I'm having some issues getting my RK2 algorithm to work for a certain second-order linear differential equation. I have posted my current code (with the provided parameters) below. For some reason, the value of y1 deviates from the true value by a wider margin each iteration. Any input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
Code:
f = #(x,y1,y2) [y2; (1+y2)/x];
a = 1;
b = 2;
alpha = 0;
beta = 1;
n = 21;
h = (b-a)/(n-1);
yexact = #(x) 2*log(x)/log(2) - x +1;
ye = yexact((a:h:b)');
s = (beta - alpha)/(b - a);
y0 = [alpha;s];
[y1, y2] = RungeKuttaTwo2D(f, a, b, h, y0);
error = abs(ye - y1);
function [y1, y2] = RungeKuttaTwo2D(f, a, b, h, y0)
n = floor((b-a)/h);
y1 = zeros(n+1,1); y2 = y1;
y1(1) = y0(1); y2(1) = y0(2);
for i=1:n-1
ti = a+(i-1)*h;
fvalue1 = f(ti,y1(i),y2(i));
k1 = h*fvalue1;
fvalue2 = f(ti+h/2,y1(i)+k1(1)/2,y2(i)+k1(2)/2);
k2 = h*fvalue2;
y1(i+1) = y1(i) + k2(1);
y2(i+1) = y2(i) + k2(2);
end
end
Your exact solution is wrong. It is possible that your differential equation is missing a minus sign.
y2'=(1+y2)/x has as its solution y2(x)=C*x-1 and as y1'=y2 then y1(x)=0.5*C*x^2-x+D.
If the sign in the y2 equation were flipped, y2'=-(1+y2)/x, one would get y2(x)=C/x-1 with integral y1(x)=C*log(x)-x+D, which contains the given exact solution.
0=y1(1) = -1+D ==> D=1
1=y1(2) = C*log(2)-1 == C=1/log(2)
Additionally, the arrays in the integration loop have length n+1, so that the loop has to be from i=1 to n. Else the last element remains zero, which gives wrong residuals for the second boundary condition.
Correcting that and enlarging the computation to one secant step finds the correct solution for the discretization, as the ODE is linear. The error to the exact solution is bounded by 0.000285, which is reasonable for a second order method with step size 0.05.
Related
For me, it seems like the estimated hstep takes quite a long time and long iteration to converge.
I tried it with this first ODE.
Basically, you perform the difference between RK4 with stepsize of h with h/2.Please note that to reach the same timestep value, you will have to use the y value after two timestep of h/2 so that it reaches h also.
frhs=#(x,y) x.^2*y;
Is my code correct?
clear all;close all;clc
c=[]; i=1; U_saved=[]; y_array=[]; y_array_alt=[];
y_arr=1; y_arr_2=1;
frhs=#(x,y) 20*cos(x);
tol=0.001;
y_ini= 1;
y_ini_2= 1;
c=abs(y_ini-y_ini_2)
hc=1
all_y_values=[];
for m=1:500
if (c>tol || m==1)
fprintf('More')
y_arr
[Unew]=vpa(Runge_Kutta(0,y_arr,frhs,hc))
if (m>1)
y_array(m)=vpa(Unew);
y_array=y_array(logical(y_array));
end
[Unew_alt]=Runge_Kutta(0,y_arr_2,frhs,hc/2);
[Unew_alt]=vpa(Runge_Kutta(hc/2,Unew_alt,frhs,hc/2))
if (m>1)
y_array_alt(m)=vpa(Unew_alt);
y_array_alt=y_array_alt(logical(y_array_alt));
end
fprintf('More')
%y_array_alt(m)=vpa(Unew_alt);
c=vpa(abs(Unew_alt-Unew) )
hc=abs(tol/c)^0.25*hc
if (c<tol)
fprintf('Less')
y_arr=vpa(y_array(end) )
y_arr_2=vpa(y_array_alt(end) )
[Unew]=Runge_Kutta(0,y_arr,frhs,hc)
all_y_values(m)=Unew;
[Unew_alt]=Runge_Kutta(0,y_arr_2,frhs,hc/2);
[Unew_alt]=Runge_Kutta(hc/2,Unew_alt,frhs,hc/2)
c=vpa( abs(Unew_alt-Unew) )
hc=abs(tol/c)^0.2*hc
end
end
end
all_y_values
A better structure for the time loop has only one place where the time step is computed.
x_array = [x0]; y_array = [y0]; h = h_init;
x = x0; y = y0;
while x < x_end
[y_new, err] = RK4_step_w_error(x,y,rhs,h);
factor = abs(tol/err)^0.2;
if factor >= 1
y_array(end+1) = y = y_new;
x_array(end+1) = x = x+h;
end
h = factor*h;
end
For the data given in the code
rhs = #(x,y) 20*cos(x);
x0 = 0; y0 = 1; x_end = 6.5; tol = 1e-3; h_init = 1;
this gives the result against the exact solution
The computed points lie exactly on the exact solution, for the segments between them one would need to use a "dense output" interpolation. Or as a first improvement, just include the middle value from the half-step computation.
function [ y_next, err] = RK4_step_w_error(x,y,rhs,h)
y2 = RK4_step(x,y,rhs,h);
y1 = RK4_step(x,y,rhs,h/2);
y1 = RK4_step(x+h/2,y1,rhs,h/2);
y_next = y1;
err = (y2-y1)/15;
end
function y_next = RK4_step(x,y,rhs,h)
k1 = h*rhs(x,y);
k2 = h*rhs(x+h/2,y+k1);
k3 = h*rhs(x+h/2,y+k2);
k4 = h*rhs(x+h,y+k3);
y_next = y + (k1+2*k2+2*k3+k4)/6;
end
Revision 1
The error returned is the actual step error. The error that is required for the step size control however is the unit step error or error density, which is the step error with divided by h
function [ y_next, err] = RK4_step_w_error(x,y,rhs,h)
y2 = RK4_step(x,y,rhs,h);
y1 = RK4_step(x,y,rhs,h/2);
y1 = RK4_step(x+h/2,y1,rhs,h/2);
y_next = y1;
err = (y2-y1)/15/h;
end
Changing the example to a simple bi-stable model oscillating between two branches of stable equilibria
rhs = #(x,y) 3*y-y^3 + 3*cos(x);
x0 = 0; y0 = 1; x_end = 13.5; tol = 5e-3; h_init = 5e-2;
gives plots of solution, error (against an ode45 integration) and step sizes
Red crosses are the step sizes of rejected steps.
Revision 2
The error in the function values can be used as an error guidance for the extrapolation value which is of 5th order, making the method a 5th order method in extrapolation mode. As it uses the 4th order error to predict the 5th order optimal step size, a caution factor is recommended, the code changes in the appropriate places to
factor = 0.75*abs(tol/err)^0.2;
...
function [ y_next, err] = RK4_step_w_error(x,y,rhs,h)
y2 = RK4_step(x,y,rhs,h);
y1 = RK4_step(x,y,rhs,h/2);
y1 = RK4_step(x+h/2,y1,rhs,h/2);
y_next = y1+(y1-y2)/15;
err = (y1-y2)/15;
end
In the plots the step size is appropriately larger, but the error shows sharper and larger spikes, this version of the method is apparently less stable.
Hi i've been asked to solve SIR model using fsolve command in MATLAB, and Euler 3 point backward. I'm really confused on how to proceed, please help. This is what i have so far. I created a function for 3BDF scheme but i'm not sure how to proceed with fsolve and solve the system of nonlinear ODEs. The SIR model is shown as and 3BDF scheme is formulated as
clc
clear all
gamma=1/7;
beta=1/3;
ode1= #(R,S,I) -(beta*I*S)/(S+I+R);
ode2= #(R,S,I) (beta*I*S)/(S+I+R)-I*gamma;
ode3= #(I) gamma*I;
f(t,[S,I,R]) = [-(beta*I*S)/(S+I+R); (beta*I*S)/(S+I+R)-I*gamma; gamma*I];
R0=0;
I0=10;
S0=8e6;
odes={ode1;ode2;ode3}
fun = #root2d;
x0 = [0,0];
x = fsolve(fun,x0)
function [xs,yb] = ThreePointBDF(f,x0, xmax, h, y0)
% This function should return the numerical solution of y at x = xmax.
% (It should not return the entire time history of y.)
% TO BE COMPLETED
xs=x0:h:xmax;
y=zeros(1,length(xs));
y(1)=y0;
yb(1)=y0+f(x0,y0)*h;
for i=1:length(xs)-1
R =R0;
y1(i+1,:) = fsolve(#(u) u-2*h/3*f(t(i+1),u) - R, y1(i-1,:)+2*h*F(i,:))
S = S0;
y2(i+1,:) = fsolve(#(u) u-2*h/3*f(t(i+1),u) - S, y2(i-1,:)+2*h*F(i,:))
I= I0;
y3(i+1,:) = fsolve(#(u) u-2*h/3*f(t(i+1),u) - I, y3(i-1,:)+2*h*F(i,:))
end
end
You have an implicit equation
y(i+1) - 2*h/3*f(t(i+1),y(i+1)) = G = (4*y(i) - y(i-1))/3
where the right-side term G is constant in the call to fsolve, that is, during the solution of the implicit step equation.
Note that this is for the vector valued system y'(t)=f(t,y(t)) where
f(t,[S,I,R]) = [-(beta*I*S)/(S+I+R); (beta*I*S)/(S+I+R)-I*gamma; gamma*I];
To solve this write
G = (4*y(i,:) - y(i-1,:))/3
y(i+1,:) = fsolve(#(u) u-2*h/3*f(t(i+1),u) - G, y(i-1,:)+2*h*F(i,:))
where a midpoint step is used to get an order 2 approximation as initial guess, F(i,:)=f(t(i),y(i,:)). Add solver options for error tolerances as necessary, you want the error in the implicit equation smaller than the truncation error O(h^3) of the step. One can also keep only a short array of function values, then one has to be careful for the correspondence of the position in the short array to the time index.
Using all that and a reference solution by a higher order standard solver produces the following error graphs for the components
where one can see that the first order error of the constant first step results in a first order global error, while with a second order error in the first step using the Euler method results in a clear second order global error.
Implement the method in general terms
from scipy.optimize import fsolve
def BDF2(f,t,y0,y1):
N, h = len(t)-1, t[1]-t[0];
y = (N+1)*[np.asarray(y0)];
y[1] = y1;
for i in range(1,N):
t1, G = t[i+1], (4*y[i]-y[i-1])/3
y[i+1] = fsolve(lambda u: u-2*h/3*f(t1,u)-G, y[i-1]+2*h*f(t[i],y[i]), xtol=1e-3*h**3)
return np.vstack(y)
Set up the model to be solved
gamma=1/7;
beta=1/3;
print beta, gamma
y0 = np.array([8e6, 10, 0])
P = sum(y0); y0 = y0/P
def f(t,y): S,I,R = y; trns = beta*S*I/(S+I+R); recv=gamma*I; return np.array([-trns, trns-recv, recv])
Compute a reference solution and method solutions for the two initialization variants
from scipy.integrate import odeint
tg = np.linspace(0,120,25*128)
yg = odeint(f,y0,tg,atol=1e-12, rtol=1e-14, tfirst=True)
M = 16; # 8,4
t = tg[::M];
h = t[1]-t[0];
y1 = BDF2(f,t,y0,y0)
e1 = y1-yg[::M]
y2 = BDF2(f,t,y0,y0+h*f(0,y0))
e2 = y2-yg[::M]
Plot the errors, computation as above, but embedded in the plot commands, could be separated in principle by first computing a list of solutions
fig,ax = plt.subplots(3,2,figsize=(12,6))
for M in [16, 8, 4]:
t = tg[::M];
h = t[1]-t[0];
y = BDF2(f,t,y0,y0)
e = (y-yg[::M])
for k in range(3): ax[k,0].plot(t,e[:,k],'-o', ms=1, lw=0.5, label = "h=%.3f"%h)
y = BDF2(f,t,y0,y0+h*f(0,y0))
e = (y-yg[::M])
for k in range(3): ax[k,1].plot(t,e[:,k],'-o', ms=1, lw=0.5, label = "h=%.3f"%h)
for k in range(3):
for j in range(2): ax[k,j].set_ylabel(["$e_S$","$e_I$","$e_R$"][k]); ax[k,j].legend(); ax[k,j].grid()
ax[0,0].set_title("Errors: first step constant");
ax[0,1].set_title("Errors: first step Euler")
I want to write a program that makes use of Newtons Method:
To estimate the x of this integral:
Where X is the total distance.
I have functions to calculate the Time it takes to arrive at a certain distance by using the trapezoid method for numerical integration. Without using trapz.
function T = time_to_destination(x, route, n)
h=(x-0)/n;
dx = 0:h:x;
y = (1./(velocity(dx,route)));
Xk = dx(2:end)-dx(1:end-1);
Yk = y(2:end)+y(1:end-1);
T = 0.5*sum(Xk.*Yk);
end
and it fetches its values for velocity, through ppval of a cubic spline interpolation between a set of data points. Where extrapolated values should not be fetcheable.
function [v] = velocity(x, route)
load(route);
if all(x >= distance_km(1))==1 & all(x <= distance_km(end))==1
estimation = spline(distance_km, speed_kmph);
v = ppval(estimation, x);
else
error('Bad input, please choose a new value')
end
end
Plot of the velocity spline if that's interesting to you evaluated at:
dx= 1:0.1:65
Now I want to write a function that can solve for distance travelled after a certain given time, using newton's method without fzero / fsolve . But I have no idea how to solve for the upper bound of a integral.
According to the fundamental theorem of calculus I suppose the derivative of the integral is the function inside the integral, which is what I've tried to recreate as Time_to_destination / (1/velocity)
I added the constant I want to solve for to time to destination so its
(Time_to_destination - (input time)) / (1/velocity)
Not sure if I'm doing that right.
EDIT: Rewrote my code, works better now but my stopcondition for Newton Raphson doesnt seem to converge to zero. I also tried to implement the error from the trapezoid integration ( ET ) but not sure if I should bother implementing that yet. Also find the route file in the bottom.
Stop condition and error calculation of Newton's Method:
Error estimation of trapezoid:
Function x = distance(T, route)
n=180
route='test.mat'
dGuess1 = 50;
dDistance = T;
i = 1;
condition = inf;
while condition >= 1e-4 && 300 >= i
i = i + 1 ;
dGuess2 = dGuess1 - (((time_to_destination(dGuess1, route,n))-dDistance)/(1/(velocity(dGuess1, route))))
if i >= 2
ET =(time_to_destination(dGuess1, route, n/2) - time_to_destination(dGuess1, route, n))/3;
condition = abs(dGuess2 - dGuess1)+ abs(ET);
end
dGuess1 = dGuess2;
end
x = dGuess2
Route file: https://drive.google.com/open?id=18GBhlkh5ZND1Ejh0Muyt1aMyK4E2XL3C
Observe that the Newton-Raphson method determines the roots of the function. I.e. you need to have a function f(x) such that f(x)=0 at the desired solution.
In this case you can define f as
f(x) = Time(x) - t
where t is the desired time. Then by the second fundamental theorem of calculus
f'(x) = 1/Velocity(x)
With these functions defined the implementation becomes quite straightforward!
First, we define a simple Newton-Raphson function which takes anonymous functions as arguments (f and f') as well as an initial guess x0.
function x = newton_method(f, df, x0)
MAX_ITER = 100;
EPSILON = 1e-5;
x = x0;
fx = f(x);
iter = 0;
while abs(fx) > EPSILON && iter <= MAX_ITER
x = x - fx / df(x);
fx = f(x);
iter = iter + 1;
end
end
Then we can invoke our function as follows
t_given = 0.3; % e.g. we want to determine distance after 0.3 hours.
n = 180;
route = 'test.mat';
f = #(x) time_to_destination(x, route, n) - t_given;
df = #(x) 1/velocity(x, route);
distance_guess = 50;
distance = newton_method(f, df, distance_guess);
Result
>> distance
distance = 25.5877
Also, I rewrote your time_to_destination and velocity functions as follows. This version of time_to_destination uses all the available data to make a more accurate estimate of the integral. Using these functions the method seems to converge faster.
function t = time_to_destination(x, d, v)
% x is scalar value of destination distance
% d and v are arrays containing measured distance and velocity
% Assumes d is strictly increasing and d(1) <= x <= d(end)
idx = d < x;
if ~any(idx)
t = 0;
return;
end
v1 = interp1(d, v, x);
t = trapz([d(idx); x], 1./[v(idx); v1]);
end
function v = velocity(x, d, v)
v = interp1(d, v, x);
end
Using these new functions requires that the definitions of the anonymous functions are changed slightly.
t_given = 0.3; % e.g. we want to determine distance after 0.3 hours.
load('test.mat');
f = #(x) time_to_destination(x, distance_km, speed_kmph) - t_given;
df = #(x) 1/velocity(x, distance_km, speed_kmph);
distance_guess = 50;
distance = newton_method(f, df, distance_guess);
Because the integral is estimated more accurately the solution is slightly different
>> distance
distance = 25.7771
Edit
The updated stopping condition can be implemented as a slight modification to the newton_method function. We shouldn't expect the trapezoid rule error to go to zero so I omit that.
function x = newton_method(f, df, x0)
MAX_ITER = 100;
TOL = 1e-5;
x = x0;
iter = 0;
dx = inf;
while dx > TOL && iter <= MAX_ITER
x_prev = x;
x = x - f(x) / df(x);
dx = abs(x - x_prev);
iter = iter + 1;
end
end
To check our answer we can plot the time vs. distance and make sure our estimate falls on the curve.
...
distance = newton_method(f, df, distance_guess);
load('test.mat');
t = zeros(size(distance_km));
for idx = 1:numel(distance_km)
t(idx) = time_to_destination(distance_km(idx), distance_km, speed_kmph);
end
plot(t, distance_km); hold on;
plot([t(1) t(end)], [distance distance], 'r');
plot([t_given t_given], [distance_km(1) distance_km(end)], 'r');
xlabel('time');
ylabel('distance');
axis tight;
One of the main issues with my code was that n was too low, the error of the trapezoidal sum, estimation of my integral, was too high for the newton raphson method to converge to a very small number.
Here was my final code for this problem:
function x = distance(T, route)
load(route)
n=10e6;
x = mean(distance_km);
i = 1;
maxiter=100;
tol= 5e-4;
condition=inf
fx = #(x) time_to_destination(x, route,n);
dfx = #(x) 1./velocity(x, route);
while condition > tol && i <= maxiter
i = i + 1 ;
Guess2 = x - ((fx(x) - T)/(dfx(x)))
condition = abs(Guess2 - x)
x = Guess2;
end
end
I need to code the Gauss Seidel and Successive over relaxation iterative methods in Matlab. I have created the below code for each of them, however my final solution vector does not return the correct answers and i'm really struggling to figure out why. Could anyone please help me?
In both cases, x is the final solution vector and i returns the number of iterations.
Thanks in advance
Gauss Seidel Method:
function [x,i] = gaussSeidel(A,b,x0,tol)
x2 = x0;
count = 0;
D = diag(diag(A));
U = triu(A-D);
disp(U);
L = tril(A-D);
disp(L);
C = diag(diag(A));
disp(C);
Inv = inv(C+D);
error = inf;
while error>tol
x1 = x2;
x2 = Inv*(b-(U*x1));
error = max(abs(x2-x1)/abs(x1));
count = count + 1;
end
x = x2;
i = count;
end
SOR Method:
function [x,i] = sor(A,b,x0,tol,omega)
[m,n] = size(A);
D = diag(diag(A));
U = triu(A-D);
L = tril(A-D);
count = 1;
xtable = x0;
w = omega;
if size(b) ~= size(x0)
error('The given approximation vector does not match the x vector size');
elseif m~=n
error('The given coefficient matrix is not a square');
else
xnew = (inv(D+w*L))*(((1-w)*D-w*U)*x0 +w*b);
RelError = (abs(xnew-x0))/(abs(xnew));
RelErrorCol = max(max(RelError));
while RelErrorCol>tol
xnew = (inv(D+w*L))*(((1-w)*D-w*U)*x0 +w*b);
RelError = (abs(xnew-x0))/(abs(xnew));
RelErrorCol = max(max(RelError));
x0 = xnew;
count = count+1;
xtable = [xtable, xnew];
end
disp(xtable);
x = xnew;
i = count;
end
Gauss-Seidel: Your line that describes C is wrong. Actually it shouldn't be there. Also for the Inv line, it should be inv(D+L), not inv(C+D).
As for the SOR method, in hindsight it seems right. To double check, compare with this method:
http://www.netlib.org/templates/matlab/sor.m. This method relies on http://www.netlib.org/templates/matlab/split.m
Edit: April 4, 2014 - Also check: https://www.dropbox.com/s/p9wlzi9x9evqj5k/MTH719W2013_Assn4_Part1.pdf?dl=1 . I taught a course on Applied Linear Algebra and have MATLAB code that implements Gauss-Seidel and SOR. Check slides 12-20 for the theory and how to implement Gauss-Seidel and slides 35-37 for the SOR method.
Let me know how it goes.
I'm trying to write a cubic spline interpolation program. I have written the program but, the graph is not coming out correctly. The spline uses natural boundary conditions(second dervative at start/end node are 0). The code is in Matlab and is shown below,
clear all
%Function to Interpolate
k = 10; %Number of Support Nodes-1
xs(1) = -1;
for j = 1:k
xs(j+1) = -1 +2*j/k; %Support Nodes(Equidistant)
end;
fs = 1./(25.*xs.^2+1); %Support Ordinates
x = [-0.99:2/(2*k):0.99]; %Places to Evaluate Function
fx = 1./(25.*x.^2+1); %Function Evaluated at x
%Cubic Spline Code(Coefficients to Calculate 2nd Derivatives)
f(1) = 2*(xs(3)-xs(1));
g(1) = xs(3)-xs(2);
r(1) = (6/(xs(3)-xs(2)))*(fs(3)-fs(2)) + (6/(xs(2)-xs(1)))*(fs(1)-fs(2));
e(1) = 0;
for i = 2:k-2
e(i) = xs(i+1)-xs(i);
f(i) = 2*(xs(i+2)-xs(i));
g(i) = xs(i+2)-xs(i+1);
r(i) = (6/(xs(i+2)-xs(i+1)))*(fs(i+2)-fs(i+1)) + ...
(6/(xs(i+1)-xs(i)))*(fs(i)-fs(i+1));
end
e(k-1) = xs(k)-xs(k-1);
f(k-1) = 2*(xs(k+1)-xs(k-1));
r(k-1) = (6/(xs(k+1)-xs(k)))*(fs(k+1)-fs(k)) + ...
(6/(xs(k)-xs(k-1)))*(fs(k-1)-fs(k));
%Tridiagonal System
i = 1;
A = zeros(k-1,k-1);
while i < size(A)+1;
A(i,i) = f(i);
if i < size(A);
A(i,i+1) = g(i);
A(i+1,i) = e(i);
end
i = i+1;
end
for i = 2:k-1 %Decomposition
e(i) = e(i)/f(i-1);
f(i) = f(i)-e(i)*g(i-1);
end
for i = 2:k-1 %Forward Substitution
r(i) = r(i)-e(i)*r(i-1);
end
xn(k-1)= r(k-1)/f(k-1);
for i = k-2:-1:1 %Back Substitution
xn(i) = (r(i)-g(i)*xn(i+1))/f(i);
end
%Interpolation
if (max(xs) <= max(x))
error('Outside Range');
end
if (min(xs) >= min(x))
error('Outside Range');
end
P = zeros(size(length(x),length(x)));
i = 1;
for Counter = 1:length(x)
for j = 1:k-1
a(j) = x(Counter)- xs(j);
end
i = find(a == min(a(a>=0)));
if i == 1
c1 = 0;
c2 = xn(1)/6/(xs(2)-xs(1));
c3 = fs(1)/(xs(2)-xs(1));
c4 = fs(2)/(xs(2)-xs(1))-xn(1)*(xs(2)-xs(1))/6;
t1 = c1*(xs(2)-x(Counter))^3;
t2 = c2*(x(Counter)-xs(1))^3;
t3 = c3*(xs(2)-x(Counter));
t4 = c4*(x(Counter)-xs(1));
P(Counter) = t1 +t2 +t3 +t4;
else
if i < k-1
c1 = xn(i-1+1)/6/(xs(i+1)-xs(i-1+1));
c2 = xn(i+1)/6/(xs(i+1)-xs(i-1+1));
c3 = fs(i-1+1)/(xs(i+1)-xs(i-1+1))-xn(i-1+1)*(xs(i+1)-xs(i-1+1))/6;
c4 = fs(i+1)/(xs(i+1)-xs(i-1+1))-xn(i+1)*(xs(i+1)-xs(i-1+1))/6;
t1 = c1*(xs(i+1)-x(Counter))^3;
t2 = c2*(x(Counter)-xs(i-1+1))^3;
t3 = c3*(xs(i+1)-x(Counter));
t4 = c4*(x(Counter)-xs(i-1+1));
P(Counter) = t1 +t2 +t3 +t4;
else
c1 = xn(i-1+1)/6/(xs(i+1)-xs(i-1+1));
c2 = 0;
c3 = fs(i-1+1)/(xs(i+1)-xs(i-1+1))-xn(i-1+1)*(xs(i+1)-xs(i-1+1))/6;
c4 = fs(i+1)/(xs(i+1)-xs(i-1+1));
t1 = c1*(xs(i+1)-x(Counter))^3;
t2 = c2*(x(Counter)-xs(i-1+1))^3;
t3 = c3*(xs(i+1)-x(Counter));
t4 = c4*(x(Counter)-xs(i-1+1));
P(Counter) = t1 +t2 +t3 +t4;
end
end
end
P = P';
P(length(x)) = NaN;
plot(x,P,x,fx)
When I run the code, the interpolation function is not symmetric and, it doesn't converge correctly. Can anyone offer any suggestions about problems in my code? Thanks.
I wrote a cubic spline package in Mathematica a long time ago. Here is my translation of that package into Matlab. Note I haven't looked at cubic splines in about 7 years, so I'm basing this off my own documentation. You should check everything I say.
The basic problem is we are given n data points (x(1), y(1)) , ... , (x(n), y(n)) and we wish to calculate a piecewise cubic interpolant. The interpolant is defined as
S(x) = { Sk(x) when x(k) <= x <= x(k+1)
{ 0 otherwise
Here Sk(x) is a cubic polynomial of the form
Sk(x) = sk0 + sk1*(x-x(k)) + sk2*(x-x(k))^2 + sk3*(x-x(k))^3
The properties of the spline are:
The spline pass through the data point Sk(x(k)) = y(k)
The spline is continuous at the end-points and thus continuous everywhere in the interpolation interval Sk(x(k+1)) = Sk+1(x(k+1))
The spline has continuous first derivative Sk'(x(k+1)) = Sk+1'(x(k+1))
The spline has continuous second derivative Sk''(x(k+1)) = Sk+1''(x(k+1))
To construct a cubic spline from a set of data point we need to solve for the coefficients
sk0, sk1, sk2 and sk3 for each of the n-1 cubic polynomials. That is a total of 4*(n-1) = 4*n - 4 unknowns. Property 1 supplies n constraints, and properties 2,3,4 each supply an additional n-2 constraints. Thus we have n + 3*(n-2) = 4*n - 6 constraints and 4*n - 4 unknowns. This leaves two degrees of freedom. We fix these degrees of freedom by setting the second derivative equal to zero at the start and end nodes.
Let m(k) = Sk''(x(k)) , h(k) = x(k+1) - x(k) and d(k) = (y(k+1) - y(k))/h(k). The following
three-term recurrence relation holds
h(k-1)*m(k-1) + 2*(h(k-1) + h(k))*m(k) + h(k)*m(k+1) = 6*(d(k) - d(k-1))
The m(k) are unknowns we wish to solve for. The h(k) and d(k) are defined by the input data.
This three-term recurrence relation defines a tridiagonal linear system. Once the m(k) are determined the coefficients for Sk are given by
sk0 = y(k)
sk1 = d(k) - h(k)*(2*m(k) + m(k-1))/6
sk2 = m(k)/2
sk3 = m(k+1) - m(k)/(6*h(k))
Okay that is all the math you need to know to completely define the algorithm to compute a cubic spline. Here it is in Matlab:
function [s0,s1,s2,s3]=cubic_spline(x,y)
if any(size(x) ~= size(y)) || size(x,2) ~= 1
error('inputs x and y must be column vectors of equal length');
end
n = length(x)
h = x(2:n) - x(1:n-1);
d = (y(2:n) - y(1:n-1))./h;
lower = h(1:end-1);
main = 2*(h(1:end-1) + h(2:end));
upper = h(2:end);
T = spdiags([lower main upper], [-1 0 1], n-2, n-2);
rhs = 6*(d(2:end)-d(1:end-1));
m = T\rhs;
% Use natural boundary conditions where second derivative
% is zero at the endpoints
m = [ 0; m; 0];
s0 = y;
s1 = d - h.*(2*m(1:end-1) + m(2:end))/6;
s2 = m/2;
s3 =(m(2:end)-m(1:end-1))./(6*h);
Here is some code to plot a cubic spline:
function plot_cubic_spline(x,s0,s1,s2,s3)
n = length(x);
inner_points = 20;
for i=1:n-1
xx = linspace(x(i),x(i+1),inner_points);
xi = repmat(x(i),1,inner_points);
yy = s0(i) + s1(i)*(xx-xi) + ...
s2(i)*(xx-xi).^2 + s3(i)*(xx - xi).^3;
plot(xx,yy,'b')
plot(x(i),0,'r');
end
Here is a function that constructs a cubic spline and plots in on the famous Runge function:
function cubic_driver(num_points)
runge = #(x) 1./(1+ 25*x.^2);
x = linspace(-1,1,num_points);
y = runge(x);
[s0,s1,s2,s3] = cubic_spline(x',y');
plot_points = 1000;
xx = linspace(-1,1,plot_points);
yy = runge(xx);
plot(xx,yy,'g');
hold on;
plot_cubic_spline(x,s0,s1,s2,s3);
You can see it in action by running the following at the Matlab prompt
>> cubic_driver(5)
>> clf
>> cubic_driver(10)
>> clf
>> cubic_driver(20)
By the time you have twenty nodes your interpolant is visually indistinguishable from the Runge function.
Some comments on the Matlab code: I don't use any for or while loops. I am able to vectorize all operations. I quickly form the sparse tridiagonal matrix with spdiags. I solve it using the backslash operator. I counting on Tim Davis's UMFPACK to handle the decomposition and forward and backward solves.
Hope that helps. The code is available as a gist on github https://gist.github.com/1269709
There was a bug in spline function, generated (n-2) by (n-2) should be symmetric:
lower = h(2:end);
main = 2*(h(1:end-1) + h(2:end));
upper = h(1:end-1);
http://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/astrophysik/HEA/internal/Numerical_Recipes/f3-3.pdf