Which sequence acceleration method should I use?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the effectiveness of Richardson extrapolation for accelerating the convergence of monotonic sequences. It highlights that while Richardson extrapolation can be beneficial, its application to sequences with irregular variations can lead to inaccurate results, as demonstrated by the example of R(10) yielding -5.24 instead of the expected 1.68. The consensus is that dropping outlier terms can improve the accuracy of the extrapolation, as typical acceleration methods rely on regular convergence patterns.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Richardson extrapolation and its mathematical principles.
  • Familiarity with convergence concepts in numerical analysis.
  • Knowledge of sequence behavior and monotonic sequences.
  • Basic skills in analyzing numerical approximations and error analysis.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research advanced techniques in numerical analysis, focusing on Richardson extrapolation.
  • Study the impact of outlier terms on sequence convergence and approximation accuracy.
  • Explore alternative acceleration methods for sequences, such as Aitken's delta-squared process.
  • Learn about error analysis in numerical methods to understand the implications of irregular sequences.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, numerical analysts, and anyone involved in computational methods who seeks to improve the accuracy of sequence convergence and approximation techniques.

japplepie
Messages
93
Reaction score
0
The sequence that I'm working with is sort of monotonic.

It's monotonic most of the time, sometimes there's one number that ruins the trend like 0.0001001 in
0.1, 0.01, 0.001, 0.0001001, 0.0001, ...
but those are very rare. Btw, the sequence above is just an example.

Is Richardson extrapolation the best method to use in this case?

I also have a question about the Richardson extrapolation .
I'm going to call the nth Richardson extrapolation, R(n)

Why is it that when I test R(10) on a 30 term sequence, it gives me ridiculous approximations like -5.24 when the actual answer is 1.68?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think you'll be better off just dropping those parasite terms and working with the other terms alone, assuming they are well behaved, e.g. as in your example ##|x_{n+1}-x_n|\sim a^n## - typical acceleration schemes work only if the convergence is regular, what they do is leverage that regularity to predict the limit. They will produce worse results than no acceleration if applied to a generic random sequence.

If you applied a high order scheme to your original sequence, the result is not surprising - that sequence has wild variations for instance in the ratio ##\frac{x_{n+1}-x_n}{x_n-x_{n-1}}## and extrapolating based on an assumption of regular behaviour is bound to give poor results.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K