1. Introduction

Once I was approached with the request to rewrite in supposedly fast C++ a "slow" visual basic program. That program was a GUI for a spectrometer. Due to technical limitations, the measurements could be done only in relatively few points. However, all intermediate points were necessary for the purposes of display and further processing. Namely this part of the program was slow and unstable.

2. Problem statement

An instrument can measure a spectrum at M channels:

 

In other words, there are the values F₁, F₂, . . , F_M at the points x₁, x₂, . . , x_M. It is necessary to get a spectrum at any arbitrary value x within the interval of measurements ( x₁≤ x ≤ x_M ). 

 

3. Naïve solution

According to the Weierstrass theorem [1],  every continuous function can be uniformly approximated as closely as desired by a polynomial function. The "obvious" solution   is to present the spectrum as a polynomial

(1)

The polynomial coefficients are the solution of the following system of linear equations:

(2a)

or in a matrix-vector form 

(2b)

Here  A_mn = x_mⁿ  is the Vandermonde matrix [2]. If all x_i are different (which is the case) then the determinant of A ≠ 0 and Eq. (2) can always be solved: 

(3)

The polynomial (1) with coefficients (3) exactly fits the measurements.

Remark 1. The solution of (2) is a time consuming problem (e.g. the computational complexity for the Gauss–Jordan elimination [3] is O(M ³) [4] ). This solution should be done for each new spectrum. However, the solution should not be performed for each x in (1). This actually solved "the slowness" of the VB program.

Remark 2. The polynomial (1) is a linear combination of the power functions (1, x, x², . . ). If this basis set is not "natural" for the problem, then the interpolation between channels may be very poor.

Remark 3. The matrix A_mn = x_mⁿ   of the system of liner equations (2) is usually ill-conditioned [ 5]. The reason for this is that in a relatively narrow interval of positive values of x all powers look alike and are almost linear dependent. This makes the solution unstable and inaccurate.    

Trick: use y = x - x_av in (1) instead of x. Here x_av is the middle of the spectrum. This trick partly solves the problem for relatively small M.

Remark 4. The solution of (2) is a time consuming problem ( complexity of M ³ ).  

 

4. Optimized solution

1. Let us admit that there are strong physical reasons for a polynomial representation (1) for a spectrum. 

2. Instead of using pure power basis function (1) we use the polynomials P_k(x)  

(4)

orthogonal on the set of measurements: 

(5)

3. The coefficients f_n can be easy found in one step:

(6)

The solution (6) is fast, stable and accurate because of the orthogonality condition (5). For the solution it is actually necessary to know only the matrix P_n(x_m).

 

5. Orthogonal basis construction

Initially we have a liner independent set of the power functions: 1, x, x², . . , x^M-1 . We will construct an orthogonal polynomials recursively.

 Suppose that we already constructed P₀, P₁, . ., P_n that are mutually orthogonal and normalized. The next polynomial is made of the new power xⁿ⁺¹ and all previous polynomials:

(7)

The coefficients q_k should be chosen to make (6) orthogonal to all previous polynomials:

(8)

or

(9)

The final stage is to normalize the new polynomial:

(10)

The initial normalized polynomial is 

(11)

Remark 1. Eq. (9) is the subtraction of all previous P_k-components from xⁿ⁺¹ (actually from all functions of the old basis).

Remark 2. The above relatively complex procedure have to be performed only once for a given set of points x₁, x₂, . . , x_M.

Remark 3. This procedure can be applied to any set of linear independent basis functions.  

 

6. Examples

1. Non-centered points

Let us consider four equidistant points: x₁ = 1, x₂ = 1.33333333333333, x₃ = 1.66666666666667, x₄ = 2. The initial functions are the powers of x: 1, x, x², x³. Below is the matrix of their scalar  products <x^k|xⁿ>. The power functions are normalized: <xⁿ|xⁿ> = 1.

 

This  matrix is related to x_mⁿ It is extremely ill-conditioned matrix. Its eigenvalues are: { } = {0.00000022343673427, 0.00172815339820463, 0.187758070383405, 3.81051154185105}. The condition number is defined as cond = Max()/Min(). For the above matrix cond = 1.7 E 7. The larger the condition number is the closer a matrix to a singular one. The condition number is a measure of noise and round off errors amplification. A matrix is considered as well-conditioned if cond << 10².

The coefficients of new orthogonal polynomials are:

 Below is the matrix  <P_n|P_k> :

This matrix is close to the identity matrix despite the large cond value. 

2. Centered points (using the trick)

Now the points are: x₁ = -0.5, x₂ = -0.16666666666667, x₃ = 0.16666666666667, x₄ = 0.5. In this case the matrix <x^k|xⁿ> is:

	1	x	x2	x3
1	1	-1.12 E-16	0.78086880944303	-1.18 E-16
x	-1.12 E-16	1	-1.57 E-16	0.959737407008271
x2	0.78086880944303	-1.57 E-16	1	-2.76 E-16
x3	-1.18 E-16	0.959737407008271	-2.76 E-16	1

The even and odd powers are already orthogonal and the eigenvalues are: {0.0402625929917295, 0.21913119055697, 1.78086880944303, 1.95973740700827}. This gives cond = 48.7.

The constructed orthogonal polynomials include only the power of the same parity:

	C0	C1	C2	C3
P0	0.50000000000000	0	0	0
P1	5.58 E-17	1.34164078649987	0	0
P2	-0.6250000000000	2.51 E-16	4.5000000000000	0
P3	-1.67 E-16	-4.58393935387457	1.33 E-15	20.1246117974981

The matrix  <P_n|P_k> now is closer to the identity matrix:

	P0	P1	P2	P3
P0	1	5.55 E-17	-5.55 E-17	1.11 E-16
P1	5.55 E-17	1	0	6.38 E-16
P2	-5.55 E-17	0	1	3.88 E-16
P3	1.11 E-16	6.38 E-16	3.88 E-16	1

The polynomial coefficients are calculated with higher accuracy. 

References

1. Weierstrass theorem
2. Vandermonde matrix
3. Gauss-Jordan elimination
4. Computational complexity of mathematical operations
5. Condition number
6. Vandermonde matrix