Skip to main content

bugs - Why doesn't my expression evaluate at the subkernel?


Consider this code:



BeginPackage["Test`"];
f1::usage = "";
f2::usage = "";
f3::usage = "";
Begin["`Private`"];
fQ[myf_] := Head[myf] === f1;
f1[n_][t_] := 0;
f2[myf1_?fQ, myf2_?fQ][t_] := 0;
f3[myf1_] := myf1[0.];
End[];

EndPackage[];

The expression evaluate on main kernel


f3[f2[f1[1], f1[1]]]
(*0*)

but when I evaluate on subkernels, it seems that it is not evaluated


LaunchKernels[];
DistributeDefinitions[f1, f2, f3];


ParallelEvaluate[Block[{data}, data = f3[f2[f1[1], f1[1]]];
  Print[data];], (Kernels[])[[1]]]

(* (kernel 1) Test`f2[Test`f1[1],Test`f1[1]][0.]*)

Where do I do wrong?


And if I distribute the definition of the fQ, it then get evaluated:


DistributeDefinitions[f1, f2, f3, Test`Private`fQ];
ParallelEvaluate[Block[{data}, data = f3[f2[f1[1], f1[1]]];
  Print[data]], (Kernels[])[[1]]]

(*  (kernel 1) 0 *)

How should I understand this behavior?



Answer



As @image_doctor notes in a comment, the problem occurs because the definition of Test`Private`fQ is not being distributed to the other kernels.


DistributeDefinitions uses Language`ExtendedFullDefinition to determine which definitions to transmit. We can see this by evaluating the following expression:


On[Language`ExtendedFullDefinition]
DistributeDefinitions[f1, f2, f3];
Off[]


(* ...
   Language`ExtendedFullDefinition::trace :
   Language`ExtendedFullDefinition[{f1,f2,f3},ExcludedContexts->{Algebra,...}] -->
   Language`DefinitionList[
      f1->{...,SubValues->{HoldPattern[f1[<<1>>][<<1>>]]:>0},...},
      f2->{...,SubValues->{HoldPattern[f2[<<2>>][<<1>>]]:>0},...},
      f3->{...,DownValues->{HoldPattern[f3[<<1>>]]:>Test`Private`myf1[0.]},...}]. >>
*)

Test`Private`fQ is absent from the generated Language`DefinitionList.



Language`ExtendedFullDefinition is normally able to trace all dependencies in a function:


ff[x_] := gg[x]
gg[x_] := x + 1
Language`ExtendedFullDefinition[ff]

(*
   Language`DefinitionList[
     ff->{...,DownValues->{HoldPattern[ff[x_]]:>gg[x]},...},
     gg->{...,DownValues->{HoldPattern[gg[x_]]:>x+1},...}
   ]

*)

But apparently it does not account for pattern tests in definitions:


ff2[x_?gg2] := 1
gg2[x_] := True
Language`ExtendedFullDefinition[ff2]

(*
   Language`DefinitionList[
     ff2->{...,DownValues->{HoldPattern[ff2[x_?gg2]]:>1},NValues->{},...}

   ]
*)

The pattern test function gg2 is missed by the dependency scan. This would appear to be a bug, but I might just be unaware of some compelling reason to ignore pattern tests in these circumstances.


As noted in the question, the work-around is to manually identify and distribute any missing dependencies. The "distribute" part of that is easy -- it is the "identify" part that can be difficult.


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