2023-03-13 Spline interpolation
Contents
2023-03-13 Spline interpolation#
Last time#
Runge phenomenon as ill conditioning
Stability and Chebyshev polynomials
Piecewise methods
Today#
Accuracy of piecewise constant (nearest neighbor) interpolation
Piecewise polynomial methods
Splines
Libraries
using LinearAlgebra
using Plots
default(linewidth=4, legendfontsize=12)
function vander(x, k=nothing)
if isnothing(k)
k = length(x)
end
m = length(x)
V = ones(m, k)
for j in 2:k
V[:, j] = V[:, j-1] .* x
end
V
end
runge(x) = 1 / (1 + 10*x^2)
CosRange(a, b, n) = (a + b)/2 .+ (b - a)/2 * cos.(LinRange(-pi, 0, n))
vcond(mat, points, nmax) = [cond(mat(points(-1, 1, n))) for n in 2:nmax]
vcond (generic function with 1 method)
Chebyshev polynomials#
function vander_chebyshev(x, n=nothing)
if isnothing(n)
n = length(x) # Square by default
end
m = length(x)
T = ones(m, n)
if n > 1
T[:, 2] = x
end
for k in 3:n
#T[:, k] = x .* T[:, k-1]
T[:, k] = 2 * x .* T[:,k-1] - T[:, k-2]
end
T
end
vander_chebyshev (generic function with 2 methods)
x = LinRange(-1, 1, 50)
plot(x, vander_chebyshev(x, 5), title="Chebyshev polynomials")
Chebyshev polynomials are well-conditioned#
plot_vcond(mat, points) = plot!([
cond(mat(points(-1, 1, n)))
for n in 2:30], label="$mat/$points", marker=:auto, yscale=:log10)
plot(title="Vandermonde condition numbers", legend=:topleft, size=(1000, 600))
plot_vcond(vander, LinRange)
plot_vcond(vander, CosRange)
plot_vcond(vander_chebyshev, LinRange)
plot_vcond(vander_chebyshev, CosRange)
Lagrange interpolating polynomials revisited#
Let’s re-examine the Lagrange polynomials as we vary the points.
x = CosRange(-1, 1, 9) # CosRange?
s = LinRange(-1, 1, 100)
A = vander_chebyshev(s, length(x)) /
vander_chebyshev(x)
@show cond(A)
plot(s, A[:,1:5], size=(1000, 600))
scatter!(x[1:5], ones(5), color=:black, label=nothing)
scatter!(x, zero(x), color=:black, label=nothing)
cond(A) = 3.388221057514252
Are there artifacts?
Piecewise interpolation#
function interp_nearest(x, s)
A = zeros(length(s), length(x))
for (i, t) in enumerate(s)
loc = nothing
dist = Inf
for (j, u) in enumerate(x)
if abs(t - u) < dist
loc = j
dist = abs(t - u)
end
end
A[i, loc] = 1
end
A
end
interp_nearest(LinRange(-1, 1, 3), LinRange(0, 1, 4))
4×3 Matrix{Float64}:
0.0 1.0 0.0
0.0 1.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 1.0
0.0 0.0 1.0
A = interp_nearest(x, s)
plot(s, A[:, 1:5])
scatter!(x, ones(length(x)))
I don’t see any visual artifacts#
x = LinRange(-1, 1, 30)
A = interp_nearest(x, s)
cond(A)
1.414213562373095
plot(s, A * runge.(x))
plot!(s, runge.(s))
scatter!(x, runge.(x))
function interp_chebyshev(x, xx)
vander_chebyshev(xx, length(x)) / vander_chebyshev(x)
end
function interp_monomial(x, xx)
vander(xx, length(x)) * inv(vander(x))
end
function interp_error(ieval, x, xx, test)
"""Compute norm of interpolation error for function test
using method interp_and_eval from points x to points xx.
"""
A = ieval(x, xx)
y = test.(x)
yy = test.(xx)
norm(A * y - yy, Inf)
end
function plot_convergence(ievals, ptspaces; xscale=:log10, yscale=:log10, maxpts=40)
"""Plot convergence rates for an interpolation scheme applied
to a set of tests.
"""
xx = LinRange(-1, 1, 100)
ns = 2:maxpts
fig = plot(title="Convergence",
xlabel="Number of points",
ylabel="Interpolation error",
xscale=xscale,
yscale=yscale,
legend=:bottomleft,
size=(1000, 800))
for ieval in ievals
for ptspace in ptspaces
for test in [runge]
errors = [interp_error(ieval, ptspace(-1, 1, n), xx, test)
for n in ns]
plot!(ns, errors, marker=:circle, label="$ieval/$ptspace")
end
end
end
for k in [1, 2, 3]
plot!(ns, ns .^ (-1.0*k), color=:black, label="\$n^{-$k}\$")
end
fig
end
plot_convergence (generic function with 1 method)
So maybe it’s not that accurate?#
plot_convergence([interp_monomial, interp_chebyshev, interp_nearest], [LinRange, CosRange])
Observations#
Piecewise constant interpolation is well conditioned on any set of points
Piecewise constant interpolation converges very slowly (needs many points to increase accuracy)
Chebyshev/polynomial interpolation requires special input points, otherwise it is ill conditioned
Chebyshev/polynomial interpolation has “exponential” convergence for smooth enough functions
How could we improve the accuracy?#
Cubic splines#
Piecewise cubic function
Continuous values
Continuous derivatives
Splines#
If we are given an arbitrary distribution of points, interpolation with a single polynomial is not robust. Piecewise constant interpolation is not very accurate and gives a rough function. We could improve the accuracy by using a piecewise linear function, but the accuracy is still limited and the function still isn’t smooth (there is a “corner” where the slope changes at each data point). Splines are a way to guarantee an arbitrary amount of smoothness. The idea is that given sorted input points \(\{x_i\}_{i=0}^n\), we compute an interpolating polynomial \(s_i(x)\) on every interval \((x_i, x_{i+1})\).
Interpolation#
Given a function value \(y_i\) at each \(x_i\), we require
Smoothness#
The conditions above guarantee continuity, but not smoothness. We use our extra degree(s) of freedom to impose smoothness conditions of the form
End-point conditions#
The conditions above are still not enough to guarantee a unique spline. Suppose we use quadratic polynomials for each \(s_i\). Then with \(n\) intervals, we have \(n\) degrees of freedom after imposing the interpolation condition. Meanwhile, there are only \(n-1\) internal nodes. If we impose continuity of the first derivative, we have \(n - (n-1) = 1\) undetermined degrees of freedom. We could fix this by imposing a boundary condition, such as that the slope at one end-point (e.g., \(s_0'(x_0)\)) was equal to a known value. This is not symmetric and is often an unnatural condition.
Suppose we use cubic polynomials. Now we have two degrees of freedom per interval after imposing the interpolation condition. If we impose continuity of the first and second derivatives, we have \(2n - 2(n-1) = 2\) remaining degrees of freedom. A common choice here is the “natural spline”, \(s_0''(x_0) = 0\) and \(s_n''(x_n) = 0\). Cubic splines are the most popular spline in this family.
Solving spline interpolation problems#
We need to choose a basis for the polynomials \(s_i(x)\). We could choose
After solving this equation for \(c_i\), we will recover \(b_i\) and \(d_i\), and then can evaluate the spline at arbitrary points.
function spline_interp_and_eval(x, s)
n = length(x) - 1
function s_interp(y)
delta = x[2:end] - x[1:end-1] # diff(x)
Delta = diff(y)
T = zeros(n+1, n+1)
T[1,1] = 1
for i in 2:n
T[i, i-1:i+1] = [delta[i-1], 2*(delta[i-1] + delta[i]), delta[i]]
end
T[end,end] = 1
rhs = zeros(n+1)
rhs[2:end-1] = 3*(Delta[2:end] ./ delta[2:end] - Delta[1:end-1] ./ delta[1:end-1])
c = T \ rhs
S = zeros(n, 5)
S[:, 1] = x[1:end-1]
S[:, 3] = c[1:end-1]
S[:, 5] = y[1:end-1]
S[:, 2] = diff(c) ./ (3 * delta)
S[:, 4] = Delta ./ delta - delta/3 .* (2*c[1:end-1] + c[2:end])
S
end
function polyval(p, x)
f = p[1]
for c in p[2:end]
f = f * x + c
end
f
end
function s_eval(S, s)
f = zero(s)
for (i, t) in enumerate(s)
left = max(1, searchsortedfirst(S[:,1], t) - 1)
f[i] = polyval(S[left, 2:end], t - S[left, 1])
end
f
end
A = zeros(length(s), length(x))
aye = diagm(ones(length(x)))
for i in 1:length(x)
e = aye[:, i]
S = s_interp(e)
A[:, i] = s_eval(S, s)
end
A
end
# Cubic spline interpolation
spline_interp_and_eval (generic function with 1 method)
How well do splines work?#
x = LinRange(-1, 1, 14)
y = runge.(x)
s = LinRange(-1, 1, 100)
A = spline_interp_and_eval(x, s)
plot(s, [runge.(s) A * y])
scatter!(x, y)
@show cond(A)
plot(s, A[:,8])
cond(A) = 1.8495159246421367
Interpolations.jl#
using Interpolations
x = LinRange(-1, 1, 14)
y = runge.(x)
flin = LinearInterpolation(x, y)
fspline = CubicSplineInterpolation(x, y)
plot([runge, t -> fspline(t)], xlims=(-1, 1))
scatter!(x, y)
xx = LinRange(-1, 1, 100)
norm(runge.(xx) - fspline.(xx))
0.022048279334709518
# Make a matrix so we can compute condition number
s = LinRange(-1, 1, 100)
A = zeros(100, length(x))
for i in 1:length(x)
y = zero.(x)
y[i] = 1
f = CubicSplineInterpolation(x, y)
A[:, i] = f.(s)
end
@show cond(A)
plot(s, A[:, 5])
cond(A) = 1.8495159246421367