|
. This work was
partially supported by the ANR Gecko project.
Given
|
Consider an infinite sequence of complex
numbers. If
are the coefficients of a formal
power series
, then it is
well-known [Pól37, Wil04, FS96]
that a lot of information about the behaviour of
near its dominant singularity can be obtained from the asymptotic
behaviour of the sequence
.
However, if
is the solution to some complicated
equation, then it can be hard to compute the asymptotic behaviour using
formal methods. On the other hand, the coefficients
of such a solution
can often be computed
numerically up to a high order. This raises the question of how to
guess the asymptotic behaviour of
,
based on this numerical evidence.
In fact, the systematic integration of “guessing tools” into
symbolic computation packages would be a useful thing. Indeed, current
systems can be quite good at all kinds of formal manipulations. However,
in the daily practice of scientific discovery, it would be helpful if
these systems could also detect hidden properties, which may not be
directly apparent or expected, and whose validity generally depends on
heuristics. One well-known tool in this direction is the LLL-algorithm.
Given numbers
,
it can be used in order to guess relations of the form
![]() |
(1) |
Given formal power series
, algorithms for the computation of
Padé-Hermite forms [BL94, Der94] can be
used in order to guess linear relations
![]() |
(2) |
A well-known implementation is provided by the , the
or a linear differential equation
with coefficients in
satisfied by
.
Unfortunately, many interesting formal power series
do not admit closed form formulas and are not holonomic. In that case,
we can still use asymptotic extrapolation [vdH06] in order
to guess the asymptotic behaviour of the coefficients. However, this
only provides us some rough idea about the behaviour of
at its dominant singularity. In practice, it often happens that
locally satisfies an algebraic or differential
equation with analytic coefficients, even though these coefficients fail
to be polynomials. In this paper, we will shall describe two approaches
to deal with this situation.
In section 2, we first present a numerical algorithm for
approximating the radius of convergence of ,
assuming that only a finite number of its coefficients are known. In the
case when
admits a unique dominant isolated
singularity
, we will also
describe several approaches to find
.
In section 3, we consider the favourable situation when
there exists an algorithm for the analytic continuation of . This algorithm should allow us to compute the
Taylor series expansion of
not only at the
origin, but at any point on its Riemann surface. This is typically the
case when
is the solution of an initial value
problem [vdH07]. We will show how to exploit the mechanism
of analytic continuation in order to find so called algebraic or
Fuchsian dependencies at singularities.
In the remainder of the paper, we let be power
series with radii of convergence at least
.
We assume that the coefficients of the
can be
computed up to a high order and with great accuracy. This is typically
the case if the
are given as explicit generating
functions or solutions to functional equations. Given a radius
, we are interested in the
determination of linear dependencies
![]() |
(3) |
where have radii of convergence strictly larger
than
. In section 4,
we will describe an algorithm for doing this, based on Gram-Schmidt
orthogonalization. Modulo the change of variables
, it actually suffices to consider the case when
. In section 5,
we will present some relations which were recognized by the algorithm.
In section 6, we will also examine the behaviour of the
algorithm in the case when
are analytically
independent. Section 7 contains a discussion of the
algorithm and perspectives.
Let be an analytic function which is given by
its power series
at the origin. A first natural
question is how to compute the radius of convergence
of
at the origin, assuming that we have an
algorithm for computing the coefficients
.
In what follows, we will only be interested in heuristic algorithms. In
general, good lower bounds for
can often be
obtained efficiently, but the computation of sharp upper bounds can be
undecidable. For some results on the exact computation of
, we refer to [DL89, vdH07].
Theoretically speaking, the radius of convergence is given by
After the computation of coefficients
of
, this
yields the approximation
![]() |
(4) |
For most convergent power series ,
this formula is ultimately exact in the sense that
![]() |
(5) |
This is for instance the case when is ultimately
convex or ultimately concave. The set of
for
which (5) holds is also stable under the transformation
for any
.
Of course, we may replace
by
in (5) for any
.
The formula (4) has the disadvantage that it has not been
scaled appropriately: when replacing by
, where
is
such that
, we obtain
different approximations for
and
. Therefore, it is better to replace
by
for some appropriate
coefficient
with
.
One way to choose appropriate indices
is to
consider the numerical Newton polygon of
,
where
,
.
Let for
,
where we understand that
.
Then the Newton diagram of
is the convex hull of
the half lines
for
.
There exists a minimal subset
with
, such that the Newton diagram is also the
convex hull of the half lines
for
. Graphically speaking, the
are the vertices of the Newton diagram.
For a fixed , say
, we may now determine the unique
edge
of the Newton diagram such that
, and replace the formula (4)
by
![]() |
(6) |
For most convergent power series ,
the formula (6) is again ultimately exact. The indices
can be computed from the coefficients
using a linear traversal in time
. Modulo a tiny extra cost, this enables us to
compute a more accurate approximation of
than
(4). The formula (6) has been implemented in
the
, the computed radius is
usually correct up to one decimal digit.
The formula (6) usually yields a reasonable estimate for
, even in very degenerate
cases when there are several singularities at distance
or close to
. If
admits an isolated singularity
at
distance
, with no other
singularities at distance close to
,
then the quotient
usually tends to
for large
.
When the singularity at
has a known type, then
the approximation
can be further improved.
For instance, in the case of algebraic singularities, we have
with and ramification index
, whence
![]() |
(7) |
Using the E-algorithm [Wen01, BZ91], we may
now compute simultaneous approximations for the first coefficients ,
,
,
, etc. of the expansion (7).
It turns out that this strategy greatly improves the accuracy of the
approximation of
(see also [vdH06]).
Similarly, we say that is Fuchsian at
, if
satisfies a linear differential equation
where and
are analytic
functions at
with
.
In that case, the Taylor coefficients
satisfy
the asymptotic expansion
where ,
and the
are polynomials in
of degrees
. Again, the
E-algorithm or more general algorithms for asymptotic extrapolation [vdH06] can be used to compute
with a
high accuracy. Notice that these algorithms also provide estimates for
the accuracies of the computed approximations.
In the case when the closest singularity is a
simple pole, we may directly try to find the polynomial
. This polynomial has the property that the
radius of convergence of
is strictly larger than
. More generally, if
is meromorphic on the compact disc
of radius
, then we may
search for a polynomial
such that the radius of
convergence of
is strictly larger than
. This can be done using simple
linear algebra, as follows:
Algorithm denom
coefficients of
, a radius
and a degree bound
with
,
chosen of minimal degree ,
or failed
Step 1. [Initialize]
Step 2. [Determine ]
Solve the linear system
![]() |
(8) |
Set
Step 3. [Terminate or loop]
Heuristically determine ,
based on the first
coefficients of
If then return
If then return failed
Set and go to step 2
Proof. Modulo a scaling , we may assume without loss of generality that
. Furthermore, the proof is
clear if
, so we will assume
that
. Assume that there
exists a polynomial
with
and choose
monic and of minimal degree .
Notice that such a polynomial
exists in
particular, if (8) admits no solution for some
. We have
![]() |
(9) |
Since we assumed that , the
coefficients
have exponential decay for some
. Now consider a polynomial
of degree
and let
, so that
By the minimality hypothesis of ,
we have
, whence the
coefficients
have polynomial or exponential
growth in
. Since this
property holds for all
, it
follows that the matrix norm
remains bounded for
large
. In particular, the
solution to (8) is only an exponentially small perturbation
of the solution to (9) for large values of
.
Remark -step
search for the optimal degree
.
Using a binary search (doubling
at each step at
a first stage, and using a dichotomic search at a second stage), the
number of steps can be reduced to
.
Let be an analytic function which is given by
its power series
at the origin. Assume that
can be continued analytically on a Riemann surface
above the closed disk
of
radius
minus a finite set of points
. Let
be the set of
analytic functions on
. We
say that
is algebraic on
if
only admits algebraic singularities inside
. This is the case if and
only if there exists a polynomial dependency
![]() |
(10) |
where . In that case, we may
normalize the relation such that
has minimal
degree and such that
is a monic polynomial of
minimal degree. In particular, all roots of
are
inside the disc
. We say that
is Fuchsian on
,
if
only admits Fuchsian singularities inside
. This implies the existence
of a dependency
![]() |
(11) |
where . Again, we may
normalize (11) such that
has
minimal order
and such that
is a monic polynomial of minimal degree. Assuming that we have a high
accuracy algorithm for the analytic continuation of
, we will give heuristic algorithms for the
computation of dependencies of the form (10) or (11),
if they exist.
Remark is
the solution of an initial value problem. For a precise definition of a
computable analytic function, we refer to [vdH07]. For the
heuristic purposes of this section, the existence of a numerical
algorithm for the continuation of
will be
sufficient.
Assume that is algebraic on
. For each singularity
, choose a path
from the
origin to a point near
which avoids the other
singularities, and let
be the operator which
performs an analytic continuation along
,
one turn around
, followed by
an analytic continuation along
.
In the following algorithm for the detection of algebraic dependencies,
we assume a heuristic equality test for analytic functions at a point,
for instance by checking
-bit
equality of the first
terms of the Taylor series
expansions.
Algorithm alg_dep
above
and bounds
,
and
and
, or failed
Step 1. [Initialize]
Set
Step 2. [Saturate]
If for all
,
then go to step 3
If then return failed
Repeat step 2
Step 3. [Terminate]
Denote
Compute
For each , compute
If for some
,
then return failed
Return
Proof. Assume that
satisfies a normalized relation (10), with
and
. Since
only contains distinct roots of
,
we have
in
throughout
the algorithm. In particular
,
and we ultimately obtain stabilization
.
At this point, analytic continuation around any of the points leaves the polynomial
invariant,
so the coefficients of
are analytic and
single-valued on
. On the
other hand, given a singularity
,
each solution
is also given by a convergent
Puiseux series near
, whence
so are the coefficients of
.
Since the only Puiseux series without monodromy around
are Laurent series, it follows that the coefficients of
are meromorphic on
.
By the minimality assumption on ,
it follows that
and
. Since each coefficient
is
meromorphic on
, we may use
the algorithm denom from the previous section in order
to compute a polynomial
of minimal degree
such that
.
The monic least common multiple
is nothing but
the monic polynomial
of minimal degree such that
.
Remark and check whether they are indeed superior to
.
Algorithm fuch_dep
above
and bounds
,
and
and
, or failed
Step 1. [Initialize]
Set
Step 2. [Saturate]
If for all
,
then go to step 3
If then return failed
for
and
with
Repeat step 2
Step 3. [Terminate]
Denote
Compute
in the skew polynomial ring ,
where
denotes
For each , compute
If for some
,
then return failed
Return
Proof. Assume that
satisfies a normalized Fuchsian relation (11), with
and
.
Throughout the algorithm, the set
only contains
linearly independent solutions to
.
Therefore, the smallest operator
which vanishes
on
divides
in
. In particular
, and we ultimately obtain stabilization
.
Consider one of the singularities .
Since
is Fuchsian at
, the equation
admits a
fundamental system of solutions of the form
where and
are convergent
power series. The coefficients of
lay in the
field
generated by all generalized power series
of this form. Again, the only elements of
with a
trivial monodromy around
are convergent Laurent
series at
. Since analytic
continuation around
leaves the operator
unchanged, it follows that the coefficients of
are meromorphic on
.
We conclude in a similar way as in the proof of theorem 4.
Remark admits at worse a Fuchsian singularity at
is essential for the algorithm to work. For
instance, in the case of the function
the monodromy around is trivial, whence applying
the algorithm for
would simply result in having
at step 3. Although
has
no monodromy around
, this
function is no longer a Laurent series. In fact, the desired vanishing
operator has second order in this case, but it cannot be read off
directly from
.
So far, our algorithms assume that we know the locations of the
singularities inside the disc
. Using the techniques from the previous
section, we still need an algorithm to determine these locations.
Assume that we have localized some of the singularities
and that
has been stabilized under the
corresponding operators
.
Given one of the singularities
,
one subtask is to determine a small radius
such
that
does not admit other singularities above
the disc with center
and radius
. For a given candidate
, this condition can be checked as follows. We
choose a sufficient number
of equally spaced
points
on the Riemann surface of above the circle with
center
and radius
.
For each
and each point
, we may use the techniques from the previous
section in order to determine the closest singularity
of
to
.
Now our check succeeds if
or
for all
and
.
If it fails, then we retry with a smaller
.
As soon as
becomes smaller than a fixed
threshold, then we abort.
A second subtask is to guarantee the absence of singularities on the
remaining part of the Riemann surface of above
. We construct a sequence of
open balls
as follows. For
, we let
be the ball
with center
and radius
. The remaining
are
constructed by induction over
.
We arbitrarily chose the center
of
in
and heuristically determine the
minimum
of the convergence radii of the elements
in
above
.
If
is significantly smaller than
, then this indicates a missing singularity: we
heuristically determine the closest singularity
to
and add it to the set
. Since
was chosen
arbitrarily, there usually is at most one closest singularity. As an
additional security check, we may also determine the closest singularity
to
and check that it coincides with
. If
,
then we take
to be the radius of
and continue our construction. Since
is compact, the construction will eventually terminate, unless we find a
new singularity.
The above algorithms either enable us to find new singularities above
or obtain a certificate that there are no other
singularities. We may insert them in the saturation steps of alg_dep
and fuch_dep, just before jumping to step 3: we only
jump if
is saturated under the
and no new singularities are found. We keep repeating step 2 in the
contrary case. Of course, we may introduce an additional threshold
parameter
in order to abort the algorithm
whenever
.
Given an order , we will
denote by
the set of power series
with
for all
. When truncating the usual multiplication on
at order
,
we give
a ring structure, which is isomorphic to
. We will denote by
the Hilbert space of all power series
with finite
norm
More generally, the norm of a vector is given by
The spaces can be considered as an increasing
sequence of Hilbert spaces, for the restrictions of the norm on
to the
.
Let and assume that
are
power series with radii of convergence at least
. We want to solve the equation
![]() |
(12) |
We will denote the affine space of all such relations
by
. Since the equation (12) involves an infinite number of coefficients, we need to
consider its truncated version at a finite order
. Replacing
by their
truncations in
, we search
for non-trivial solutions of the equation
![]() |
(13) |
such that the norms of and
are small. We will denote by
the affine space of
all
which satisfy (13).
Let us reformulate our problem in terms of linear algebra. The series
give rise to an
matrix
The unknown series give rise to a row vector
Setting , we then have
whence encodes the relation
. This reduces the problem to finding those
vectors
for which
is
small, provided that at least one of the coefficients
is reasonably large.
We start with the computation of a thin LQ decomposition of . This can for instance be done using the
Gram-Schmidt process: starting with the first row, we orthogonally
project each row on the vector space spanned by the previous rows. This
results in a decomposition
where is a lower triangular
matrix with ones on the diagonal and
is an
matrix, whose rows are mutually orthogonal
(i.e.
). Since
coincides with the righthand side of
, the decomposition can be done
in-place. Now consider the matrix
formed by the
last rows of
.
Then each row
gives rise to a relation (13),
encoded by
. Moreover, this
relation is normal or
-normal,
in the sense that
and
for all
. Since
is the shortest vector in
,
the relation is also minimal in norm, among all
-normal relations. Choosing the row
for which
is minimal, our algorithm simply
returns the corresponding relation. Then our algorithm has the following
fundamental property:
for which
is minimal.
Let us now return to the case when are no longer
truncated, but all have a radius of convergence
. A relation (12) is again said to be
normal or
-normal
if
and
for all
. Under the limit
, we claim that our algorithm finds a minimal
normal relation, if there exists a relation of the form (12):
Assume that . Then
contains a minimal normal relation.
Assume that is a minimal
-normal relation. For each
, let
be the
truncation of
at order
and consider the corresponding minimal
-normal relation
. Then the relations
converge to
in
.
If , then the norms
, with
as in
.
Proof. A non trivial relation
is easily normalized: we first divide
by
, where
. We next divide by
,
where
is largest with
. Now the set of all
-normal
relations is a closed affine subspace of
.
The orthogonal projection of
on this subspace
yields an
-normal relation of
minimal norm. This proves (a).
Assume that there exists an -normal
relation
, consider the minimal
-normal relation
at
this order. Truncation of this relation at a smaller order
yields an
-normal
relation
at order
with
, whence
![]() |
(14) |
Moreover, since is the projection of
on the affine space of
-normal
relations at order
, we have
and
![]() |
(15) |
In particular, and
For large , it follows that
, whence
In other words, is a Cauchy sequence, which
converges to a limit
. By the
minimality hypothesis of
, we
have
. Passing (14)
and (15) to the limit, we get
,
whence
and (b).
In general, the existence of a bound with
still ensures to be a Cauchy sequence, and its
limit yields an
-normal
relation (12). This proves the last assertion
(c).
A first implementation of our guessing algorithm has been made in the
Here follow the values for at different orders
and
:
The clearly convergence to a limit
with radius of convergence
.
It should be noticed that we do not have
.
In other words, we did not find the “best” relation, as in
the case of Padé-Hermite approximation. A closer examination of
the result shows that
In particular, decreases if
increases.
We obtain:
The convergence only becomes apparent at higher orders. Contrary to the
previous example, it seems that the series in the computed relation all
have a radius of convergence .
The norms of the computed results are given by
,
,
and
.
Using asymptotic extrapolation [vdH06], this series is
found to have a radius of convergence .
In order to investigate
close to its dominant
singularity, we apply our algorithm to
The translation is done using power series
evaluation until stabilization at the working precision. At different
orders, we obtain:
The corresponding norms are given by ,
,
and
. Again, the convergence is
rather slow, and the computed series all seem to have radius of
convergence
.
It is also instructive to run the algorithm on examples where the are known to be analytically independent. In that
case, it is important to examine the behaviour of the norms
for
and find more precise criteria
which will enable us to discard the existence of a nice dependency with
a reasonable degree of certainty.
where . Running our algorithm
directly on this function yields the following results for
:
The results indeed do not converge and the corresponding sequence of
norms ,
,
and
diverges at moderate speed.
The series is a series whose coefficients are
chosen according to a random uniform distribution on
. The results are shown in table 1
below. For
,
and
, it seems that the norm
does not much depend on the precise type of singularity, but only on
and the truncation order
. For the last series
,
the dependencies on
and
approximately seem to follow the law
![]() |
(16) |
This idealized law needs to be adjusted for functions ,
,
with more common types of singularities.
Although (16) remains asymptotically valid for large values
of
, the factor
needs to be replaced by a smaller number for moderate
values. For
, this factor
rather seems to be of the form
,
where the constant
depends on the nature of the
singularity. Also, the linear dependency of
on
is only reached for large values of
.
![]() |
(17) |
It also seems that the law can be adapted to functions with more common types of singularities, along similar lines as before.
In the case when a linear relation (12) exists, we have
observed in section 5 that our algorithm usually returns a
relation whose series all have radius of convergence . Larger radii of convergence
can be obtained simply by running the algorithm on
and scaling back the result.
In the example of the enumeration of alcohols, we have also mentioned
the fact that the detection of dependencies is improved by zooming in on
the singularity. Although we used a shift for
doing so, this is quite expensive in general: if
is the module of the singularity
,
then approximately
Taylor coefficients of
are needed in order to accurately compute
coefficients of
.
When possible, it is better to postcompose
with
a suitable analytic function
.
Here
should be chosen in such a way that
has
as its only singularity
in the unit disk, and such that
is as small as
possible. Also, if
satisfies a differential
equation, then
can be expanded efficiently at
by integrating the equation from its initial
conditions [BK78, vdH02a].
Our empirical observations in the section 6 suggest a few
criteria for detecting the non-existence of dependencies (12).
First of all, when running the algorithm for different orders , we should observe a more or less
geometric increase of the norm
.
If we know the norm
of the smallest singularity,
then this idea may be refined by comparing the computed values of
with the expected values, as given by the law (17), or a suitable adaptation of this law when
becomes small. This method is most effective when
is large. When possible, it is therefore recommended
to zoom in on the singularity, as discussed above.
For any numerical checks based on the law (17) or a
refinement of it, we also recommend to precondition the input series
. In particular, we recommend
to multiply each
by a suitable constant,
ensuring that
whenever we apply our algorithm at order .
Here
is computed using one of the algorithms
from section 2.
Let us now analyze the cost of the algorithm from section 4.
The current working precision should in general
be taken larger than
in order to keep the method
numerically stable. Denoting by
the cost for
multiplying two
bit numbers, a naive
implementation of the Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization procedure yields a
total cost of
. Denoting by
the cost of multiplying two
matrices with
bit entries, and using a blockwise
Gram-Schmidt procedure, we obtain the better bound
. However, the matrix
from section 4 has a very special form. With more work, it
might therefore be possible to save an additional factor
, but we have not actively tried to do so yet.
Since it is often possible to zoom in on the singularity, we may
evaluate the computational cost in terms of the desired “output
quality”. As a definition of the output quality, we may take the
expected value of
in the
case when
are independent. In terms of
, the time complexity than becomes
where is the exponent of matrix multiplication.
The complexity bound makes it clear that we should put a lot of effort
into keeping
large. For instance, zooming in on
the singularity using a shift makes it possible to replace
by
modulo the evaluation of
at a larger order
instead of
(and a bit precision
instead of
). In many
practical cases, this can be done in time
,
which allows for a drastic reduction of the complexity. Of course, a
possible analytic relation will only be obtained on a small disk around
the singularity of interest.
To go short, our algorithm from section 4 mainly works well if the following conditions are satisfied:
The number should not be too large.
There exists a large constant for which all
singularities of
are concentrated inside the
disk of radius
or outside the disk of radius
.
If we are interested in dependencies near an isolated singularity, then the second condition can often be achieved by zooming in on the singularity.
As a final note, we mention the fact that linear analytic dependencies
can sometimes be obtained using the process of asymptotic extrapolation
[vdH06]. For instance, given a function
with an isolated smallest singularity at
of the
form
where and
are analytic
at
, the asymptotic
extrapolation of
yields an asymptotic expansion
of the form
Using singularity analysis [FS96], we may then recover the
function from the coefficients
. However, this technique only works in special
cases, since the first
terms of the asymptotic
expansion may hide other terms, which need to be taken into account when
searching for exact dependencies.
R.P. Brent and H.T. Kung. Fast algorithms for manipulating formal power series. Journal of the ACM, 25:581–595, 1978.
B. Beckermann and G. Labahn. A uniform approach for the fast computation of matrix-type Padé approximants. SIAM J. Matrix Analysis and Applications, pages 804–823, 1994.
C. Brezinski and R. Zaglia. Extrapolation Methods. Theory and Practice. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1991.
H. Derksen. An algorithm to compute generalized padé-hermite forms. Technical Report Rep. 9403, Catholic University Nijmegen, January 1994.
J. Denef and L. Lipshitz. Decision problems for differential equations. The Journ. of Symb. Logic, 54(3):941–950, 1989.
P. Flajolet and R. Sedgewick. An introduction to the analysis of algorithms. Addison Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1996.
G. Pólya. Kombinatorische Anzahlbestimmungen für Gruppen, Graphen und chemische Verbindungen. Acta Mathematica, 68:145–254, 1937.
B. Salvy and P. Zimmermann. Gfun: a Maple package for the manipulation of generating and holonomic functions in one variable. ACM Trans. on Math. Software, 20(2):163–177, 1994.
J. van der Hoeven. Relax, but don't be too lazy. JSC, 34:479–542, 2002.
J. van der Hoeven et al. Mathemagix, 2002. http://www.mathemagix.org.
J. van der Hoeven. Algorithms for asymptotic extrapolation. JSC, 2006. Submitted.
J. van der Hoeven. On effective analytic continuation. MCS, 1(1):111–175, 2007.
E. J. Weniger. Nonlinear sequence transformations: Computational tools for the acceleration of convergence and the summation of divergent series. Technical Report math.CA/0107080, Arxiv, 2001.
H.S. Wilf. Generatingfunctionology. Academic Press, 2nd edition, 2004. http://www.math.upenn.edu/~wilf/DownldGF.html.