Skip to main content

differential equations - Vector ParametricNDSolve and FindRoot interaction


This question came out of this question.


I have a set of differential equations, written in vector form. I'm only interested in the value of these at the endpoint, and so I use ParametricNDSolve, asking it to only return that function of the vectors. This works fine on its own, and is slightly quicker than asking for the whole solution to be returned:


Clear[test];

A = {{0, 1, 0, 0}, {0, 0, 1, 0}, {0, 0, 0, 1}, {q, 0, 0, 0}}; test =
ParametricNDSolveValue[{Y'[x] == A.Y[x], Y[0] == Table[1, 4]},
Y[4].Y[4], {x, 0, 4}, q];
First@AbsoluteTiming[test /@ Range[0, 10, 0.1];]
(* 0.037914 *)

However, if I try to use this same function in FindRoot, it now takes much longer to evaluate at the same points afterwards:


Clear[test];
A = {{0, 1, 0, 0}, {0, 0, 1, 0}, {0, 0, 0, 1}, {q, 0, 0, 0}}; test =
ParametricNDSolveValue[{Y'[x] == A.Y[x], Y[0] == Table[1, 4]},

Y[4].Y[4], {x, 0, 4}, q];
Quiet[FindRoot[test[q], {q, 3}]];
First@AbsoluteTiming[test /@ Range[0, 10, 0.1];]
(* 0.24924 *)

Which is 6 times longer than it took to do exactly the same calculation. Note that the function definition is identical, just the use of the function in the FindRoot has changed (which is also much slower than just getting the entire interpolation functions out and then calculating only the part I need).


Can anyone explain what is going on? I get the same timings on 11.3 and 12.0 on my mac.



Answer



We can add a method, then the time is reduced by an order. In this example, the test-1000 has a root


Clear[test];

A = {{0, 1, 0, 0}, {0, 0, 1, 0}, {0, 0, 0, 1}, {q, 0, 0, 0}}; test =
ParametricNDSolveValue[{Y'[x] == A.Y[x], Y[0] == Table[1, 4]},
Y[4].Y[4], {x, 0, 4}, q];
Quiet[FindRoot[test[q] - 1000, {q,0,1}, Method -> "Secant"]];
First@AbsoluteTiming[test /@ Range[0, 10, 0.1];]
(*0.0341673*)

Compare without method and without FindRoot[]


 Clear[test];
A = {{0, 1, 0, 0}, {0, 0, 1, 0}, {0, 0, 0, 1}, {q, 0, 0, 0}}; test =

ParametricNDSolveValue[{Y'[x] == A.Y[x], Y[0] == Table[1, 4]},
Y[4].Y[4], {x, 0, 4}, q];
Quiet[FindRoot[test[q] - 1000, {q, 3}]];
First@AbsoluteTiming[test /@ Range[0, 10, 0.1];]

(*0.271661*)

Clear[test];
A = {{0, 1, 0, 0}, {0, 0, 1, 0}, {0, 0, 0, 1}, {q, 0, 0, 0}}; test =
ParametricNDSolveValue[{Y'[x] == A.Y[x], Y[0] == Table[1, 4]},

Y[4].Y[4], {x, 0, 4}, q];
First@AbsoluteTiming[test /@ Range[0, 10, 0.1];]

(* 0.0395219 *)

With the option Method -> "Secant" code works even faster than without FindRoot[].If we use the option Method -> "AffineCovariantNewton", then the time increases:


 Clear[test];
A = {{0, 1, 0, 0}, {0, 0, 1, 0}, {0, 0, 0, 1}, {q, 0, 0, 0}}; test =
ParametricNDSolveValue[{Y'[x] == A.Y[x], Y[0] == Table[1, 4]},
Y[4].Y[4], {x, 0, 4}, q];

Quiet[FindRoot[test[q] - 1000, {q, 1},
Method -> "AffineCovariantNewton"]];
First@AbsoluteTiming[test /@ Range[0, 10, 0.1];]

(* 0.298559 *)

Consequently, Newton's method (the default method) can slow down the code in this combination.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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.