THE
PERFORMANCE OF THE EPSILON AND THETA CONVERGENCE ACCELERATION ALGORITHMS
A Paper
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty
of the
North Dakota State University
of Agriculture and Applied Science
By
Paul Scott Heidmann
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
Major Department:
Mathematics
August 1992
Fargo, North Dakota
THE PERFORMANCE OF THE EPSILON AND THETA CONVERGENCE ACCELERATION ALGORITHMS
By
Paul Scott Heidmann
The Supervisory Committee certifies that this paper complies with North Dakota State University's regulations and meets the accepted standards for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE:
___________________________________________________________________
Chair
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
Approved by Department Chair:
___________________ __________________________________
Date Signiture
Heidmann, Paul Scott, M.S., Department of Mathematics, College of Science and Mathematics, North Dakota State University, August 1992. The Performance of the Epsilon and Theta Convergence Acceleration Algorithms. Major Advisor: Associate Professor Davis Cope.
Motivations
for transforms are first presented, along with the derivation of both the
-algorithm and the
-algorithm. Known
properties are then presented, with a partial classification of the sets for
which the transforms are known to have accelerative properties.
Empirical
evidence is given illustrating the performance of the algorithms over a broad
set of test series. The
-algorithm was found to perform better than the
-algorithm on all but a few of the test cases
considered. No algorithm considered
demonstrated any evidence of producing an increase in the exponential rate of
convergence. No evidence of instability
was seen among the algorithms considered.
Abstract................................................................................................................................ iii
Section 1: Introduction........................................................................................................... 1
Section 2: Transform Motivations and Properties.................................................................... 4
The Motivation of the e Transform................................................................. 4
Properties of the e Transform......................................................................... 7
The e Transform and the -Algorithm........................................................... 10
The Motivation of the q Transform............................................................... 13
Properties of the q Transform....................................................................... 14
Section 3: Empirical and Related Results.............................................................................. 16
Details of the Test Program.......................................................................... 17
Details of Test Procedures........................................................................... 17
Transform Singularities................................................................................. 18
Empirical Results......................................................................................... 23
Group 1.......................................................................................... 23
Group 2.......................................................................................... 77
Group 3.......................................................................................... 80
Group 4.......................................................................................... 95
Group 5........................................................................................ 101
Group 6........................................................................................ 115
Group 7.....................................................................................117
Section 4: Summary........................................................................................................... 126
Bibliography...................................................................................................................... 127
This paper is concerned with the evaluation of the performance of the -algorithm and the -algorithm when applied to sequences of partial sums. Transform definitions and properties are first stated, followed by empirical examples illustrating the comparative performance of the algorithms on a wide variety of test problems.
The two transforms covered in this paper are recursive and operate on the set of complex valued nonconstant sequences. For broad classes of sequences, these algorithms are known to have accelerative properties.
Both algorithms are actually more accurately described as a hierarchy of transforms. That is, the algorithms provide a succession of transforms, with the higher order transforms typically providing greater rates of acceleration.
The
first of these algorithms, the -algorithm, is defined as
follows for any nonconstant sequence
[6, p. 225]:
![]()
.
The
second algorithm considered in this paper is the -algorithm, defined as follows
for any nonconstant sequence
[6, p. 225]:
![]()
![]()
![]()
In most practical applications, a transform must have the properties of regularity and of convergence acceleration. This paper was concerned more with the latter than the former; however, both definitions will be required.
Definition: A transform T is said to be regular for a convergent sequence sn if
![]()
Definition: A transform T is said to accelerate the convergence of a sequence sn if

where s is the limit of the sequence sn.
Intuitively, a transform accelerates the convergence of a sequence if the convergence of the transformed sequence is of higher order than that of the original sequence. Equivalently, a transform accelerates the convergence of a sequence if the error term of the transformed sequence asymptotically goes to zero with a higher order than the error term of the original sequence.
Section 2 of this paper summarizes the known properties of the transforms. The transforms are first motivated, and then theorems concerning each are presented.
Section 3 presents two new lemmas and presents the empirical research done in connection with this paper.
Section 4 summarizes the results reached in Section 3.
The history
of the e transform is not altogether clear.
The general ideas which underlie this transform go at least as far back
as Jacobi. A special case of the e transform known as the
-process is usually attributed to Aitkin; however, this
technique can be traced back to Kummer (1837) [8, p. 120]. Apparently, it was developed independently by
several authors (although not always in its most general form): Delaunay, Samuelson, Shanks and Walton,
Hartee, and Isakson [5, p. 5].
The e transform has been motivated by two distinct but similar sets of ideas. Both begin with the recognition that many sequences in applied mathematics and physics can be approximated by a limit together with exponential transients:
.
Here, it is assumed that none of the
's are zero or one (if a transient were one, it would become
part of the limit s) and that the
's are distinct. The
elemental idea is to develop a transform which will eliminate these exponential
transients.
The first
method of accomplishing this task was given by Shanks [5, p. 7-8] and is
summarized below. Observe that any
nonsingular sequence (definition follows) can be expressed as a kth order transient locally. Fix any n
larger than k and represent
as follows:
,
where the
's are the respective limits, called the "kth order local bases." Should one of the
, then the sequence will be singular.[1] These bases will vary relatively little as
long as
is nearly kth order [5, p. 7]. This fact suggests that the sequence of
's (for some fixed k)
might converge faster than the sequence itself. This sequence of kth
order local bases is then defined as the
-transform of the sequence
[5, p. 8], [in fact,
it is identical with
as defined in the
following discussion.]
The motivation for the e transform given by Wimp [8, p. 121-123] also begins with the recognition that many sequences from applied mathematics and physics behave as if they were a limit combined with exponential transients. As above, the e transform is then developed to eliminate these transients; the technique by which the transform is developed, however, differs significantly.
To begin
(as above), assume the sequence
has the form:
.
To simplify notation, let:
.
Since
is a linear
combination of k exponentials, there
is a linear difference operator of order k
that annihilates
:
(
not zero).
Now, rewrite
as follows:
.
Next, substitute into the difference equation, and solve for
.[2] Redefining constants gives:
.
This is a homogeneous system of equations with a nonzero
solution
. Such a solution
will exist if and only if the following determinental equation is satisfied:
.
For simplicity, define:
.
Then, solving for s gives [8, p. 122]:
.
While the above equation will only be valid for sequences
that can be represented as a combination of a limit and exponential transients,
it can nevertheless be used to define a transform useful for a much larger
class of sequences, which is written
.
While these two derivations are quite different, they are indeed equivalent [5, p. 2-3,7-8].
At this point, several questions naturally arise. Questions concerning the regularity of the transform, the accelerative properties, and optimality are especially significant. This section presents known results that address these questions.
The first question that must be answered before the e transform can be used in any application is whether or not the transform will be regular for the sequences involved. For many applications, this question will not be difficult to answer, as the e transform can be shown to be regular on broad classes of sequences.
The following theorem (accredited originally to Lubkin) is stated by Shanks [5, p. 13]:
Theorem: If
and
both converge, then
.
Further regularity results are available for this transform
and are discussed in the
-algorithm section.
Closely related to the question of regularity is the question of exactness. That is, for what class of sequences will the e transform be exact (produce the limit of the sequence in a finite number of steps)? This question is answered in part by the following theorem, given by Shanks [5, p. 22]:
Theorem: Let f(z)
be a rational function, which when reduced to its lowest terms has a q'th degree numerator and a p'th degree denominator; then, if ![]()
,
where
is the first n terms of the Taylor expansion for f.
In fact, a closely related but stronger theorem has been given by Wimp [8, p. 125]:
Theorem:
is defined for
all
and
if and only if
satisfies a
homogeneous linear difference equation of order k with constant coefficients (and no equation of lower order) and
contains no terms
that are purely algebraic..
Finally, questions of optimality and accelerative properties must be addressed. Here, while fewer results are known, it is still possible to partially characterize sequences for which e is accelerative. A definition along with two helpful theorems are stated:
Definition: Let
be the terms of a
convergent series with partial sums
and sum S.
Let
, and suppose that the sequences
converge to
, respectively. The
convergence of the series is said to be logarithmic
if
, linear if
, and of higher order
if
[6, p. 224].
The following two theorems are very useful for determining
whether or not the condition
is satisfied:
Theorem: If
is of constant sign,
then
[3, p. 26].
Theorem: If
with
and if r is not -1, then
[3, p. 26].
Wimp has
shown [8, p. 104] that
will accelerate all
linearly convergent series. More
interesting, however, are the results produced by Delahaye. Three basic results concerning the
optimality of the
transform (Aitkin's
process) on the
family of linearly convergent series are presented [4, p. 213]:
1. The
transform is
algebraically optimal; that is, it is not possible to find an algebraically
simpler transform to accelerate the family of linearly convergent series.
2. It is impossible to accelerate the linear
family with degree[3]
greater than 1, the degree of acceleration achieved with the
transform.
3. The linear family cannot be enlarged into
another accelerable family. That is,
there does not exist a family of sequences containing the linear family for
which
can be shown to have
the above properties.
Delahaye then interprets these facts [4, p. 213]:
These results do not mean that the
is the best algorithm
of acceleration. They only mean that
concerning the family Lin, it is impossible to find a simpler or a more
efficient algorithm of acceleration.
This does not contradict the existence of subfamilies of Lin accelerable
with degree 2, nor does it contradict the existence of algorithms less simple
but equally efficient on Lin.
When first developed, the e transform was merely a curiosity. It had little practical value, as calculating the large order determinants inherent to the transform was computationally prohibitive. This changed in 1956 when Wynn produced the following theorem [9, p. 91]:
Theorem: If
![]()
and
,
then
![]()
provided that none of the quantities
becomes infinite.
With this algorithm, it is now possible to compute the e transform easily and efficiently. Study of the -algorithm has also facilitated much knowledge of the e transform.
One such result is due to Wimp. However, before stating this result, two definitions are required :
Definition: A sequence s is totally monotone (written
) if
.
Definition: A sequence s is totally oscillatory (written
) if
[8, p. 12].
Theorem: Let the sequence s have remainder terms r;
then, if r is either totally monotone or totally oscillatory, then
is regular for all
even m [8, p. 139 and 141].
While the
algorithm is regular for large classes of sequences, this is not the only
concern. Computing the transform involves
repeated divisions by what can be very small quantities. This seems to suggest that the transforms
will be prone to numerical instability.
However, the empirical results presented in this paper suggest that the
-algorithm is far more stable than appears at first.
Theoretical
analysis of the stability of the
-algorithm has not yet been fully developed. However, Wynn has presented a paper that
begins to deal with this issue [10].
The results presented suggest that the
-algorithm can be unstable for certain monotonic sequences
[10, p. 110-112] and unconditionally stable for certain oscillating sequences
[10, p. 112-115]. These theoretical
results can be seen intuitively, simply by examining the transform. Oscillating sequences have adjacent terms
opposite in sign. This tends to make
the denominator in the defining recurrence relation larger. Monotonic sequences have terms of like sign,
which in turn tends to make the denominator smaller.
Finally,
the
-algorithm can be shown to be closely related to the Padé
table. The Padé table for an analytic
function f is a two dimensional table
of rational approximations of f. The [L,M] entry of the Padé table is
typically denoted [L/M] and is defined as follows [1, p. 5]:
,
where
is a polynomial of
degree at most L and
is a polymonial of
degree at most M. The coeficients of the polynomials are
chosen so that
, where A(z) is the
Taylor expansion of f(z) [6, p.
5]. If we require that Q and P have no common factors and that Q(0) = 1, then [L/M] is unique [1, p. 8].
The
-algorithm produces certain entries in the Padé table. The following theorem then is due to Wynn
[10, p. 93]:
Theorem: If the
-algorithm is applied to the initial values
,
then
.
The transform was developed by Brezinski as a means of accelerating the convergence of logarithmically converging sequences. Its motivation began with the observation that the algorithm fails to accelerate convergence on large classes of logarithmically converging sequences. However, rather than developing a completely new transform, Brezinski opted to modify the algorithm, adding an optimizing parameter.
Define
. Then it is known
that a set of sequences with logarithmic convergence having the property
![]()
may be accelerated by the algorithm modified with a "parameter of acceleration" [2, p. 727], specifically, with the following transform:
![]()
![]()
A necessary and sufficient condition for
to converge faster
than
is to take
![]()
However, calculating all of the
parameters can be
prohibitive. It was at this point that
Brezinski took his departure from what was then known. His idea was to replace
with the following
approximation [2, p. 729]:
![]()
The transform then results.
A property important in the application of any transform is regularity. Brezinski has characterized this property with the following theorem [2, p. 730]:
Theorem: For real valued sequences, a necessary and sufficient condition for
![]()
is that
![]()
As to the transform's accelerative properties, two theorems are given here. The first, and less general theorem, results from Germain-Bonne's theorem and is given by Smith and Ford [6, p. 225]:
Theorem:
accelerates linear
convergence.
The second theorem, due to Brezinski [2, p. 730], is much farther reaching:
Theorem: If is regular and if
exists and is finite,
then
converges faster than
.
Finally,
the question of exactness is addressed by a theorem due to Cordellier and
stated by Smith and Ford [6, p. 229].
It should be noted that this theorem characterizes only those sequences
for which
is exact in one term.
Theorem:
for
if and only if the
sequence
is one of the
following three types:
1.
where ![]()
2.
where
and neither
is a positive
integer.
3.
and d is not a positive integer.
This section descri