This adds root finding to pchip as this is possible to do optimal because pchip is a monotonic interpolation. #3260

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
from

Conversation

Projects
None yet
5 participants
Contributor

bmcage commented Jan 31, 2014

Alternative would be fsolve and friends, but those would not use the known structure of pchip.

A typical use for pchip is an interpolation that can be inverted. This adds a root finding to pchip that uses the pchip form to invert fast.

I am not sure this is the best way. It might be better to use phcip to obtain yi=f(xi) and yi' = f'(xi), then create the cubic monotonic interpolation through yi with derivatives yi' as self.pchipinv. This should be the correct f^-1.
Then when asking roots, one can use this self.pchipinv.

The algorithm proposed here works differently: search the cubic for the y value given, calculate the 3 cubic roots. As it is a monotonic function only 1 of the roots will be in the correct interval.

Some problems:

  1. computing cubic roots gives imaginary parts which need to be discarded.
    See the np.allclose(ires, 0., atol=1e-10) to discard this. -10 is hard coded
  2. return value can be numerically close to the bounding edges.
    See the np.allclose(x1-rres, 0., atol=1e-10) to recognize this. -10 is hard coded
  3. Use of newaxis to dump the results: x[c] = ress[:, np.newaxis]
    I believe this will be correct for the use cases possible
This adds root finding to pchip as this is possible because
pchip is a monotonic interpolation.
Alternative would be fsolve and friends, but those would not use the known structure of pchip
Owner

pv commented Jan 31, 2014

It could be more efficient to convert pchip to use the new PPoly piecewise polynomial representation, which has efficient root finding already implemented.

We will probably eventually deprecate polyint.PiecewisePolynomial in favor of that.

Contributor

bmcage commented Jan 31, 2014

PPoly seems not optimal to use. It's not actually root finding but inversion, more like fsolve. You then know the interval. After all pchip is monotone, so you know there is one, and only one value that satisfies y=f(x).
My problem 1 and 2 however can be fixed by using the same inversion fuction as PPoly:
real_roots in https://github.com/scipy/scipy/blob/master/scipy/interpolate/_ppoly.pyx

Would this real_roots be exposed?

Owner

pv commented Jan 31, 2014

The root finding internal function is exposed as scipy.interpolate._ppoly.real_roots.

I see, the point is that you can find the correct interval fast via searchsorted in y. One could think about adding an additional argument "assume_monotonic" to real_roots, so that the binary search can be done inside the routine itself.

Contributor

bmcage commented Feb 7, 2014

I tried the other possible approach: add an inverse function that returns an interpolated object which is the inverse. This is not working however, too unstable. The numerical precision errors in solution values or inverse derivatives, are such that the inverse interpolated polynomial is very different over large intervals. So that approach is a no go, root finding will be the only acceptable approach.
So, an assume_monotonic added to real_roots is an option. Approach here can be done via inheritance if needed in current scipy

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same when pulling c6401f1 on bmcage:monohermspline into 233ad82 on scipy:master.

Owner

pv commented Feb 13, 2014

This should be reimplemented on top of current master branch, as gh-3267 converted Pchip to use BPoly.

Actually, I think this PR would best be done by adding a method def solve(self, y, assume_monotonic=False): to the PPoly piecewise polynomial class. After that, a similar method could be added to Pchip.

For assume_monotonic == True, we should use the faster approach here, and for assume_monotonic=False a slower approach that finds all the roots. Ideally, the solve method would be written in Cython directly in the real_roots routine.

Member

ev-br commented Feb 13, 2014

If/when assume_monotonic is added, the behavior should be at least very clearly documented:

In [21]: %history
import numpy as np
from scipy.interpolate import pchip
xi = [1., 2., 3., 4.]
yi = [-1., 1, -1, 1]
p = pchip(xi, yi)
In [22]: p.root(1)
Out[22]: array(3.9999999947957403)

In [23]: p.root(0.5)
Out[23]: array(3.6736481776669305)
Member

ev-br commented Feb 13, 2014

@bmcage can you provide an example where the inverse interpolation gives unacceptable numerical errors?

Contributor

bmcage commented Feb 14, 2014

@ev-br I pushed my local branch with that test: https://github.com/bmcage/scipy/tree/monohermsplineinv
If you then run the test: $ python runtests.py --python scipy/interpolate/tests/test_polyint.py
you will see the bad interpolation
In test_inv_vGn of test_polyint.py uncomment the part using pylab to create a plot to see it. That is the function I need to inverse hundred of thousands of times in an inverse algorithm.

Member

ev-br commented Feb 16, 2014

Hmm... This example looks a bit artificial to me, is it actual data you're interpolating? What is the actual problem you're solving?
In any case, since the h is logarithmically spaced and u follows a power law, have you tried working with them in the log space?
[If this turns into a discussion about how to deal with these exact data, we might want to move it from a github issue to the scipy-user mailing list]

Contributor

bmcage commented Feb 16, 2014

I'm doing it logwise in reality. It's just a testcase which shows how it can fail dramatically. Rootfinding does not cause such errors.

@pv pv added needs-work labels Feb 19, 2014

@pv pv removed the PR label Aug 13, 2014

bmcage added a commit to bmcage/centrifuge-1d that referenced this pull request May 20, 2015

@pv pv added needs-work and removed needs-work labels Feb 17, 2016

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment