Skip to main content

performance tuning - Progress bar for FullSimplify


Sometimes FullSimplify takes a really long time and it is not really clear if it makes sense to wait another half an hour in hopes for it to finish, or if it will actually take three years in which case cancelling it and improving the approach would be the way to go. Having a progress bar in place, which shows the percent of calculation per unit of time (and maybe even a time prediction until finish) would be highly useful to make such decisions. I looked online and found a few links talking about progress bars. However, these realizations rely on an explicit iterator to keep track of. My interest is solely in monitoring the FullSimplify function and I do not know of any iterator to access there. So basically, I guess my question is:


Is there any way to predict how much time FullSimplify will need to finish in each case?



Answer



I don't think it is possible for FullSimplify to assess how far it is from a meaningful reduction of complexity. At every stage parts of the expression may after some transformation cancel (or not).


Sometimes complexity has to be increased before it can be lowered (as I showed in this answer). Simplification is the process of minimizing complexity, where the complexity function has numerous local minimums. This is basically a very difficult and unpredictable problem.


To have some kind of progress indication you could provide FullSimplify with a ComplexityFunction of your own, one which stores the complexity of the expressions fed through it:


lc = {}; (* List to store intermediate complicity values *)
myLeafCount[expr_] := Module[{c}, AppendTo[lc, c = LeafCount[expr]]; c]


The Automatic method is slightly more complicated than LeafCount (you can find it at the bottom of the ComplexityFunction page), but for a demonstration this suffices.


First, lets pick a function to simplify. This question has a nice, complex one:


expr = x[t] /. 
DSolve[{z'[t] == d (x[t] + u) - k (z[t] + s),
y'[t] == -R*x[t] v - R y[t] u - R u v + k (1 - c (x[t] + u) - (y[t] + v)),
x'[t] == R x[t] v + R y[t] u + R u v - x[t] - u},
{y[t], z[t], x[t]}, t];

It has a huge LeafCount:



myLeafCount[expr]
(* 34464 *)

Then we generate a dynamic plot of the intermediate results


Dynamic[ListPlot[lc]]

and we start the simplification:


FullSimplify[expr, ComplexityFunction -> myLeafCount]

We get a refresh of the plot for every call to myLeafCount.



After 20 steps:


Mathematica graphics


100 steps:


Mathematica graphics


1,000 steps (note Mathematica rescales the plot to show the parts it thinks are most interesting):


Mathematica graphics


10,000 steps:


Mathematica graphics


100,000 steps:


Mathematica graphics



200,000 steps:


Mathematica graphics


and after a few hours it ends at 312,893 steps:


Mathematica graphics


with a result that has a LeafCount of 727.


As you can see there are quite a few very similar patterns in it. My guess it is trying various permutations of sub-expressions recursively.


Although this is a poor substitute for a progress bar (especially given that it is still difficult to see when it will finish), it will give you some indication of what's going on and whether the simplification process got stuck somewhere.


I guess this all should also suffice to show why it would be very difficult to make a real progress bar.


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.