Skip to main content

compile - Catching and debugging numerical errors in compiled functions


I have a compiled function (that was created using the second method of this question). Basically it's using a compiled closure. The problem is that for some parameter values it does not evaluate. Here is a small example:


(*just some function that has a singularity at x=5*)
f = Compile[{{x, _Real, 0}, {a, _Real, 0}}, Sin[a*x*Pi/180]/(x - 5)
   , RuntimeOptions -> {"Speed", "EvaluateSymbolically" -> False}];


(*The wrapper just increments the x values by diff. Aa is the 
variable that is supposed to be inlined in the closure*)
Block[{Aa},
  With[{wrapper = 
     Compile[{{x, _Real, 0}, {diff, _Real, 0}}, 
      Evaluate@f[x + diff, Aa]]},
   min = Compile[{{xs, _Real, 1}, {Aa, _Real, 0}, {diff, _Real, 0}},
     First@Sort[wrapper[#, diff] & /@ xs]
     , CompilationOptions -> {"InlineCompiledFunctions" -> True, 

       "InlineExternalDefinitions" -> True, 
       "ExpressionOptimization" -> True}, 
     RuntimeOptions -> {"Speed"}](*compile*)
   ]
  ];

(*The warning is harmeless*)
(*CompiledFunction::cfsa:Argument diff+x at position 1 should be a machine-size real number. >>*)

(*The function is compiled*)

Needs["CompiledFunctionTools`"]
CompilePrint[min]


        3 arguments
        9 Integer registers
        11 Real registers
        3 Tensor registers
        Underflow checking off
        Overflow checking off

        Integer overflow checking off
        RuntimeAttributes -> {}

        T(R1)0 = A1
        R0 = A2
        R1 = A3
        I7 = 0
        I6 = -5
        I3 = 1
        R6 = 3.141592653589793

        I5 = 180
        Result = R7

1   I2 = Length[ T(R1)0]
2   I8 = I7
3   T(R1)1 = Table[ I2]
4   I4 = I7
5   goto 20
6   R3 = GetElement[ T(R1)0, I4]
7   R2 = R1

8   R5 = R2 + R3
9   R4 = R0
10  R8 = I5
11  R9 = Reciprocal[ R8]
12  R8 = R6 * R9
13  R9 = R4 * R5 * R8
14  R8 = Sin[ R9]
15  R9 = I6
16  R10 = R5 + R9
17  R9 = Reciprocal[ R10]

18  R8 = R8 * R9
19  Element[ T(R1)1, I8] = R8
20  if[ ++ I4 < I2] goto 6
21  T(R1)2 = Sort[ T(R1)1]]
22  R7 = Part[ T(R1)2, I3]
23  Return

But then here are the use cases:


(*everything works OK even though the singularity is in the arguments*)
min[{1,5,5},1,0]

(*=> -0.0043631*)

But for some arguments it does not:


(*But if all the arguments are singularites: BLAM!*)
min[{5,5,5},1,0]

(*=> CompiledFunction[{x,a},Sin[(a x \[Pi])/180]/(x-5),-CompiledCode-][5,Aa] *)


   CompiledFunction::cfne: Numerical error encountered; proceeding with uncompiled evaluation. >>

   CompiledFunction::cfse: Compiled expression Aa should be a machine-size real number. >>
   CompiledFunction::cfex: Could not complete external evaluation at instruction 2; proceeding with uncompiled evaluation. >>

Questions:



  • Why is this working if some of the arguments give division by zero, but does not evaluate if all of the arguments are incorrect?

  • How can one debug such problems? There is nothing obviously wrong at instruction 2 in the compiled output...

  • How to guard against and/or catch such errors in compiled code?




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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}]
Post a Comment
Read more

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}]
Post a Comment
Read more

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....
Post a Comment
Read more