Skip to main content

programming - Can I use Compile to speed up InverseCDF?


I'm repeatedly issuing the command



P = InverseCDF[NormalDistribution[0, 1], T]

where T is either a 36- or 64-vector of real numbers (points in the unit hypercubes [0,1]36 or [0,1]64, quasirandomly distributed according to the "golden-ratio" generalization formula of Martin Roberts given in his answer to How can one generate an open-ended sequence of low-discrepancy points in 3D?). (The points--after conversion by the indicated command--are employed for the generation of "two-rebit" and "two-qubit" 4×4 density matrices, randomly generated with respect to the Bures [minimal monotone] measure, in accordance with formulas (24) and (28), setting x=12, of "Random Bures mixed states and the distribution of their purity" https://arxiv.org/abs/0909.5094 .)


An analysis of mine shows that this is by far the most time-consuming step in my program.


So, can I use Compile so that the command "knows" that the vector is composed of reals? I presume/hope that, if so, this would lead to a considerable speed-up.



Answer



Out of curiosity, I tried to write my own version of inverse CDF for the normal distribution. I employ a qualitative approximation of the inverse CDF as initial guess and apply Newton iterations with line search until convergence.


This is the code:


f[x_] := CDF[NormalDistribution[0, 1], x];
finv[y_] := InverseCDF[NormalDistribution[0, 1], y];

p = 1/200;
q = 2/5;
g[x_] = N@Piecewise[{
{finv[$MachineEpsilon], 0 <= x <= $MachineEpsilon},
{Simplify[Normal@Series[finv[x], {x, 0, 1}], 0 < x < 1], $MachineEpsilon < x < p},
{Simplify[PadeApproximant[finv[x], {x, 1/2, {7, 8}}]], q < x < 1 - q},
{Simplify[Normal@Series[finv[x], {x, 1, 1}], 0 < x < 1], 1 - p < x < 1},
{finv[1 - $MachineEpsilon], 1 - $MachineEpsilon <= x <= 1}
},
Simplify[PadeApproximant[finv[x], {x, 1/2, {17, 18}}]]

];
(*g[y_]:=Log[Abs[(1-Sqrt[1-y]+Sqrt[y])/(1+Sqrt[1-y]-Sqrt[y])]];*)

cfinv = Block[{T, S, Sτ}, With[{
S0 = N[g[T]],
ϕ00 = N[(T - f[S])^2],
direction = N[Simplify[(T - f[S])/f'[S]]],
residual = N[(T - f[Sτ])^2],
σ = 0.0001,
γ = 0.5,

TOL = 1. 10^-15
},
Compile[{{T, _Real}},
Block[{S, Sτ, ϕ0, τ, u, ϕτ},
S = S0;
ϕ0 = ϕ00;
While[Sqrt[ϕ0] > TOL,
u = direction;
τ = 1.;
Sτ = S + τ u;

ϕτ = residual;
While[ϕτ > (1. - σ τ) ϕ0,
τ *= γ;
Sτ = S + τ u;
ϕτ = residual;
];
ϕ0 = ϕτ;
S = Sτ;
];
S

],
CompilationTarget -> "C",
RuntimeAttributes -> {Listable},
Parallelization -> True,
RuntimeOptions -> "Speed"
]
]
];

And here an obligatory test for speed and accuracy (tested on a Haswell Quad Core CPU):



T = RandomReal[{0., 1}, {1000000}];
a = finv[T]; // RepeatedTiming // First
b = cfinv[T]; // RepeatedTiming // First
Max[Abs[a - b]]


0.416


0.0533


3.77653*10^-12





So this one is almost three eight times faster than the built-in method.


I also expect a speedup should one replace the function g by a better but also reasonably quick approximation for the initial guess. First I tried an InterpolatingFunction for the (suitably) transformed "true" CDF, but that turned out to be way too slow.


Of course Newton's method has its problems on the extreme tails of the distribution (close to 0 and close 1) where the CDF has derivative close to 0. Maybe a secant method would have been more appropriate?



Using expansions of the inverse CDF at 0, 1/2 and 1, I was able to come up with a way better initial guess function g.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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...

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...

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...