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

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...

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...

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...