performance tuning - Is it possible to generate a message when precision upgrade occur?

I use Mathematica mostly for numerical simulation, so most of the time double precision (or machine precision) is enough for me. Mathematica has this nice feature of automatically upgrade to arbitrary precision, but sometimes it costs problems for me.

For instance here is a compiled function that calculate a modulus of a vector

mymod = Compile[{{x, _Real, 1}}, x.x]

Now a vector has a Gaussian distribution

ListPlot[Array[Exp[-(#)^2./10.] &, 500, {-100., 100.}]]

enter image description here

and we want to calculate its modulus

mymod[Array[Exp[-(#)^2./10.]&,500,{-100.,100.}]]
(* 9.8885 *)

we get the right answer but with a warning saying that the argument type is incorrect:

Argument {5.075958897549*10^-435,1.513073408369*10^-431,4.367658965168*10^-428,<<45>>,5.42928*10^-284,3.46203*10^-281,<<450>>} at position 1 should be a rank 1 tensor of machine-size real numbers.

That's because Exp has upgraded the machine precision number we use to arbitrary precision. And thus the uncompiled function is invoked.

Consider the situation where we use extensively the numerical functions in a fairly large package, this automatic upgrading of precision may occur at multiple places. Although the final answer may probably be correct, invoking the uncompiled functions may greatly degrade the performance.

One solution point out by Daniel Lichtblau here is to turn off the tracking of the underflow by setting "CatchMachineUnderflow"->False to every function that uses arbitrary precision. But first we need to find those functions.

So my question are:

Is it possible to tell Mathematica to generate a message when the upgrading to an arbitrary precision occurs? Just like we can have a message if the unpacking of an array occurs.

This precision problem seems to be quite common for people dealing with numerical calculation in Mathematica. What do you think are good ways to deal with this problem?

Comments

plotting - Filling between two spheres in SphericalPlot3D

Manipulate[ SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, Mesh -> None, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], {n, 0, 1}] I cant' seem to be able to make a filling between two spheres. I've already tried the obvious Filling -> {1 -> {2}} but Mathematica doesn't seem to like that option. Is there any easy way around this or ... Answer There is no built-in filling in SphericalPlot3D . One option is to use ParametricPlot3D to draw the surfaces between the two shells: Manipulate[ Show[SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], ParametricPlot3D[{ r {Sin[t] Cos[1.5 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[1.5 Pi], Cos[t]}, r {Sin[t] Cos[0 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[0 Pi], Cos[t]}}, {r, 1, 2 - n}, {t, 0, Pi}, PlotStyle -> Yellow, Mesh -> {2, 15}]], {n, 0, 1}]

plotting - Plot 4D data with color as 4th dimension

I have a list of 4D data (x position, y position, amplitude, wavelength). I want to plot x, y, and amplitude on a 3D plot and have the color of the points correspond to the wavelength. I have seen many examples using functions to define color but my wavelength cannot be expressed by an analytic function. Is there a simple way to do this? Answer Here a another possible way to visualize 4D data: data = Flatten[Table[{x, y, x^2 + y^2, Sin[x - y]}, {x, -Pi, Pi,Pi/10}, {y,-Pi,Pi, Pi/10}], 1]; You can use the function Point along with VertexColors . Now the points are places using the first three elements and the color is determined by the fourth. In this case I used Hue, but you can use whatever you prefer. Graphics3D[ Point[data[[All, 1 ;; 3]], VertexColors -> Hue /@ data[[All, 4]]], Axes -> True, BoxRatios -> {1, 1, 1/GoldenRatio}]

plotting - Mathematica: 3D plot based on combined 2D graphs

I have several sigmoidal fits to 3 different datasets, with mean fit predictions plus the 95% confidence limits (not symmetrical around the mean) and the actual data. I would now like to show these different 2D plots projected in 3D as in but then using proper perspective. In the link here they give some solutions to combine the plots using isometric perspective, but I would like to use proper 3 point perspective. Any thoughts? Also any way to show the mean points per time point for each series plus or minus the standard error on the mean would be cool too, either using points+vertical bars, or using spheres plus tubes. Below are some test data and the fit function I am using. Note that I am working on a logit(proportion) scale and that the final vertical scale is Log10(percentage). (* some test data *) data = Table[Null, {i, 4}]; data[[1]] = {{1, -5.8}, {2, -5.4}, {3, -0.8}, {4, -0.2}, {5, 4.6}, {1, -6.4}, {2, -5.6}, {3, -0.7}, {4, 0.04}, {5, 1.0}, {1, -6.8}, {2, -4.7}, {3, -1.

Blog

Search This Blog