Skip to main content

programming - Calculating an integral by the Romberg Algorithm



In my "Numerical Analysis" course, I learned the Romberg Algorithm to numerically calculate the integral.


The Romberg Algorithm as shown below:



tableau



$$T_{2n}(f)+\frac{1}{4^1-1}[T_{2n}(f)-T_{n}(f)]=S_n(f) \\ S_{2n}(f)+\frac{1}{4^2-1}[S_{2n}(f)-S_{n}(f)]=C_n(f) \\ C_{2n}(f)+\frac{1}{4^3-1}[C_{2n}(f)-C_{n}(f)]=R_n(f)$$


where $$T_n=\frac{h}{2}\left[ f(a)+ 2\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}f(x_i) +f(b)\right]$$ and $h=\frac{b-a}{n}$.


My code:


 trapezium[func_, n_, {a_, b_}] :=
  With[{h = (b - a)/n},

   1/2 h (func@a + 2 Sum[func[a + i h], {i, 1, n - 1}] + func@b)
 ]

rombergCalc[func_,iter_, {a_, b_}] := 
  Module[{m = 1},
   Nest[
    MovingAverage[#, {-1,4^(m++)}] &, 
    Table[trapezium[func, 2^i, {a, b}], {i, 0., iter}], 3]
  ]


The calculation process comes from my textbook



enter image description here



Fixed one bug 1



enter image description here



Update


Fixed bug 2




enter image description here



Test


 rombergCalc[Exp, 5, {0, 1}]//InputForm


 {1.7182818287945305, 1.7182818284603885, 1.7182818284590502}

My Question update




  • In function rombergCalc, I utilized the usage m++ that I believe is not suitable in Mathematica Programming. Is there any other method to replace m++ or implement Romberg Algorithm?


- Why Block[{$MinPrecision = precision, $MaxPrecision = precision}..] cannot give the result that contain significance digit that I gave(seeing the graphic of textbook)?


(Thanks for @xzczd's solution for dealing with precision problem)


N[{a, b}, precision]

and replace


trapezium[func, 2^i, {a, b}], {i, 0., iter}]


with


trapezium[func, 2^i, {a, b}], {i, 0, iter}]

- Except for SetOptions[SelectedNotebook[], PrintPrecision -> 16] or InputForm, is there other solutions to set precision conveniently?



Answer



Nice to meet you, Mr. Shu.


Bug fix first. Your function doesn't work under desired precision because:



Table[trapezium[func, 2^i, {a, b}], {i, **0.**, iter}]


Changing it to


Table[trapezium[func, 2^i, {a, b}], {i, 0, iter}]

still doesn't fix the problem, because all the numbers taking part in the calculation have infinite precision. Adding an


N[…, precision]

somewhere still doesn't fix the problem, because your utilization of m++ is not only unsuitable, but also wrong. Try changing your m++ into (Print[i = m++]; i) and see what will happen.


Fixed code:


trapezium[func_, n_, {a_, b_}] := 
 With[{h = (b - a)/n}, 

  1/2 h (func@a + 2 Sum[func[a + i h], {i, 1, n - 1}] + func@b)]

rombergCalc[func_, iter_, {a_, b_}, precision_] := 
 Block[{$MinPrecision = precision, $MaxPrecision = precision}, 
  Module[{m = 1}, 
   NestList[
    With[{n = 4^(m++)}, 
      Flatten@(MovingAverage[#, {-1, n}] & /@ Partition[#, 2, 1])] &, 
    Table[trapezium[func, 2^(i - 1), N[{a, b}, precision]], {i, 
      iter}], 3]]]


It's so ugly now that I'd like to turn to:


trapezium[func_, n_, {a_, b_}] := 
 With[{h = (b - a)/n}, 
  Module[{f = Function[x, func@x, Listable]}, h (Total@f@Range[a, b, h] - 1/2 (f@a + f@b))]]

rombergCalc[func_, iter_, {a_, b_}, precision_] := 
 FoldList[Rest@# + 1/(4^#2 - 1) Differences@# &, 
  trapezium[func, 2^(# - 1), N[{a, b}, precision]] & /@ Range@iter, Range@3]


Finally "visualize" the result:


TableForm[Flatten[rombergCalc[Exp, 6, {0, 1}, 13], {{2}, {1}}], 
   TableHeadings -> {2^Range[0, 5], 
   {"\!\(\*SubscriptBox[\(T\), \(n\)]\)", 
    "\!\(\*SubscriptBox[\(S\), \(n\)]\)", 
    "\!\(\*SubscriptBox[\(C\), \(n\)]\)", 
    "\!\(\*SubscriptBox[\(R\), \(n\)]\)"}}, TableAlignments -> Center]

enter image description here




For completeness, here's a compiled version of the function above. Notice that it only speeds up Listable compilable internal functions or pure functions formed by Listable compilable internal function.


trapezium[f_, n_, {a_, b_}] := 
 With[{h = (b - a)/n}, 
  h (Total[f@Range[a, b, h]] - 1/2 (f@a + f@b))]

compiledrombergCalc[f_, {a_, b_}] := 
 ReleaseHold[
  Hold@Compile[{{i, _Integer}}, 
     Fold[Rest@# + 1/(4^#2 - 1) Differences@# &, 
      trapezium[f, 2^(# - 1), {a, b}] & /@ Range@i, Range@3]] /. 

   DownValues@trapezium]

g = Exp[#] &
NumberForm[compiledrombergCalc[g, {0, 1}][18], 13] // AbsoluteTiming

enter image description here


It's a 23X speedup compared to the uncompiled version.


Also notice that inside the compiled function, the calculation is under MachinePrecision so the Precision of the result is also MachinePrecision, though its appearance is changed by NumberForm. However, I think this treatment may be closer to what your text book has done: as said in the comment below, significance arithmetic is the secret recipe of Mathematica anyway.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

mathematical optimization - Minimizing using indices, error: Part::pkspec1: The expression cannot be used as a part specification

I want to use Minimize where the variables to minimize are indices pointing into an array. Here a MWE that hopefully shows what my problem is. vars = u@# & /@ Range[3]; cons = Flatten@ { Table[(u[j] != #) & /@ vars[[j + 1 ;; -1]], {j, 1, 3 - 1}], 1 vec1 = {1, 2, 3}; vec2 = {1, 2, 3}; Minimize[{Total@((vec1[[#]] - vec2[[u[#]]])^2 & /@ Range[1, 3]), cons}, vars, Integers] The error I get: Part::pkspec1: The expression u[1] cannot be used as a part specification. >> Answer Ok, it seems that one can get around Mathematica trying to evaluate vec2[[u[1]]] too early by using the function Indexed[vec2,u[1]] . The working MWE would then look like the following: vars = u@# & /@ Range[3]; cons = Flatten@{ Table[(u[j] != #) & /@ vars[[j + 1 ;; -1]], {j, 1, 3 - 1}], 1 vec1 = {1, 2, 3}; vec2 = {1, 2, 3}; NMinimize[ {Total@((vec1[[#]] - Indexed[vec2, u[#]])^2 & /@ R...
Post a Comment
Read more

functions - Get leading series expansion term?

Given a function f[x] , I would like to have a function leadingSeries that returns just the leading term in the series around x=0 . For example: leadingSeries[(1/x + 2)/(4 + 1/x^2 + x)] x and leadingSeries[(1/x + 2 + (1 - 1/x^3)/4)/(4 + x)] -(1/(16 x^3)) Is there such a function in Mathematica? Or maybe one can implement it efficiently? EDIT I finally went with the following implementation, based on Carl Woll 's answer: lds[ex_,x_]:=( (ex/.x->(x+O[x]^2))/.SeriesData[U_,Z_,L_List,Mi_,Ma_,De_]:>SeriesData[U,Z,{L[[1]]},Mi,Mi+1,De]//Quiet//Normal) The advantage is, that this one also properly works with functions whose leading term is a constant: lds[Exp[x],x] 1 Answer Update 1 Updated to eliminate SeriesData and to not return additional terms Perhaps you could use: leadingSeries[expr_, x_] := Normal[expr /. x->(x+O[x]^2) /. a_List :> Take[a, 1]] Then for your examples: leadingSeries[(1/x + 2)/(4 + 1/x^2 + x), x] leadingSeries[Exp[x], x] leadingSeries[(1/x + 2 + (1 - 1/x...
Post a Comment
Read more

What is and isn't a valid variable specification for Manipulate?

I have an expression whose terms have arguments (representing subscripts), like this: myExpr = A[0] + V[1,T] I would like to put it inside a Manipulate to see its value as I move around the parameters. (The goal is eventually to plot it wrt one of the variables inside.) However, Mathematica complains when I set V[1,T] as a manipulated variable: Manipulate[Evaluate[myExpr], {A[0], 0, 1}, {V[1, T], 0, 1}] (*Manipulate::vsform: Manipulate argument {V[1,T],0,1} does not have the correct form for a variable specification. >> *) As a workaround, if I get rid of the symbol T inside the argument, it works fine: Manipulate[ Evaluate[myExpr /. T -> 15], {A[0], 0, 1}, {V[1, 15], 0, 1}] Why this behavior? Can anyone point me to the documentation that says what counts as a valid variable? And is there a way to get Manpiulate to accept an expression with a symbolic argument as a variable? Investigations I've done so far: I tried using variableQ from this answer , but it says V[1...
Post a Comment
Read more