Ways to speed up user implemented RK4Speed up Numerical IntegrationSpeed of convergence for NIntegrateTough...
Valid Badminton Score?
What's the purpose of "true" in bash "if sudo true; then"
Where in the Bible does the greeting ("Dominus Vobiscum") used at Mass come from?
What are the ramifications of creating a homebrew world without an Astral Plane?
How to prove that the query oracle is unitary?
Modify casing of marked letters
Using parameter substitution on a Bash array
What is the oldest known work of fiction?
How can I use the arrow sign in my bash prompt?
Why did Kant, Hegel, and Adorno leave some words and phrases in the Greek alphabet?
Why is delta-v is the most useful quantity for planning space travel?
How does it work when somebody invests in my business?
Implement the Thanos sorting algorithm
How to verify if g is a generator for p?
Star/Wye electrical connection math symbol
Best way to store options for panels
How does residential electricity work?
Time travel short story where a man arrives in the late 19th century in a time machine and then sends the machine back into the past
There is only s̶i̶x̶t̶y one place he can be
Hide Select Output from T-SQL
Was the picture area of a CRT a parallelogram (instead of a true rectangle)?
Coordinate position not precise
Are there any comparative studies done between Ashtavakra Gita and Buddhim?
Have I saved too much for retirement so far?
Ways to speed up user implemented RK4
Speed up Numerical IntegrationSpeed of convergence for NIntegrateTough Calculation, novice mathematica userNumerical integration's speedNumerical integral speedImprove the speed of Gaussian quadrature integrationSolving an unstable BVP numerically, accurately and efficientlyHow to speed up integral of results of PDE modelSolve BVP involving user defined functionUser defined ArcTan function
3
$begingroup$
So, I've implemented RK4, and I'm wondering what I can do to make it more efficient? What I've got so far is below. I wish to still record all steps. I think AppendTo is doing the most damage to the time, is there a faster alternative?
rk4[f_, variables_, valtinit_, tinit_, tfinal_, nsteps_] :=
Module[{table, xlist, ylist, step, k1, k2, k3, k4},
xlist = tinit;
step = N[(tfinal - tinit)/(nsteps)];
ylist = valtinit;
table = {{xlist, ylist}};
Table[
k1 = step* f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, ylist}]; (*
Equivalent to step* f/.Thread[Rule[variables,ylist]]*)
k2 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k1/2 + ylist}];
k3 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k2/2 + ylist}];
k4 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k3 + ylist}];
ylist += 1/6 (k1 + 2 (k2 + k3) + k4);
xlist += step;
AppendTo[table, {xlist, ylist}];
{xlist, ylist}, nsteps];
table
];
Example Input:
funclist = {-x + y, x - y};
initials = {1, 2};
variables = {x, y};
init = 0;
final = 200;
nstep = 20000;
approx = rk4[funclist, variables, initials, init, final, nstep]//AbsoluteTiming;
{3.59932,{...}}
I'd love some suggestions!
differential-equations numerical-integration
asked 2 hours ago
ShinaolordShinaolord
808
$endgroup$
|
show 1 more comment
3
$begingroup$
So, I've implemented RK4, and I'm wondering what I can do to make it more efficient? What I've got so far is below. I wish to still record all steps. I think AppendTo is doing the most damage to the time, is there a faster alternative?
rk4[f_, variables_, valtinit_, tinit_, tfinal_, nsteps_] :=
Module[{table, xlist, ylist, step, k1, k2, k3, k4},
xlist = tinit;
step = N[(tfinal - tinit)/(nsteps)];
ylist = valtinit;
table = {{xlist, ylist}};
Table[
k1 = step* f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, ylist}]; (*
Equivalent to step* f/.Thread[Rule[variables,ylist]]*)
k2 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k1/2 + ylist}];
k3 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k2/2 + ylist}];
k4 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k3 + ylist}];
ylist += 1/6 (k1 + 2 (k2 + k3) + k4);
xlist += step;
AppendTo[table, {xlist, ylist}];
{xlist, ylist}, nsteps];
table
];
Example Input:
funclist = {-x + y, x - y};
initials = {1, 2};
variables = {x, y};
init = 0;
final = 200;
nstep = 20000;
approx = rk4[funclist, variables, initials, init, final, nstep]//AbsoluteTiming;
{3.59932,{...}}
I'd love some suggestions!
differential-equations numerical-integration
asked 2 hours ago
ShinaolordShinaolord
808
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
AppendTois quadratic time complexity. Might be better to preallocate and set by index. Also it'll be much faster to not useRuleand instead code stuff up a little bit more explicitly. As a general rule, too, use vectorized operators. Those can be very fast. And if everything can be totally functional over "packed arrays" (look them up here) it'll be very quick too.
$endgroup$
– b3m2a1
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'll work on implementing it more explicity, this is what came to find first though. It'll require some changes to the inputs, I'll have to ponder this. And preallocating the list is a quick change that won't be an issue to do, I can't believe I forgot that's faster :(. Thanks though!
$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Shinaoloard, usingJoin[ {{xlist, ylist}}, Table[ k1 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, ylist}]; k2 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k1/2 + ylist}]; k3 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k2/2 + ylist}]; k4 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k3 + ylist}]; ylist += 1/6 (k1 + 2 (k2 + k3) + k4); xlist += step; {xlist, ylist}, nsteps ] ]as return value is already a first step. There is no point in appending if you use aTableanyways.
$endgroup$
– Henrik Schumacher
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@HenrikSchumacher do you think it would be faster to Pre-allocate a list of length nsteps, and append the values, or to join the values using table? I can obviously changeTabletoDoto remove the time it takes to make the table list, going by b3m2a1's method, or I could useJoinas you have suggested. I'm thinking your method may be faster, though. I've already removed theMapThreadpart, I am testing the speed increase granted by that at the moment. Just curious which path you think will be faster.
$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I am currently testing the speed difference between the one in the post andrk4t2[f_, valtinit_, tinit_, tfinal_, nsteps_] := Module[{test, table, xlist, ylist, step, k1, k2, k3, k4}, xlist = tinit; step = N[(tfinal - tinit)/(nsteps)]; ylist = valtinit; table = {{xlist, ylist}}; test = Table[ k1 = step* f[ylist] ; k2 = step*f[k1/2 + ylist]; k3 = step*f[k2/2 + ylist]; k4 = step*f[k3 + ylist]; ylist += 1/6 (k1 + 2 (k2 + k3) + k4); xlist += step; {xlist, ylist}, nsteps]; Join[table, test] ];
$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
3
3
3
1
$begingroup$
So, I've implemented RK4, and I'm wondering what I can do to make it more efficient? What I've got so far is below. I wish to still record all steps. I think AppendTo is doing the most damage to the time, is there a faster alternative?
rk4[f_, variables_, valtinit_, tinit_, tfinal_, nsteps_] :=
Module[{table, xlist, ylist, step, k1, k2, k3, k4},
xlist = tinit;
step = N[(tfinal - tinit)/(nsteps)];
ylist = valtinit;
table = {{xlist, ylist}};
Table[
k1 = step* f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, ylist}]; (*
Equivalent to step* f/.Thread[Rule[variables,ylist]]*)
k2 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k1/2 + ylist}];
k3 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k2/2 + ylist}];
k4 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k3 + ylist}];
ylist += 1/6 (k1 + 2 (k2 + k3) + k4);
xlist += step;
AppendTo[table, {xlist, ylist}];
{xlist, ylist}, nsteps];
table
];
Example Input:
funclist = {-x + y, x - y};
initials = {1, 2};
variables = {x, y};
init = 0;
final = 200;
nstep = 20000;
approx = rk4[funclist, variables, initials, init, final, nstep]//AbsoluteTiming;
{3.59932,{...}}
I'd love some suggestions!
differential-equations numerical-integration
asked 2 hours ago
ShinaolordShinaolord
808
$endgroup$
So, I've implemented RK4, and I'm wondering what I can do to make it more efficient? What I've got so far is below. I wish to still record all steps. I think AppendTo is doing the most damage to the time, is there a faster alternative?
rk4[f_, variables_, valtinit_, tinit_, tfinal_, nsteps_] :=
Module[{table, xlist, ylist, step, k1, k2, k3, k4},
xlist = tinit;
step = N[(tfinal - tinit)/(nsteps)];
ylist = valtinit;
table = {{xlist, ylist}};
Table[
k1 = step* f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, ylist}]; (*
Equivalent to step* f/.Thread[Rule[variables,ylist]]*)
k2 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k1/2 + ylist}];
k3 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k2/2 + ylist}];
k4 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k3 + ylist}];
ylist += 1/6 (k1 + 2 (k2 + k3) + k4);
xlist += step;
AppendTo[table, {xlist, ylist}];
{xlist, ylist}, nsteps];
table
];
Example Input:
funclist = {-x + y, x - y};
initials = {1, 2};
variables = {x, y};
init = 0;
final = 200;
nstep = 20000;
approx = rk4[funclist, variables, initials, init, final, nstep]//AbsoluteTiming;
{3.59932,{...}}
I'd love some suggestions!
differential-equations numerical-integration
differential-equations numerical-integration
asked 2 hours ago
ShinaolordShinaolord
808
asked 2 hours ago
ShinaolordShinaolord
808
asked 2 hours ago
ShinaolordShinaolord
808
asked 2 hours ago
ShinaolordShinaolord
808
asked 2 hours ago
ShinaolordShinaolord
808
808
1
$begingroup$
AppendTois quadratic time complexity. Might be better to preallocate and set by index. Also it'll be much faster to not useRuleand instead code stuff up a little bit more explicitly. As a general rule, too, use vectorized operators. Those can be very fast. And if everything can be totally functional over "packed arrays" (look them up here) it'll be very quick too.
$endgroup$
– b3m2a1
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'll work on implementing it more explicity, this is what came to find first though. It'll require some changes to the inputs, I'll have to ponder this. And preallocating the list is a quick change that won't be an issue to do, I can't believe I forgot that's faster :(. Thanks though!
$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Shinaoloard, usingJoin[ {{xlist, ylist}}, Table[ k1 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, ylist}]; k2 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k1/2 + ylist}]; k3 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k2/2 + ylist}]; k4 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k3 + ylist}]; ylist += 1/6 (k1 + 2 (k2 + k3) + k4); xlist += step; {xlist, ylist}, nsteps ] ]as return value is already a first step. There is no point in appending if you use aTableanyways.
$endgroup$
– Henrik Schumacher
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@HenrikSchumacher do you think it would be faster to Pre-allocate a list of length nsteps, and append the values, or to join the values using table? I can obviously changeTabletoDoto remove the time it takes to make the table list, going by b3m2a1's method, or I could useJoinas you have suggested. I'm thinking your method may be faster, though. I've already removed theMapThreadpart, I am testing the speed increase granted by that at the moment. Just curious which path you think will be faster.
$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I am currently testing the speed difference between the one in the post andrk4t2[f_, valtinit_, tinit_, tfinal_, nsteps_] := Module[{test, table, xlist, ylist, step, k1, k2, k3, k4}, xlist = tinit; step = N[(tfinal - tinit)/(nsteps)]; ylist = valtinit; table = {{xlist, ylist}}; test = Table[ k1 = step* f[ylist] ; k2 = step*f[k1/2 + ylist]; k3 = step*f[k2/2 + ylist]; k4 = step*f[k3 + ylist]; ylist += 1/6 (k1 + 2 (k2 + k3) + k4); xlist += step; {xlist, ylist}, nsteps]; Join[table, test] ];
$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
1
$begingroup$
AppendTois quadratic time complexity. Might be better to preallocate and set by index. Also it'll be much faster to not useRuleand instead code stuff up a little bit more explicitly. As a general rule, too, use vectorized operators. Those can be very fast. And if everything can be totally functional over "packed arrays" (look them up here) it'll be very quick too.
$endgroup$
– b3m2a1
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'll work on implementing it more explicity, this is what came to find first though. It'll require some changes to the inputs, I'll have to ponder this. And preallocating the list is a quick change that won't be an issue to do, I can't believe I forgot that's faster :(. Thanks though!
$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Shinaoloard, usingJoin[ {{xlist, ylist}}, Table[ k1 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, ylist}]; k2 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k1/2 + ylist}]; k3 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k2/2 + ylist}]; k4 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k3 + ylist}]; ylist += 1/6 (k1 + 2 (k2 + k3) + k4); xlist += step; {xlist, ylist}, nsteps ] ]as return value is already a first step. There is no point in appending if you use aTableanyways.
$endgroup$
– Henrik Schumacher
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@HenrikSchumacher do you think it would be faster to Pre-allocate a list of length nsteps, and append the values, or to join the values using table? I can obviously changeTabletoDoto remove the time it takes to make the table list, going by b3m2a1's method, or I could useJoinas you have suggested. I'm thinking your method may be faster, though. I've already removed theMapThreadpart, I am testing the speed increase granted by that at the moment. Just curious which path you think will be faster.
$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I am currently testing the speed difference between the one in the post andrk4t2[f_, valtinit_, tinit_, tfinal_, nsteps_] := Module[{test, table, xlist, ylist, step, k1, k2, k3, k4}, xlist = tinit; step = N[(tfinal - tinit)/(nsteps)]; ylist = valtinit; table = {{xlist, ylist}}; test = Table[ k1 = step* f[ylist] ; k2 = step*f[k1/2 + ylist]; k3 = step*f[k2/2 + ylist]; k4 = step*f[k3 + ylist]; ylist += 1/6 (k1 + 2 (k2 + k3) + k4); xlist += step; {xlist, ylist}, nsteps]; Join[table, test] ];
$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
AppendTo is quadratic time complexity. Might be better to preallocate and set by index. Also it'll be much faster to not use Rule and instead code stuff up a little bit more explicitly. As a general rule, too, use vectorized operators. Those can be very fast. And if everything can be totally functional over "packed arrays" (look them up here) it'll be very quick too.$endgroup$
– b3m2a1
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
AppendTo is quadratic time complexity. Might be better to preallocate and set by index. Also it'll be much faster to not use Rule and instead code stuff up a little bit more explicitly. As a general rule, too, use vectorized operators. Those can be very fast. And if everything can be totally functional over "packed arrays" (look them up here) it'll be very quick too.$endgroup$
– b3m2a1
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'll work on implementing it more explicity, this is what came to find first though. It'll require some changes to the inputs, I'll have to ponder this. And preallocating the list is a quick change that won't be an issue to do, I can't believe I forgot that's faster :(. Thanks though!
$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'll work on implementing it more explicity, this is what came to find first though. It'll require some changes to the inputs, I'll have to ponder this. And preallocating the list is a quick change that won't be an issue to do, I can't believe I forgot that's faster :(. Thanks though!
$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Shinaoloard, using
Join[ {{xlist, ylist}}, Table[ k1 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, ylist}]; k2 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k1/2 + ylist}]; k3 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k2/2 + ylist}]; k4 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k3 + ylist}]; ylist += 1/6 (k1 + 2 (k2 + k3) + k4); xlist += step; {xlist, ylist}, nsteps ] ] as return value is already a first step. There is no point in appending if you use a Table anyways.$endgroup$
– Henrik Schumacher
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Shinaoloard, using
Join[ {{xlist, ylist}}, Table[ k1 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, ylist}]; k2 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k1/2 + ylist}]; k3 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k2/2 + ylist}]; k4 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k3 + ylist}]; ylist += 1/6 (k1 + 2 (k2 + k3) + k4); xlist += step; {xlist, ylist}, nsteps ] ] as return value is already a first step. There is no point in appending if you use a Table anyways.$endgroup$
– Henrik Schumacher
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@HenrikSchumacher do you think it would be faster to Pre-allocate a list of length nsteps, and append the values, or to join the values using table? I can obviously change
Table to Do to remove the time it takes to make the table list, going by b3m2a1's method, or I could use Join as you have suggested. I'm thinking your method may be faster, though. I've already removed the MapThread part, I am testing the speed increase granted by that at the moment. Just curious which path you think will be faster.$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@HenrikSchumacher do you think it would be faster to Pre-allocate a list of length nsteps, and append the values, or to join the values using table? I can obviously change
Table to Do to remove the time it takes to make the table list, going by b3m2a1's method, or I could use Join as you have suggested. I'm thinking your method may be faster, though. I've already removed the MapThread part, I am testing the speed increase granted by that at the moment. Just curious which path you think will be faster.$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I am currently testing the speed difference between the one in the post and
rk4t2[f_, valtinit_, tinit_, tfinal_, nsteps_] := Module[{test, table, xlist, ylist, step, k1, k2, k3, k4}, xlist = tinit; step = N[(tfinal - tinit)/(nsteps)]; ylist = valtinit; table = {{xlist, ylist}}; test = Table[ k1 = step* f[ylist] ; k2 = step*f[k1/2 + ylist]; k3 = step*f[k2/2 + ylist]; k4 = step*f[k3 + ylist]; ylist += 1/6 (k1 + 2 (k2 + k3) + k4); xlist += step; {xlist, ylist}, nsteps]; Join[table, test] ];$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I am currently testing the speed difference between the one in the post and
rk4t2[f_, valtinit_, tinit_, tfinal_, nsteps_] := Module[{test, table, xlist, ylist, step, k1, k2, k3, k4}, xlist = tinit; step = N[(tfinal - tinit)/(nsteps)]; ylist = valtinit; table = {{xlist, ylist}}; test = Table[ k1 = step* f[ylist] ; k2 = step*f[k1/2 + ylist]; k3 = step*f[k2/2 + ylist]; k4 = step*f[k3 + ylist]; ylist += 1/6 (k1 + 2 (k2 + k3) + k4); xlist += step; {xlist, ylist}, nsteps]; Join[table, test] ];$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
4
$begingroup$
Just to give you an impression how fast things may get when you use the right tools.
For given stepsize τ and given vectorfield F, this creates a CompiledFunction cStep that computes a single Runge-Kutta step
F = X [Function] {-Indexed[X, 2], Indexed[X, 1]};
τ = 0.01;
Block[{YY, Y, k1, k2, k3, k4},
YY = Table[Compile`GetElement[Y, i], {i, 1, 2}];
k1 = τ F[YY];
k2 = τ F[0.5 k1 + YY];
k3 = τ F[0.5 k2 + YY];
k4 = τ F[k3 + YY];
cStep = With[{code = YY + (k1 + 2. (k2 + k3) + k4)/6. },
Compile[{{Y, _Real, 1}},
code,
CompilationTarget -> "C",
RuntimeOptions -> "Speed"
]
]
];
Now we can apply it 2 million times with NestList and still need only 2 seconds.
nsteps = 20000000;
xlist = Range[0., step nsteps, step];
Ylist = NestList[cStep, initials, nsteps]; // AbsoluteTiming // First
2.08678
answered 2 hours ago
Henrik SchumacherHenrik Schumacher
57.9k579159
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Damn, you definitely know how to use Mathematica A LOT more efficiently than I do. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
You're welcome.
$endgroup$
– Henrik Schumacher
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'll have to play around withCompile, it definitely seems like a massive speed up if used correctly.
$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "387"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathematica.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f194002%2fways-to-speed-up-user-implemented-rk4%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
4
$begingroup$
Just to give you an impression how fast things may get when you use the right tools.
For given stepsize τ and given vectorfield F, this creates a CompiledFunction cStep that computes a single Runge-Kutta step
F = X [Function] {-Indexed[X, 2], Indexed[X, 1]};
τ = 0.01;
Block[{YY, Y, k1, k2, k3, k4},
YY = Table[Compile`GetElement[Y, i], {i, 1, 2}];
k1 = τ F[YY];
k2 = τ F[0.5 k1 + YY];
k3 = τ F[0.5 k2 + YY];
k4 = τ F[k3 + YY];
cStep = With[{code = YY + (k1 + 2. (k2 + k3) + k4)/6. },
Compile[{{Y, _Real, 1}},
code,
CompilationTarget -> "C",
RuntimeOptions -> "Speed"
]
]
];
Now we can apply it 2 million times with NestList and still need only 2 seconds.
nsteps = 20000000;
xlist = Range[0., step nsteps, step];
Ylist = NestList[cStep, initials, nsteps]; // AbsoluteTiming // First
2.08678
answered 2 hours ago
Henrik SchumacherHenrik Schumacher
57.9k579159
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Damn, you definitely know how to use Mathematica A LOT more efficiently than I do. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
You're welcome.
$endgroup$
– Henrik Schumacher
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'll have to play around withCompile, it definitely seems like a massive speed up if used correctly.
$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
add a comment |
4
$begingroup$
Just to give you an impression how fast things may get when you use the right tools.
For given stepsize τ and given vectorfield F, this creates a CompiledFunction cStep that computes a single Runge-Kutta step
F = X [Function] {-Indexed[X, 2], Indexed[X, 1]};
τ = 0.01;
Block[{YY, Y, k1, k2, k3, k4},
YY = Table[Compile`GetElement[Y, i], {i, 1, 2}];
k1 = τ F[YY];
k2 = τ F[0.5 k1 + YY];
k3 = τ F[0.5 k2 + YY];
k4 = τ F[k3 + YY];
cStep = With[{code = YY + (k1 + 2. (k2 + k3) + k4)/6. },
Compile[{{Y, _Real, 1}},
code,
CompilationTarget -> "C",
RuntimeOptions -> "Speed"
]
]
];
Now we can apply it 2 million times with NestList and still need only 2 seconds.
nsteps = 20000000;
xlist = Range[0., step nsteps, step];
Ylist = NestList[cStep, initials, nsteps]; // AbsoluteTiming // First
2.08678
answered 2 hours ago
Henrik SchumacherHenrik Schumacher
57.9k579159
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Damn, you definitely know how to use Mathematica A LOT more efficiently than I do. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
You're welcome.
$endgroup$
– Henrik Schumacher
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'll have to play around withCompile, it definitely seems like a massive speed up if used correctly.
$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
add a comment |
4
4
4
$begingroup$
Just to give you an impression how fast things may get when you use the right tools.
For given stepsize τ and given vectorfield F, this creates a CompiledFunction cStep that computes a single Runge-Kutta step
F = X [Function] {-Indexed[X, 2], Indexed[X, 1]};
τ = 0.01;
Block[{YY, Y, k1, k2, k3, k4},
YY = Table[Compile`GetElement[Y, i], {i, 1, 2}];
k1 = τ F[YY];
k2 = τ F[0.5 k1 + YY];
k3 = τ F[0.5 k2 + YY];
k4 = τ F[k3 + YY];
cStep = With[{code = YY + (k1 + 2. (k2 + k3) + k4)/6. },
Compile[{{Y, _Real, 1}},
code,
CompilationTarget -> "C",
RuntimeOptions -> "Speed"
]
]
];
Now we can apply it 2 million times with NestList and still need only 2 seconds.
nsteps = 20000000;
xlist = Range[0., step nsteps, step];
Ylist = NestList[cStep, initials, nsteps]; // AbsoluteTiming // First
2.08678
answered 2 hours ago
Henrik SchumacherHenrik Schumacher
57.9k579159
$endgroup$
Just to give you an impression how fast things may get when you use the right tools.
For given stepsize τ and given vectorfield F, this creates a CompiledFunction cStep that computes a single Runge-Kutta step
F = X [Function] {-Indexed[X, 2], Indexed[X, 1]};
τ = 0.01;
Block[{YY, Y, k1, k2, k3, k4},
YY = Table[Compile`GetElement[Y, i], {i, 1, 2}];
k1 = τ F[YY];
k2 = τ F[0.5 k1 + YY];
k3 = τ F[0.5 k2 + YY];
k4 = τ F[k3 + YY];
cStep = With[{code = YY + (k1 + 2. (k2 + k3) + k4)/6. },
Compile[{{Y, _Real, 1}},
code,
CompilationTarget -> "C",
RuntimeOptions -> "Speed"
]
]
];
Now we can apply it 2 million times with NestList and still need only 2 seconds.
nsteps = 20000000;
xlist = Range[0., step nsteps, step];
Ylist = NestList[cStep, initials, nsteps]; // AbsoluteTiming // First
2.08678
answered 2 hours ago
Henrik SchumacherHenrik Schumacher
57.9k579159
answered 2 hours ago
Henrik SchumacherHenrik Schumacher
57.9k579159
answered 2 hours ago
Henrik SchumacherHenrik Schumacher
57.9k579159
answered 2 hours ago
Henrik SchumacherHenrik Schumacher
57.9k579159
57.9k579159
$begingroup$
Damn, you definitely know how to use Mathematica A LOT more efficiently than I do. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
You're welcome.
$endgroup$
– Henrik Schumacher
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'll have to play around withCompile, it definitely seems like a massive speed up if used correctly.
$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Damn, you definitely know how to use Mathematica A LOT more efficiently than I do. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
You're welcome.
$endgroup$
– Henrik Schumacher
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'll have to play around withCompile, it definitely seems like a massive speed up if used correctly.
$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Damn, you definitely know how to use Mathematica A LOT more efficiently than I do. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Damn, you definitely know how to use Mathematica A LOT more efficiently than I do. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
You're welcome.
$endgroup$
– Henrik Schumacher
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
You're welcome.
$endgroup$
– Henrik Schumacher
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'll have to play around with
Compile, it definitely seems like a massive speed up if used correctly.$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'll have to play around with
Compile, it definitely seems like a massive speed up if used correctly.$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
add a comment |
draft saved
draft discarded
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematica Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathematica.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f194002%2fways-to-speed-up-user-implemented-rk4%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
$begingroup$
AppendTois quadratic time complexity. Might be better to preallocate and set by index. Also it'll be much faster to not useRuleand instead code stuff up a little bit more explicitly. As a general rule, too, use vectorized operators. Those can be very fast. And if everything can be totally functional over "packed arrays" (look them up here) it'll be very quick too.$endgroup$
– b3m2a1
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'll work on implementing it more explicity, this is what came to find first though. It'll require some changes to the inputs, I'll have to ponder this. And preallocating the list is a quick change that won't be an issue to do, I can't believe I forgot that's faster :(. Thanks though!
$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Shinaoloard, using
Join[ {{xlist, ylist}}, Table[ k1 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, ylist}]; k2 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k1/2 + ylist}]; k3 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k2/2 + ylist}]; k4 = step*f /. MapThread[Rule, {variables, k3 + ylist}]; ylist += 1/6 (k1 + 2 (k2 + k3) + k4); xlist += step; {xlist, ylist}, nsteps ] ]as return value is already a first step. There is no point in appending if you use aTableanyways.$endgroup$
– Henrik Schumacher
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@HenrikSchumacher do you think it would be faster to Pre-allocate a list of length nsteps, and append the values, or to join the values using table? I can obviously change
TabletoDoto remove the time it takes to make the table list, going by b3m2a1's method, or I could useJoinas you have suggested. I'm thinking your method may be faster, though. I've already removed theMapThreadpart, I am testing the speed increase granted by that at the moment. Just curious which path you think will be faster.$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I am currently testing the speed difference between the one in the post and
rk4t2[f_, valtinit_, tinit_, tfinal_, nsteps_] := Module[{test, table, xlist, ylist, step, k1, k2, k3, k4}, xlist = tinit; step = N[(tfinal - tinit)/(nsteps)]; ylist = valtinit; table = {{xlist, ylist}}; test = Table[ k1 = step* f[ylist] ; k2 = step*f[k1/2 + ylist]; k3 = step*f[k2/2 + ylist]; k4 = step*f[k3 + ylist]; ylist += 1/6 (k1 + 2 (k2 + k3) + k4); xlist += step; {xlist, ylist}, nsteps]; Join[table, test] ];$endgroup$
– Shinaolord
2 hours ago