq pq count count] (if (zero? count) pq (let [[err val [a b]] (.poll pq) midpoint (/ (+ a b) 2) aa (interval>errorstruct rule f [a midpoint]) bb (interval>errorstruct rule f [midpoint b])] (doto pq (.add aa) (.add bb)) (recur pq (dec count))))))) ;; Now we can do our calculation much faster (defn integrate [rule f a b count] (let [pq (improveloop rule f a b count)] [(reduce + (map first pq)) (reduce + (map second pq))])) ;; We'll ask for a thousand refinements, and get back the error estimate, and the answer. (integrate boolesrule inverse 0.01 100 1000) ; [4.455637248046429E15 9.21034037197618] ;; Let's try the same integral over the very nasty range [0.0000001, 10000000] which caused serious ;; problems for our previous methods. ;; The real answer is ( (Math/log 10000000) (Math/log 0.00000001)) ; 34.538776394910684 ;; And our approximations are: (integrate boolesrule inverse 0.00000001 10000000 10) ; [3.797743055486256E10 3.797743056542089E10] (integrate boolesrule inverse 0.00000001 10000000 100) ; [3.3430724324184924E5 34.53877704296225] (integrate boolesrule inverse 0.00000001 10000000 1000) ; [4.549938203979309E11 34.53877639491147] (integrate boolesrule inverse 0.00000001 10000000 10000) ; [9.361001557239845E16 34.53877639491065] ;; For the nonstiff integrals that we started playing with, Boole's rule is great: ;; It's exact for quadratics, and several higher powers (integrate boolesrule square 0 2 10) ; [0 8/3] (integrate boolesrule (fn[x] (* x x x x)) 0 2 10) ; [0 32/5] (integrate boolesrule (fn[x] (* x x x x x)) 0 2 10) ; [0 32/3] ;; and very good for higher powers, even with very few refinements (integrate boolesrule (fn[x] (* x x x x x x)) 0 2 10) ; [969/8589934592 471219269093/25769803776] (integrate boolesrule (fn[x] (* x x x x x x)) 0 2 20) ; [2127/1099511627776 60316066438099/3298534883328] ;; convergence is great for sine (integrate boolesrule sine 0 Math/PI 10) ; [1.7383848804897184E9 1.9999999999725113] (integrate boolesrule sine 0 Math/PI 100) ; [3.1931922384043077E15 1.9999999999999991] (integrate boolesrule sine 0 Math/PI 1000) ; [2.526233413538588E17 1.999999999999999] (integrate boolesrule sine 0 Math/PI 10000) ; [6.32722651455846E18 2.0] ;; But I'm still quite worried about the error estimate that we made. It's only ;; a guess, and it can be a bad guess. Here are some functions that are ;; deliberately designed to screw things up. ;; This function is extremely vibratey near the origin. (defn sineinverse[x] (Math/sin (/ x))) ;; The error estimates are clearly wrong here, but the answers seem to settle down to something that looks plausible. (integrate boolesrule sineinverse 0.001 10 1) ; [0.09752245288534744 3.189170812427795] (integrate boolesrule sineinverse 0.001 10 10) ; [0.014802407142066881 2.725700351059874] (integrate boolesrule sineinverse 0.001 10 100) ; [2.666579898821515E4 2.7262259059929814] (integrate boolesrule sineinverse 0.001 10 1000) ; [7.84363268117651E9 2.7262019887881457] (integrate boolesrule sineinverse 0.001 10 10000) ; [8.311387750656713E15 2.726201989096135] ;; I'm slightly reassured that if we use the trapezium rule, which should be ;; slower converging but less sensitive to high derivatives, we seem to settle down to the same thing: (integrate trapeziumrule sineinverse 0.001 10 1) ; [0.3493754261290617 2.9603246206316127] (integrate trapeziumrule sineinverse 0.001 10 10) ; [0.12037643221528535 2.759621850911819] (integrate trapeziumrule sineinverse 0.001 10 100) ; [0.011584111090323689 2.728470051290524] (integrate trapeziumrule sineinverse 0.001 10 1000) ; [7.174438961790802E4 2.7265014884997414] (integrate trapeziumrule sineinverse 0.001 10 10000) ; [1.0854830311799172E5 2.7262023437746654] ;; Since I don't actually know what the integral of sin(1/x) is, I've no idea ;; whether this answer is correct. Since both rules seem to settle down to the ;; same answer, I tend to believe that it is. ;; Here's a weird function, which looks like it should be even worse that sin(1/x) on its own (defn strange[x] ( (Math/sin (/ x)) (/ (Math/cos (/ x)) x))) ;; In fact it's the derivative of x sin(1/x), so we can calculate the real answer over [0.001, 10] ;; which should be: ( (* 10 (Math/sin 1/10)) (* 0.001 (Math/sin 1000))) ; 0.9975072869277496 ;; Interestingly, the error estimates look sound for this one: (integrate boolesrule strange 0.001 10 1) ; [109.91706304856582 108.12753277035351] (integrate boolesrule strange 0.001 10 10) ; [0.07641821305025362 1.0276123964492345] (integrate boolesrule strange 0.001 10 100) ; [0.0798435700032961 1.0469088424961843] (integrate boolesrule strange 0.001 10 1000) ; [2.0359056110968434E6 0.9975072871949854] (integrate boolesrule strange 0.001 10 10000) ; [1.9224976990340685E12 0.997507286927752] ;; Since we seem to have dealt well with some nasty functions, we might be ;; getting confident in our rule. I know I was! ;; But this innocuous looking function (defn sine80squared[x] (square (Math/sin (* x 80)))) ;; Is a complete nightmare. It looks as though the method is converging well: (integrate boolesrule sine80squared 0 Math/PI 1) ; [1.1091279850485843E28 3.7074689566598855E28] (integrate boolesrule sine80squared 0 Math/PI 10) ; [0.013089969389960716 0.7853981633974437] (integrate boolesrule sine80squared 0 Math/PI 100) ; [1.7991469747360833E12 0.7853981633974478] (integrate boolesrule sine80squared 0 Math/PI 1000) ; [3.207733520089899E13 0.7853981633974484] (integrate boolesrule sine80squared 0 Math/PI 10000) ; [3.1095566849572033E15 0.7853981633974481] ;; But if we use a different rule, it also seems to converge, but to a completely different answer (integrate trapeziumrule sine80squared 0 Math/PI 1) ; [3.226319244612108E28 4.262878793991289E28] (integrate trapeziumrule sine80squared 0 Math/PI 10) ; [0.01573134053904405 0.19774924859401588] (integrate trapeziumrule sine80squared 0 Math/PI 100) ; [5.4528883422580115E5 0.19634904414812832] (integrate trapeziumrule sine80squared 0 Math/PI 1000) ; [4.6327740574637914E7 0.19634954102557595] (integrate trapeziumrule sine80squared 0 Math/PI 10000) ; [5.200068066397881E9 0.19634954084967793] ;; In fact both answers are wrong. We can calculate the real integral of this ;; function over the interval [0,pi] which should be: (/ (Math/PI) 2) ; 1.5707963267948966 ;; In fact if we use our much earlier 'divide every interval evenly' algorithm: (defn iteratedrule [rule f a b N] (if (= N 0) (rule f a b) (let [midpoint (+ a (/ ( b a) 2))] (+ (iteratedrule rule f a midpoint (dec N)) (iteratedrule rule f midpoint b (dec N)))))) ;; We very quickly get surprisingly good answers: (iteratedrule trapeziumrule sine80squared 0 Math/PI 1) ; 1.13079223568638E28 (iteratedrule trapeziumrule sine80squared 0 Math/PI 2) ; 4.262878793991289E28 (iteratedrule trapeziumrule sine80squared 0 Math/PI 3) ; 3.5626606693542546E28 (iteratedrule trapeziumrule sine80squared 0 Math/PI 4) ; 3.6535380881685736E28 (iteratedrule trapeziumrule sine80squared 0 Math/PI 5) ; 1.5707963267948966 (iteratedrule trapeziumrule sine80squared 0 Math/PI 6) ; 1.570796326794897 (iteratedrule trapeziumrule sine80squared 0 Math/PI 7) ; 1.5707963267948972 (iteratedrule trapeziumrule sine80squared 0 Math/PI 8) ; 1.5707963267948966 (iteratedrule trapeziumrule sine80squared 0 Math/PI 9) ; 1.5707963267948957 (iteratedrule trapeziumrule sine80squared 0 Math/PI 10) ; 1.5707963267948963 ;; With Booles' rule the story is the same: (iteratedrule boolesrule sine80squared 0 Math/PI 1) ; 3.1974110932118413E28 (iteratedrule boolesrule sine80squared 0 Math/PI 2) ; 3.7074689566598855E28 (iteratedrule boolesrule sine80squared 0 Math/PI 3) ; 2.2340214425527414 (iteratedrule boolesrule sine80squared 0 Math/PI 4) ; 1.5358897417550046 (iteratedrule boolesrule sine80squared 0 Math/PI 5) ; 1.570796326794895 (iteratedrule boolesrule sine80squared 0 Math/PI 6) ; 1.5707963267948961 (iteratedrule boolesrule sine80squared 0 Math/PI 7) ; 1.5707963267948966 (iteratedrule boolesrule sine80squared 0 Math/PI 8) ; 1.5707963267948968 (iteratedrule boolesrule sine80squared 0 Math/PI 9) ; 1.5707963267948963 ;; So the nice rule that we'd come up with, which worked so well for the stiff problem ;; of integrating 1/x near the origin, is completely broken on something that the obvious ;; recursion integrates (suspiciously) well. ;; The problem is that we used an error estimate that we can't trust to control ;; the refinement process. ;; If we guess that a certain interval contains hardly any error, then it will ;; never get refined at all, so we'll never find out that our guess is wrong.
Blog Archive

▼
2011
(26)

▼
May
(7)
 Numerical Integration: Better Refinements?
 Numerical Integration: Better Refinements?
 Numerical Integration: Better Rules?
 Numerical Integration: Harder Functions
 Numerical Integration: Better Approximations
 Numerical Integration: What is an Integral?
 Clojure Inference (reduce, clformat, Poisson dist...

▼
May
(7)
Search This Blog
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Numerical Integration: Better Refinements?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment