I'm computing multiple integrals using MATLAB.
I'm using the integral function to compute the integral but I was wondering is it faster to use trapz instead of using integral?
I know that trapz introduces a bit of error in the computation, but despite that, with is the best function to compute integrals in MATLAB?
Short and sweet:
Use trapz for discrete data or for selected functional data if you don't care about (potentially extremely) low accuracy of the integral value
Use integral for integrands that have a functional form, adjusting tolerances as needed for speed.
As mentioned by the MATLAB documentation, trapz is intended "to perform numerical integrations on discrete data sets" and leverages the trapezoidal rule for the integrations. The error between the true integral and the trapz approximation is almost entirely dependent on the input x vector (sometimes called the abscissa in integration parlance) with no automatic adaptability. The good part is that if the underlying function is "nice" (i.e., continuous, smooth, no sharp peaks or excessive oscillations, etc.), trapz will likely be the fastest function to approximate the integral since it
Doesn't have to call a function for values (they're input)
Doesn't automatically adapt (which takes time and can be complex to
implement).
However, for general integrals, trapz may also be the most inaccurate and may require a denser x vector to calculate a low-error value.
For discrete data, this is a short-coming that must be lived with, but if the integrand has a functional form, integral and its family is highly recommended.
The black-box numeric integrators in MATLAB have evolved over the years, and MathWorks co-founder Clever Moler has a nice blog post going over some of the evolutions. The post discusses the quad, quadl, and quadgk functions and how quadgk became the core for integral and its ilk. The basic breakdown of the three functions is
quad uses a three-point and five-point Simpson's Rule
quadl uses a four-seven-thirteen point1 Lobatto-Kronrod2 rule
quadgk a uses seven-fifteen point Gauss-Kronrod2 rule
to acquire both an approximation of the integral and an error approximation for adaptive quadrature. The summary of the history lesson and test problems is that quadgk was written with vectorization incorporated3, uses a higher-order rule which excludes end-points, and gives extremely accurate answers faster than its competitors. As a result, quadgk is the core of the new and highly-recommended integral family.
1 Adaptive quadrature usually lists the number of points used to form its approximation of the value and the error. Typically, there are two numbers that indicate the number of points to form the low-order and high-order approximations. quadl is interesting in that it uses a four-point Gauss-Lobatto rule and seven-point and thirteen-point Kronrod extensions for its error handling.
2 Gaussian Quadrature, which is an integration technique that chooses it abscissa to exactly integrate a family of polynomials over a given interval instead of prescribing them as in Newton-Cotes, has a lot of names associated with it to indicate a lot of "stuff" that's going on without being explicit about it (which can be very annoying to newcomers). "Gauss" refers to the aforementioned method of choosing abscissa and associated weights for the integration. "Lobatto" indicates an extension to Gauss-Legendre integration methods that incorporates end-points (others may not like my link between these two, but I find the parallels pleasing). "Kronrod" indicates an extension to any particular Gauss rule that creates a high-order rule using a given set of abscissa and adding to it; this creates a "nesting" (the low-order points are part of the high-order point set) that results in fewer function evaluations overall.
3 Since vectorization is written into integral, integrands or limits that are vector-valed must use the 'ArrayValued' flag to tell the program to make functional evaluations differently so as not to create a size-mismatch error. It might be possible to program around this to a certain extent, but the MathWorks decided not to.
Related
As far as I understand the LM algorithm, it is an improvement over the Newton's method, so very roughly speaking, an algorithm which tries to build a path in the parameter space, leading to the point where the error function is minimal, which follows the direction of the biggest gradient of error function (differentiated with respect to the parameters).
I have written a Newton's method optimizer for a neural network once, as an exercise, and the critical part of the algorithm was that we could apply the chain rule (error backpropagation) to compute the gradient. And it was me who used the chain rule to the write out a formula for the gradients. (Essentially by symbolic differentiating on paper once and coding the resulting formula.)
In MATLAB (Curve Fitting Toolbox), there is a standard fit() function, which claims to use Levenberg-Marquardt's method to fit basically any parametric MATLAB expression as well as a set of prepared models.
Well, I suspect that the prepared models could be pre-differentiated by Mathworks' engineers to generate the code for the gradients. But what about the 'arbitrary' fits?
Is MATLAB trying to do symbolic differentiation implicitly? I highly doubt that anyone can write rules for differentiation of all the complex MATLAB constructions, i.e. classes and enumerations.
Or, maybe MATLAB is just differentiating the function by evaluating it in ξ and ξ+Δξ and dividing by Δξ? But that would require finding the best shift and require n+1 function evaluations, where n is the number of parameters optimized.
And in any case, even this strategy would fail if the function is not differentiable, which I suspect to be the case for almost any general MATLAB expression.
Could anyone give a plausible hypothesis of what is actually happening inside?
(Well, knowing what actually happens inside would be even better, but even an informal insight would be great.)
(Note: This is intended to be a community Wiki.)
Suppose I have a set of points xi = {x0,x1,x2,...xn} and corresponding function values fi = f(xi) = {f0,f1,f2,...,fn}, where f(x) is, in general, an unknown function. (In some situations, we might know f(x) ahead of time, but we want to do this generally, since we often don't know f(x) in advance.) What's a good way to approximate the derivative of f(x) at each point xi? That is, how can I estimate values of dfi == d/dx fi == df(xi)/dx at each of the points xi?
Unfortunately, MATLAB doesn't have a very good general-purpose, numerical differentiation routine. Part of the reason for this is probably because choosing a good routine can be difficult!
So what kinds of methods are there? What routines exist? How can we choose a good routine for a particular problem?
There are several considerations when choosing how to differentiate in MATLAB:
Do you have a symbolic function or a set of points?
Is your grid evenly or unevenly spaced?
Is your domain periodic? Can you assume periodic boundary conditions?
What level of accuracy are you looking for? Do you need to compute the derivatives within a given tolerance?
Does it matter to you that your derivative is evaluated on the same points as your function is defined?
Do you need to calculate multiple orders of derivatives?
What's the best way to proceed?
These are just some quick-and-dirty suggestions. Hopefully somebody will find them helpful!
1. Do you have a symbolic function or a set of points?
If you have a symbolic function, you may be able to calculate the derivative analytically. (Chances are, you would have done this if it were that easy, and you would not be here looking for alternatives.)
If you have a symbolic function and cannot calculate the derivative analytically, you can always evaluate the function on a set of points, and use some other method listed on this page to evaluate the derivative.
In most cases, you have a set of points (xi,fi), and will have to use one of the following methods....
2. Is your grid evenly or unevenly spaced?
If your grid is evenly spaced, you probably will want to use a finite difference scheme (see either of the Wikipedia articles here or here), unless you are using periodic boundary conditions (see below). Here is a decent introduction to finite difference methods in the context of solving ordinary differential equations on a grid (see especially slides 9-14). These methods are generally computationally efficient, simple to implement, and the error of the method can be simply estimated as the truncation error of the Taylor expansions used to derive it.
If your grid is unevenly spaced, you can still use a finite difference scheme, but the expressions are more difficult and the accuracy varies very strongly with how uniform your grid is. If your grid is very non-uniform, you will probably need to use large stencil sizes (more neighboring points) to calculate the derivative at a given point. People often construct an interpolating polynomial (often the Lagrange polynomial) and differentiate that polynomial to compute the derivative. See for instance, this StackExchange question. It is often difficult to estimate the error using these methods (although some have attempted to do so: here and here). Fornberg's method is often very useful in these cases....
Care must be taken at the boundaries of your domain because the stencil often involves points that are outside the domain. Some people introduce "ghost points" or combine boundary conditions with derivatives of different orders to eliminate these "ghost points" and simplify the stencil. Another approach is to use right- or left-sided finite difference methods.
Here's an excellent "cheat sheet" of finite difference methods, including centered, right- and left-sided schemes of low orders. I keep a printout of this near my workstation because I find it so useful.
3. Is your domain periodic? Can you assume periodic boundary conditions?
If your domain is periodic, you can compute derivatives to a very high order accuracy using Fourier spectral methods. This technique sacrifices performance somewhat to gain high accuracy. In fact, if you are using N points, your estimate of the derivative is approximately N^th order accurate. For more information, see (for example) this WikiBook.
Fourier methods often use the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) algorithm to achieve roughly O(N log(N)) performance, rather than the O(N^2) algorithm that a naively-implemented discrete Fourier transform (DFT) might employ.
If your function and domain are not periodic, you should not use the Fourier spectral method. If you attempt to use it with a function that is not periodic, you will get large errors and undesirable "ringing" phenomena.
Computing derivatives of any order requires 1) a transform from grid-space to spectral space (O(N log(N))), 2) multiplication of the Fourier coefficients by their spectral wavenumbers (O(N)), and 2) an inverse transform from spectral space to grid space (again O(N log(N))).
Care must be taken when multiplying the Fourier coefficients by their spectral wavenumbers. Every implementation of the FFT algorithm seems to have its own ordering of the spectral modes and normalization parameters. See, for instance, the answer to this question on the Math StackExchange, for notes about doing this in MATLAB.
4. What level of accuracy are you looking for? Do you need to compute the derivatives within a given tolerance?
For many purposes, a 1st or 2nd order finite difference scheme may be sufficient. For higher precision, you can use higher order Taylor expansions, dropping higher-order terms.
If you need to compute the derivatives within a given tolerance, you may want to look around for a high-order scheme that has the error you need.
Often, the best way to reduce error is reducing the grid spacing in a finite difference scheme, but this is not always possible.
Be aware that higher-order finite difference schemes almost always require larger stencil sizes (more neighboring points). This can cause issues at the boundaries. (See the discussion above about ghost points.)
5. Does it matter to you that your derivative is evaluated on the same points as your function is defined?
MATLAB provides the diff function to compute differences between adjacent array elements. This can be used to calculate approximate derivatives via a first-order forward-differencing (or forward finite difference) scheme, but the estimates are low-order estimates. As described in MATLAB's documentation of diff (link), if you input an array of length N, it will return an array of length N-1. When you estimate derivatives using this method on N points, you will only have estimates of the derivative at N-1 points. (Note that this can be used on uneven grids, if they are sorted in ascending order.)
In most cases, we want the derivative evaluated at all points, which means we want to use something besides the diff method.
6. Do you need to calculate multiple orders of derivatives?
One can set up a system of equations in which the grid point function values and the 1st and 2nd order derivatives at these points all depend on each other. This can be found by combining Taylor expansions at neighboring points as usual, but keeping the derivative terms rather than cancelling them out, and linking them together with those of neighboring points. These equations can be solved via linear algebra to give not just the first derivative, but the second as well (or higher orders, if set up properly). I believe these are called combined finite difference schemes, and they are often used in conjunction with compact finite difference schemes, which will be discussed next.
Compact finite difference schemes (link). In these schemes, one sets up a design matrix and calculates the derivatives at all points simultaneously via a matrix solve. They are called "compact" because they are usually designed to require fewer stencil points than ordinary finite difference schemes of comparable accuracy. Because they involve a matrix equation that links all points together, certain compact finite difference schemes are said to have "spectral-like resolution" (e.g. Lele's 1992 paper--excellent!), meaning that they mimic spectral schemes by depending on all nodal values and, because of this, they maintain accuracy at all length scales. In contrast, typical finite difference methods are only locally accurate (the derivative at point #13, for example, ordinarily doesn't depend on the function value at point #200).
A current area of research is how best to solve for multiple derivatives in a compact stencil. The results of such research, combined, compact finite difference methods, are powerful and widely applicable, though many researchers tend to tune them for particular needs (performance, accuracy, stability, or a particular field of research such as fluid dynamics).
Ready-to-Go Routines
As described above, one can use the diff function (link to documentation) to compute rough derivatives between adjacent array elements.
MATLAB's gradient routine (link to documentation) is a great option for many purposes. It implements a second-order, central difference scheme. It has the advantages of computing derivatives in multiple dimensions and supporting arbitrary grid spacing. (Thanks to #thewaywewalk for pointing out this glaring omission!)
I used Fornberg's method (see above) to develop a small routine (nderiv_fornberg) to calculate finite differences in one dimension for arbitrary grid spacings. I find it easy to use. It uses sided stencils of 6 points at the boundaries and a centered, 5-point stencil in the interior. It is available at the MATLAB File Exchange here.
Conclusion
The field of numerical differentiation is very diverse. For each method listed above, there are many variants with their own set of advantages and disadvantages. This post is hardly a complete treatment of numerical differentiation.
Every application is different. Hopefully this post gives the interested reader an organized list of considerations and resources for choosing a method that suits their own needs.
This community wiki could be improved with code snippets and examples particular to MATLAB.
I believe there is more in to these particular questions. So I have elaborated on the subject further as follows:
(4) Q: What level of accuracy are you looking for? Do you need to compute the derivatives within a given tolerance?
A: The accuracy of numerical differentiation is subjective to the application of interest. Usually the way it works is, if you are using the ND in forward problem to approximate the derivatives to estimate features from signal of interest, then you should be aware of noise perturbations. Usually such artifacts contain high frequency components and by the definition of the differentiator, the noise effect will be amplified in the magnitude order of $i\omega^n$. So, increasing the accuracy of differentiator (increasing the polynomial accuracy) will no help at all. In this case you should be able to cancelt the effect of noise for differentiation. This can be done in casecade order: first smooth the signal, and then differentiate. But a better way of doing this is to use "Lowpass Differentiator". A good example of MATLAB library can be found here.
However, if this is not the case and you're using ND in inverse problems, such as solvign PDEs, then the global accuracy of differentiator is very important. Depending on what kind of bounady condition (BC) suits your problem, the design will be adapted accordingly. The rule of thump is to increase the numerical accuracy known is the fullband differentiator. You need to design a derivative matrix that takes care of suitable BC. You can find comprehensive solutions to such designs using the above link.
(5) Does it matter to you that your derivative is evaluated on the same points as your function is defined?
A: Yes absolutely. The evaluation of the ND on the same grid points is called "centralized" and off the points "staggered" schemes. Note that using odd order of derivatives, centralized ND will deviate the accuracy of frequency response of the differentiator. Therefore, if you're using such design in inverse problems, this will perturb your approximation. Also, the opposite applies to the case of even order of differentiation utilized by staggered schemes. You can find comprehensive explanation on this subject using the link above.
(6) Do you need to calculate multiple orders of derivatives?
This totally depends on your application at hand. You can refer to the same link I have provided and take care of multiple derivative designs.
What is the difference between abtol and reltol in MATLAB when performing numerical quadrature?
I have an triple integral that is supposed to generate a number between 0 and 1 and I am wondering what would be the best tolerance for my application?
Any other ideas on decreasing the time of integral3 execution.
Also does anyone know whether integral3 or quadgk is faster?
When performing the integration, MATLAB (or most any other integration software) computes a low-order solution qLow and a high-order solution qHigh.
There are a number of different methods of computing the true error (i.e., how far either qLow or qHigh is from the actual solution qTrue), but MATLAB simply computes an absolute error as the difference between the high and low order integral solutions:
errAbs = abs(qLow - qHigh).
If the integral is truly a large value, that difference may be large in an absolute sense but not a relative sense. For example, errAbs might be 1E3, but qTrue is 1E12; in that case, the method could be said to converge relatively since at least 8 digits of accuracy has been reached.
So MATLAB also considers the relative error :
errRel = abs(qLow - qHigh)/abs(qHigh).
You'll notice I'm treating qHigh as qTrue since it is our best estimate.
Over a given sub-region, if the error estimate falls below either the absolute limit or the relative limit times the current integral estimate, the integral is considered converged. If not, the region is divided, and the calculation repeated.
For the integral function and integral2/integral3 functions with the iterated method, the low-high solutions are a Gauss-Kronrod 7-15 pair (the same 7-th order/15-th order set used by quadgk.
For the integral2/integral3 functions with the tiled method, the low-high solutions are a Gauss-Kronrod 3-7 pair (I've never used this option, so I'm not sure how it compares to others).
Since all of these methods come down to a Gauss-Kronrod quadrature rule, I'd say sticking with integral3 and letting it do the adaptive refinement as needed is the best course.
I'm looking for a function that generates significant errors in numerical integration using Gaussian quadrature or Simpson quadrature.
Since Simpson's and Gaussian's methods are trying to fit a supposedly smooth function with pieces of simple smooth functions, such as 2nd-order polynomials, and otherwise make use of low-order polynomials and other simple algebraic functions such as $$a+5/6$$, it makes sense that the biggest challenges would be functions that aren't 2nd order polynomials or resembling those simple functions.
Step functions, or more generally functions that are constant for short runs then jump to another value. A staircase, or the Walsh functions (used for a kind of binary Fourier transform) should be interesting. Just a plain simple single step does not fit any polynomial approximation very well.
Try a high-order polynomial. Just x^n for a large n should be interesting. Maybe subtract x^n - x^(n-1) for some large n. How large is "large"? For Simpson, perhaps 4 or more. For Gaussian using k points, n>k. (Don't go nuts trying n beyond modest two digit numbers; that just becomes nasty calculation apart from any integration.)
Few numerical integration methods like poles, that is, functions resembling 1/(x-a) for some neighborhood around a. Since it may be trouble to deal with actual infinity, try pushing it off the real line, or a complex conjugate pair. Make a big but finite spike using 1/( (x-a)^2 + b) where b>0 is small. Or the square root of that expression, or the sine or exponential of it. You could replace the "2" with a bigger power, I bet that'll be nasty.
Once upon a time I wanted to test a numerical integration routine. I started with a stairstep function, or train of rectangular pulses, sampled on some set of points.
I computed an approximate derivative using a Savitzky-Golay filter. SG can differentiate numerical data using a finite window of neighboring points, though normally it's used for smoothing. It takes a window size (number of points), polynomial order (2 or 4 in practice, but you may want to go nuts with higher), and differentiation order (normally 0 to smooth, 1 to get derivatives).
The result was a series of pulses, which I then integrated. A good routine will recreate the original stairstep or rectangular pulses. I imagine if the SG parameters are chosen right, you will make Simpson and Gauss roll over in their graves.
If you are looking for a difficult function to integrate as a test method, you could consider the one in the CS Stack Exchange question:
Method for numerical integration of difficult oscillatory integral
In this question, one of the answers suggests using the chebfun library for Matlab, which contains an implementation of a basic Levin-type method. This suggests to me that the function would fail using a simpler method such as Simpsons rule.
I have a system of (first order) ODEs with fairly expensive to compute derivatives.
However, the derivatives can be computed considerably cheaper to within given error bounds, either because the derivatives are computed from a convergent series and bounds can be placed on the maximum contribution from dropped terms, or through use of precomputed range information stored in kd-tree/octree lookup tables.
Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find any general ODE solvers which can benefit from this; they all seem to just give you coordinates and want an exact result back. (Mind you, I'm no expert on ODEs; I'm familiar with Runge-Kutta, the material in the Numerical Recipies book, LSODE and the Gnu Scientific Library's solver).
ie for all the solvers I've seen, you provide a derivs callback function accepting a t and an array of x, and returning an array of dx/dt back; but ideally I'm looking for one which gives the callback t, xs, and an array of acceptable errors, and receives dx/dt_min and dx/dt_max arrays back, with the derivative range guaranteed to be within the required precision. (There are probably numerous equally useful variations possible).
Any pointers to solvers which are designed with this sort of thing in mind, or alternative approaches to the problem (I can't believe I'm the first person wanting something like this) would be greatly appreciated.
Roughly speaking, if you know f' up to absolute error eps, and integrate from x0 to x1, the error of the integral coming from the error in the derivative is going to be <= eps*(x1 - x0). There is also discretization error, coming from your ODE solver. Consider how big eps*(x1 - x0) can be for you and feed the ODE solver with f' values computed with error <= eps.
I'm not sure this is a well-posed question.
In many algorithms, e.g, nonlinear equation solving, f(x) = 0, an estimate of a derivative f'(x) is all that's required for use in something like Newton's method since you only need to go in the "general direction" of the answer.
However, in this case, the derivative is a primary part of the (ODE) equation you're solving - get the derivative wrong, and you'll just get the wrong answer; it's like trying to solve f(x) = 0 with only an approximation for f(x).
As another answer has suggested, if you set up your ODE as applied f(x) + g(x) where g(x) is an error term, you should be able to relate errors in your derivatives to errors in your inputs.
Having thought about this some more, it occurred to me that interval arithmetic is probably key. My derivs function basically returns intervals. An integrator using interval arithmetic would maintain x's as intervals. All I'm interested in is obtaining a sufficiently small error bound on the xs at a final t. An obvious approach would be to iteratively re-integrate, improving the quality of the sample introducing the most error each iteration until we finally get a result with acceptable bounds (although that sounds like it could be a "cure worse than the disease" with regards to overall efficiency). I suspect adaptive step size control could fit in nicely in such a scheme, with step size chosen to keep the "implicit" discretization error comparable with the "explicit error" ie the interval range).
Anyway, googling "ode solver interval arithmetic" or just "interval ode" turns up a load of interesting new and relevant stuff (VNODE and its references in particular).
If you have a stiff system, you will be using some form of implicit method in which case the derivatives are only used within the Newton iteration. Using an approximate Jacobian will cost you strict quadratic convergence on the Newton iterations, but that is often acceptable. Alternatively (mostly if the system is large) you can use a Jacobian-free Newton-Krylov method to solve the stages, in which case your approximate Jacobian becomes merely a preconditioner and you retain quadratic convergence in the Newton iteration.
Have you looked into using odeset? It allows you to set options for an ODE solver, then you pass the options structure as the fourth argument to whichever solver you call. The error control properties (RelTol, AbsTol, NormControl) may be of most interest to you. Not sure if this is exactly the sort of help you need, but it's the best suggestion I could come up with, having last used the MATLAB ODE functions years ago.
In addition: For the user-defined derivative function, could you just hard-code tolerances into the computation of the derivatives, or do you really need error limits to be passed from the solver?
Not sure I'm contributing much, but in the pharma modeling world, we use LSODE, DVERK, and DGPADM. DVERK is a nice fast simple order 5/6 Runge-Kutta solver. DGPADM is a good matrix-exponent solver. If your ODEs are linear, matrix exponent is best by far. But your problem is a little different.
BTW, the T argument is only in there for generality. I've never seen an actual system that depended on T.
You may be breaking into new theoretical territory. Good luck!
Added: If you're doing orbital simulations, seems to me I heard of special methods used for that, based on conic-section curves.
Check into a finite element method with linear basis functions and midpoint quadrature. Solving the following ODE requires only one evaluation each of f(x), k(x), and b(x) per element:
-k(x)u''(x) + b(x)u'(x) = f(x)
The answer will have pointwise error proportional to the error in your evaluations.
If you need smoother results, you can use quadratic basis functions with 2 evaluation of each of the above functions per element.