[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Re: Quite Upset with NIntegrate
*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
*Subject*: [mg54286] Re: Quite Upset with NIntegrate
*From*: Anton Antonov <antonov at wolfram.com>
*Date*: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:36:04 -0500 (EST)
*Sender*: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com
Dear Ismail Turan,
As some of the guys in the forum mentioned, it is difficult to answer your question
without more detailed information.
Some questions/remarks:
1. From what field this integral comes from?
2. How you have entered the integrand in Mathematica? Have you imported it
from, say, a FORTRAN file?
3. Have you tested are your integrand and boundaries of integration correctly implemented?
4. Using MaxPoints invokes the MonteCarlo method.
You might try QuasiMonteCarlo method -- it is as fast as MonteCarlo,
and has more deterministic nature.
5. The default option settings in NIntegrate invoke the MultiDimensional integration method.
You might try using a Cartesian rule method with Method->GaussKronrod.
Also, you can send me your notebook, and I will look at it.
Best regards,
Anton Antonov
Wolfram Research, Inc.
> Dear Yehuda,
>
> [Attachments like the Sample.nb below are not permitted. Contact
> the author to obtain it - moderator]
>
> It is kind of hard to show the details here but I am enclosing the
> Sample.nb file (hopefully you will get it) including a slightly simplified
> integrand (I have much more complicated integrands). When I integrate "in"
> with using default options of NIntegrate, I am getting the following data
> points :
>
> -12 -38
> 150 9.58287 10 + 1.4816 10 I
> -11 -58
> 152 8.1392 10 + 2.82326 10 I
> -11 -53
> 154 2.02365 10 + 1.1625 10 I
> -6 -58
> 156 1.05475 10 + 2.71146 10 I
> -12 -39
> 158 6.94259 10 + 1.63694 10 I
> -12 -53
> 160 5.42794 10 + 6.25923 10 I
> -11 -39
> 162 1.02786 10 + 1.63133 10 I
> -11 -39
> 164 4.53046 10 + 2.37653 10 I
> -12 -59
> 166 9.44247 10 + 4.01258 10 I
> -11 -40
> 168 4.8126 10 + 3.48983 10 I
> -10 -40
> 170 3.71222 10 + 3.94167 10 I
>
> Here the first column is the varying parameter (mt) and the full range of
> it is from 150 to 200 but I only include part of the data points.
>
> The behavior of the curve is certainly expected to increase smoothly as
> "mt" increases. Obviously, there is no such pattern here. Setting
> MaxPoints something like 500000 (I checked that at least I need to set it
> 10 times bigger to be sure that data points are accurate enough
> but this will increase process time enormously) makes the above values
> better looking but still far from being accaptable. So, What is wrong
> here?
>
> Thanks,
>
> ismail
>
>
>
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005, yehuda ben-shimol wrote:
>
> > It is difficult to comment without seeing the details. Is there any
> > way we can see it?
> > yehuda
>
> > On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 03:34:40 -0500 (EST), I. Turan
> > <ituran at bohr.concordia.ca> wrote:
> > > Hi:
> > >
> > > I have been trying to evaluate a 4-dimensional integral by using
> > > NIntegrate with Mathematica 4 w2k. The integrand and even the
> > > integration limits are quite complicated (depending on int.
> > > variables). The length of the integrand is around 2000 lines in the
> > > FortranForm.
> > >
> > > If I don't play with any options of NIntegrate, It takes one day to
> > > get one data point and gives very unreasonably weird values. By
> > > setting, however, MaxPoints something like 100000 it is possible to
> > > get faster results but still it seems that Mathematica couldn't handle
> > > it. When I draw a figure from these data points, it appears very very
> > > spiky such that it is even not possible to fit the curve. However, it
> > > is supposed to be very smooth.
> > >
> > > Should I accept that Mathematica can not handle such a
> > > numerical integration or is there a way to make Nintegrate working
> > > better?
> > >
> > > Thanks a lot,
> > >
> > > Ismail
> > >
> > >
> >
Prev by Date:
**Re: Re: Re: Using Select with arrays? (Relative newbie)**
Next by Date:
**Re: Perplexed by the behavior of NonlinearFit in Mathematica ver 4.2 vs 5.1**
Previous by thread:
**Re: Quite Upset with NIntegrate**
Next by thread:
**Re: Quite Upset with NIntegrate**
| |