I am not understanding the discussion here. Adaptive integration is
designed for functions that have different behavior in different
regions. Some regions are smoother, some have higher frequeniesy. How
you integrate a divided region, Simpson rule or whatever is a separate
question.
Adaptive integration saves of function evaluations by avoiding large
series approximation in smooth regions. Nothing to do with how you
compute the subdivided regions.
On Jul 1, 2013, at 8:45 PM, Fod <ajo.fod@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Gilles,
>
> Your accuracy concern made me wonder. So, I dropped the
> AdaptiveQuadrature.EPS to 1e2 from 1e9 in the code and ran the test in
> the patch.
>
> I computed the log of the error per evaluation ...i.e a measure of the
> efficiency of the algorithm.
> And wait for it ... AQ beats LGQ by about 5% for the particular formulation
> of the problem.
>
> Your request to use the Math classes falls under "coding style" IMHO. If it
> doesn't satisfy your standards, feel free to modify. I'm happy with it.
> Although as far as accuracy and convergence goes, I'd use AQ always.
>
>
> Got to compare apples to apples Gilles !
>
> Cheers,
> Ajo
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Gilles <gilles@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 1 Jul 2013 10:50:19 0700, Ajo Fod wrote:
>>
>>> If you wanted to use the Math 3 codebase in AdaptiveQuadrature, you'd
>>> compute the calculations of Q1 and Q2 with something else. I'm not
>>> entirely
>>> familiar with the apache Math codebase [...]
>>
>> You could file a "wish" request as a Commons Math's user. Then, if
>> and when some regular contributor finds some time, he will try to
>> implement the functionality.
>>
>> However, when you provide a patch for inclusion in the codebase, it
>> is necessary to be more informed about similar functionality that
>> would already exist in Commons Math, so that the contribution can be
>> merged gracefully (i.e. with "minor" changes which committers will
>> happily perform for you).
>> You are welcome to ask questions in order to be able to contribute.
>> As I tried to explain in more than one way, modifying your code is
>> far from being trivial. If the committer has to figure out how to
>> change/adapt/comment a significant part of the contribution, it
>> ends up being easier to implement the feature from scratch!
>>
>>
>>
>>> Each of the tests in the patch is integrating a UnivariateFunction in
>>> [1,1]. Infinity.wrap(fn) just provides that UnivariateFunction. [In the
>>> patches for MATH995 the InfiniteIntegral was replaced by Infinity.wrap()
>>> ]. So, if you are saying that the intent of
>>> IterativeLegendreGaussIntegrat**or (refered to as LGQ) was not to
>>> integrate
>>> this kind of UnivariateFunction in [1,1], ... what kind of univariate
>>> function would that be?
>>
>> Again, it is not just any UnivariateFunction, it is a function that
>> maps the [inf, +inf] interval into [1, 1].
>> It seems that the GaussLegendre quadrature is not appropriate for
>> this. This is probably because the sample integration points do not
>> cover the _whole_ interval: for the 10point rule, the first point
>> is at
>> 0.9739065285171717
>> and the last point is at
>> 0.9994069665572084
>> The interval in the original variable is thus [18.908, 842.872]. This
>> is far from adequate for integrating a Gaussian function with sigma=1000.
>> [And, as Phil pointed out from the outset, I suspect that the change of
>> variable also introduces numerical errors since the result becomes worse
>> when increasing the number of sample points. Increasing the requested
>> precision leads to a prohibitive increase of the number of evaluations,
>> without improvement of the accuracy. In itself it is not sufficient to
>> indicate a bug of "IterativeGaussLegendre"; it could simply be a
>> limitation inherent to the algorithm.]
>>
>>
>> If it is indeed supposed to do the integration,
>>> then AQ clearly does a better job.
>>
>> Adaptive methods are certainly useful, but we need examples where
>> its usage is appropriate. It is _not_ indicated for the improper
>> integral of a Gaussian (even though it indeed performs better than
>> GaussLegendre).
>>
>>
>>
>>> So, why does LGQ fail here? It is probably that the Adaptive division of
>>> the integration domain (as opposed to the uniform division with LGQ) gives
>>> AQ the critical edge. The test you have for LGQ so far are pretty well
>>> behaved.
>>
>> Cf. above.
>>
>> AFAIU, the problem reported by MATH995 is not a bug in
>> "IterativeLegendreIntegrator": it correctly integrates a Gaussian
>> with a large sigma _if_ the integration interval is "large enough"
>> (cf. unit test referred to in my comment to MATH995).
>>
>> Unless someone can point to something I'm missing in MATH995, I'll
>> close that issue.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Summary: I'm demonstrating a clear bug/inefficiency with LGQ
>>
>> I don't agree with that statement.
>> "IterativeGaussLegendre" produces the correct answer (at 1e6
>> accuracy) in less than 60 function evaluations. To achieve the same,
>> your code needs 995 evaluations.
>>
>>
>> and providing
>>> you with an alternative that is more accurate.
>>
>> Cf. above (and my previous post), about how to contribute to
>> Commons Math.
>> Please open a new feature request.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Gilles
>>
>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Gilles <gilles@harfang.homelinux.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I just noticed your request to write the algorithm along the lines of
>>>>> the
>>>>> wikipedia article.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only major difference between my code and the article on Wikipedia
>>>>> is
>>>>> that I found it necessary to move the recursive stack in into a data
>>>>> structure to avoid a StackOverflowException when the non polynomial
>>>>> curvature is concentrated in a corner of the domain of integration.
>>>>> Notice
>>>>> that the Stack objects stores a Stack of limits of integration.
>>>> There is a misunderstanding: I'm referring to the "highlevel"
>>>> description of the algorithm that is the separation of concerns
>>>> between the quadrature method and the adaptive process. Your code
>>>> mixes the two. Moreover, it does not reuse any of the quadrature
>>>> schemes already implemented in CM, but implements a (new?) one
>>>> without any reference or comments.
>>>> [And this is even without delving into remarks concerning the
>>>> code structure itself.]
>>>>
>>>> Additionally, your patch also mixes two concepts: Adaptive
>>>> quadrature vs improper integral (which is also MATH994); it is
>>>> hard to follow what problem this issue is supposed to point to,
>>>> and how the patch solves it. Indeed your unit tests shows a
>>>> problem with improper integrals which the class
>>>> "****IterativeGaussLegendreIntegrat****or" is _not_ meant to handle.[1]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To be clear, hopefully, you are demonstrating a problem that
>>>> occurs when combining Commons Math code with code which you
>>>> created.
>>>> The first step is to create a unit test demonstrating whether
>>>> an issue exists with "****IterativeGaussLegendreIntegrat****or" code
>>>>
>>>> only (i.e. without relying on your "InfiniteIntegral" class).[1]
>>>> If no independent issue exist, then MATH995 should be replaced
>>>> by an appropriate feature request.
>>>> Also, it would certainly be helpful to pinpoint the reason why
>>>> the combination of "****IterativeGaussLegendreIntegrat****or" and
>>>>
>>>> "InfiniteIntegral" is not legitimate (if that's the case).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Gilles
>>>>
>>>> [1] Cf. also my latest comment on the MATH995 page.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Ajo.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Ajo Fod <ajo.fod@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW, it is possible that I'm not using LGQ correctly. If so, please
>>>>> show
>>>>>
>>>>>> how to pass the tests I've added. I'd much rather use something that
is
>>>>>> better tested than my personal code.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ajo.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Ajo Fod <ajo.fod@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I just posted a patch on this issue. Feel free to edit as necessary
to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> match your standards. There is a clear issue with LGQ.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Ajo.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Gilles <
>>>>>>> gilles@harfang.homelinux.org>
>>>>>>> **wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ted,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Did you read my other (rather more lengthy) post? Is that
>>>>>>>> "jumping"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes. You jumped on him rather than helped him be
productive. The
>>>>>>>>> general
>>>>>>>>> message is "we have something in the works, don't bother
us with
>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>> ideas".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then please read all the messages pertaining to those
issues more
>>>>>>>> carefully:
>>>>>>>> I never wrote such a thing (neither now nor in the past).
>>>>>>>> I pointed to a potential problem in the usage of the CM code.
>>>>>>>> I pointed (several times and in details) to problems in candidate
>>>>>>>> contributions,
>>>>>>>> with arguments that go well beyond "bad formatting".
>>>>>>>> I pointed out how we could improve the functionality _together_
(i.e.
>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>> what we have, instead of throwing it out without even trying
to
>>>>>>>> figure
>>>>>>>> out how
>>>>>>>> good or bad it is).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> IMHO, these were all valid suggestions to be productive in
helping CM
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> become
>>>>>>>> better, instead of merely larger. The former indeed requires
more
>>>>>>>> effort
>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>> the latter.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gilles
>>
>>
>> ****
>> To unsubscribe, email: devunsubscribe@commons.**apache.org<devunsubscribe@commons.apache.org>
>> For additional commands, email: devhelp@commons.apache.org
>>
>>

To unsubscribe, email: devunsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, email: devhelp@commons.apache.org
