How to reduce computation time
11 visualizaciones (últimos 30 días)
Mostrar comentarios más antiguos
Yassine Hmamouche
el 23 de Mayo de 2020
Comentada: Walter Roberson
el 25 de Mayo de 2020
Hi,
The function "funct" takes up almost 0.06 seconds and it is the first responsible for a slow execution of an integral (more than 3 hours) when it is used in it with regards to y.
Any help please to reduce the computation time of the following function
function [out] = funct(mu,lmax,wmax,hmax,lambdab,hu,hb,y,x)
nx=length(x);
out=zeros(1,nx);
A=(mu./pi).*(wmax+lmax);
B=(mu.*wmax.*lmax)./4;
C1=(hb-(2.*hmax))./(2*hmax);
C2=(hu+hb-(2.*hmax))./(2*hmax);
for i=1:nx
S1=@(u,theta) u.*(1-exp(C1.*((A.*sqrt(u.^2+x(i).^2-(2.*x(i).*u.*cos(theta))))+B)));
S2=@(theta) (1-exp(C1.*((A.*sqrt(y.^2+x(i).^2-(2.*x(i).*y.*cos(theta))))+B)));
out(i)=lambdab.*y.*integral(S2,0,2*pi,'ArrayValued',true).*exp(-lambdab.*quad2d(S1,0,y,0,2*pi))./(1-exp(-lambdab.*quad2d(S1,0,1000,0,2*pi)));
end
end
4 comentarios
Respuesta aceptada
Walter Roberson
el 25 de Mayo de 2020
By going back and replacing that 1000 limit with infinity, and adding the assumption that all values are non-negative, and that hb < 2*hmax, Maple is able to combine terms to remove one integral. The symbolic form is
-exp(lambdab * int( int( u * (exp(1/2 * (1/4 * lmax * wmax * pi + (lmax+wmax) * ...
(u^2 - 2 * cos(theta) * u * x + x^2)^(1/2)) * mu * (hb-2*hmax) / pi / hmax)-1), u, 0, y), ...
theta, 0, 2*pi)) * lambdab * y * int(-1 + exp(1/8 * ((4 * lmax + 4 * wmax) * ...
(x^2 - 2 * cos(theta) * x * y + y^2)^(1/2) + lmax * wmax * pi) * (hb-2*hmax) * mu / pi / hmax), ...
theta, 0, 2*pi)
This should be more efficient
9 comentarios
Walter Roberson
el 25 de Mayo de 2020
Also, it helps to know any constraints that might apply. Even just knowing that a particular variable is real-valued might be enough to permit a calculation to simplify.
Más respuestas (1)
per isakson
el 24 de Mayo de 2020
Editada: per isakson
el 25 de Mayo de 2020
On R2018b and a new vanilla PC I found a significant decrease in computation time by replacing quad2d() by integral2() (with the same signature, i.e. defaults are used). With your input data this replacement didn't affect the result, out. (Caveat, I do this because I'm curious, not because I know much about the topic.) There are two posts on Double Integration in MATLAB ( and here ) at Loren on the Art of MATLAB. I don't find backing for the difference in speed that I've seen, which makes me a bit nervous. What's the catch? There ought to exist a discussion on how to chose between the two functions, but I fail to find it.
Have you tried to simplify the expressions with the help of the Symbolic Toolbox? See https://se.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/answers/33399-problem-with-double-integral-dblquad-and-quad2d#answer_42126 it's a bit old but shows the idea. Maybe that toolbox sees something that I don't see.
In response to comments
The difference in speed between integral2(), introduced in R2012a, and quad2d(), introduced in R2009a, that I see is irking.
I've compared your function, funct(), to funct_int2(), in which I replaced quad2d() by integral2(). (And split the long statement into three to make the code and the result of profile() easier to read.)
>> cssm % first call to cssm after starting Matlab
Elapsed time is 0.364935 seconds.
Elapsed time is 0.140186 seconds.
0
>> cssm
Elapsed time is 0.104307 seconds.
Elapsed time is 0.021930 seconds.
0
>> cssm
Elapsed time is 0.088423 seconds.
Elapsed time is 0.016356 seconds.
0
...
...
>> cssm
Elapsed time is 0.091209 seconds.
Elapsed time is 0.017180 seconds.
0
where cssm.m is a script containing
%%
mu=1; lmax=4; wmax=6; hmax=30; lambdab=1; hu=40; hb=10; y=4; x=2;
%%
tic
for jj = 1 : 10
out1 = funct(mu,lmax,wmax,hmax,lambdab,hu,hb,y,x);
end
toc
%%
tic
for jj = 1 : 10
out2 = funct_int2(mu,lmax,wmax,hmax,lambdab,hu,hb,y,x);
end
toc
disp( out2-out1 )
and
function [out] = funct_int2(mu,lmax,wmax,hmax,lambdab,hu,hb,y,x)
nx=length(x);
out=zeros(1,nx);
A=(mu./pi).*(wmax+lmax);
B=(mu.*wmax.*lmax)./4;
C1=(hb-(2.*hmax))./(2*hmax);
C2=(hu+hb-(2.*hmax))./(2*hmax); %#ok<NASGU>
for ii=1:nx
S1=@(u,theta) u.*(1-exp(C1.*((A.*sqrt(u.^2+x(ii).^2-(2.*x(ii).*u.*cos(theta))))+B)));
S2=@(theta) (1-exp(C1.*((A.*sqrt(y.^2+x(ii).^2-(2.*x(ii).*y.*cos(theta))))+B)));
f1 = lambdab.*y.*integral(S2,0,2*pi,'ArrayValued',true);
f2 = exp(-lambdab.*integral2(S1,0,y,0,2*pi));
f3 = (1-exp(-lambdab.*integral2(S1,0,1000,0,2*pi)));
out(ii) = f1.*f2./f3;
end
end
Comments
- Fine print; don't blame me for mistakes.
- In this comparison both integral2() and quad2d() use the "tiled method"
- The fact that the two return exactly the same result makes me believe that deep inside the same calculation is made.
7 comentarios
per isakson
el 25 de Mayo de 2020
@Yassine Hmamouche, Then you have integral2() and should be able to rum "my" funct_int2. See integral2, Numerically evaluate double integral. I'm curious to hear whether you can reproduce my result.
Ver también
Productos
Community Treasure Hunt
Find the treasures in MATLAB Central and discover how the community can help you!
Start Hunting!