The DERIVESTsuite provides a fully adaptive numerical differentiation tool for both scalar and vector valued functions. Tools for derivatives (up to 4th order) of a scalar function are provided, as well as the gradient vector, directional derivative, Jacobian matrix, and Hessian matrix. Error estimates are provided for all tools.
DERIVEST provides a robust adaptive numerical differentiation (up to the fourth derivative) of a user supplied function, much as quad does for integration. It is semiintelligent, trying to use that step size which minimizes its estimate of the uncertainty in the derivative.
High order methods are used, although full control is provided to the user when you want it. You can direct the order of the method to be used, the general class of difference method employed (forward, backward, or central differences), the number of terms employed in its generalized Richardson acceleration scheme, step sizes, etc.
Although you can not provide a user supplied tolerance, DERIVEST does return an estimate of its uncertainty in the final result.
For example, the derivative of exp(x), at x=1 is exp(1)==2.71828182845905. DERIVEST does quite well.
[d,err]=derivest(@(x) exp(x),1)
d =
2.71828182845904
err =
1.02015503167879e14
See the provided demos for many more examples.
John D'Errico (2020). Adaptive Robust Numerical Differentiation (https://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/13490adaptiverobustnumericaldifferentiation), MATLAB Central File Exchange. Retrieved .
1.6  Flag as a toolbox 

1.5.0.0  Repaired problem when the point to evaluate the derivative happens to be the same as the period of a periodic function. 

Repaired a bug, operating at fixed step sizes for the 2nd order method. Removed mac origin .DS_store files. 

Added jacobian matrix and directional derivative support, also a ReadMe file. 

Added gradient and Hessian tools, also hessdiag, plus a gradient/hessian demo.


Added an option for differentiating a nonvectorized function. 

Minor changes 
Inspired by: Numerical derivative of analytic function
Inspired: Adaptive numerical limit (and residue) estimation, Numerical Differentiation, Accelerated Failure Time (AFT) models, Fit distributions to censored data, modified_newton, hessianAnalysisDemo, Object tracking with an Iterative Extended Kalman Filter (IEKF)
Create scripts with code, output, and formatted text in a single executable document.
John D'Errico (view profile)
@Tim  to try using fminsearch of any sort, with 15 unknowns carries unrealistic expectations. 15 unknowns is just too much for fminsearch to handle well. fminsearchcon is no better, since it is merely an overlay on top of fminsearch. So it is the same basic algorithm.
Worse, it looks like your objective function seems to have a singularity there. That suggests your model is overparameterized. At least one of your unknowns seems to be unnecessary for the fit at least locally so. (Generally a singularity tells you that some linear combination of the parameters allows changing one set of parameters for another with no cost to the objective function.) That may mean your model is overly complex, or perhaps your data is inadequate to fit a model of that complexity.
That you got an excellent fit is not terribly relevant. Another set of parameters would have given you just as good results. In turn that means trying to compute any kind of confidence intervals is the wrong thing. Those confidence intervals tell you nothing, except what I've explained above.
Tim (view profile)
It is a great package! Thanks a lot!
I am using the jacobianest function in order to evaluate the Jacobian and the confidence interval for my fitted parameters based on John D'Errico`s comment here: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.softsys.matlab/JJOqLCNJjF0
My problem that one a column of the Jacobian matrix has very small values (1e29) and when I calculate Sigma which is proportional to inv(J'*J) (see the link above), I have a message: Warning: Matrix is close to singular or badly
scaled. Results may be inaccurate. RCOND =
5.516957e117.
However, I have an excellent fit, the fitted parameters have a lot of sense but their error is so huge, it is totally unrealistic. I know that the approach above assumes that I have a Gaussian error system, but honestly, I do not know how I can be sure about it. I have a nonlinear equation with 15 parameters and I am using fminsearchcon to find the best fit with the least square method.
Is there a way to get a confidence interval using existing Matlab functions when the Gaussian assumption is not valid?
Every suggestion is welcome.
Tithanium (view profile)
Thanks a lot for this nice tool and documentation. Saves a lot of time, this was exacly what I was looking for... and even better !
BERGHOUT Tarek (view profile)
good job sir
Duc Hong Hoang (view profile)
I use the Hessian matrix to compute confidence interval estimates on parameters in a maximum likelihood estimation. However the diagonal of inverse matrix of hessian is negative. How should I deal with this problem?
Chang Liu (view profile)
This code is great. But caution should be taken as it seems to give wrong results some times. Other reviewers have mentioned this. The case I encounter was when computing the gradient of the 2D langermann function. The gradients in the range [0,10]*[0,10] seem to be incorrect compared to the analytic gradient.
Oleksandr Frei (view profile)
C/C++ port of DERIVESTsuite:
https://github.com/ofrei/cppDERIVEST
Oleksandr Frei (view profile)
The software is truly excellent!
Of note, there is one case where DERIVESTsuite seems to give wrong answer: 2nd and 4th derivative calculated in 'backward' mode are reported with an opposite sign.
>> derivest(@exp, 1, 'DerivativeOrder', 2, 'Style', 'backward')
ans =
2.7183
>> derivest(@exp, 1, 'DerivativeOrder', 4, 'Style', 'backward')
ans =
2.7183
Carlo Cabrera (view profile)
Matt J (view profile)
@Yaguang Yang
It's definitely better than fminunc, but I would caution you on assuming "the code has never failures". There are still wrinkles in there, like this one reported by Paul (Nov. 2015)
>> jacobianest(@(x) x+10, 1e12)
ans =
0
Yaguang Yang (view profile)
Very reliable tool. I build my modified Newton code based on John's code and compared modified Newton to fminunc in matlab optimization toolbox. For millions trials of randomly generated problems (an engineer problem will different size and parameters), the code has never failures; but fminunc has numerous failures. The problem for modified Newton including John's DERIVESTsuite is the speed is much slower than fminunc. My question to John is: can you build mexfile for your matlab code so that people can use mexfile instead of mfile for large problems?
Matt J (view profile)
@Abhinav,
Even if you are computing the derivative at a positive x, there is no reason a priori that the finite differencing used by jacobianest should avoid evaluating the function at negative x. Finite differencing always involves sampling some distance to the right and left of the desired point. However, if you are working with scalar x (it sounds like you are from your example), you could use derivest instead. derivest offers input options to limit the finite differencing stepsize, overriding the adaptive selection.
Abhinav (view profile)
@matt
Thanks a lot for your reply. I don't intend to compute derivative at x=0. The problem is that the 'jacobianest' still tries to evaluate my function at negative values. For example, when I try to compute the derivative at x=2.5, jacobianest is evaluating my function at 252.50 and 247.50.
Matt J (view profile)
@Abhinav
For a function to be differentiable at a point, it must be defined on an open region around that point. It is a fundamental part of the definition of a derivative. So f(x) defined only for x>=0 cannot be differentiable at x=0.
Abhinav (view profile)
Hi John,
Thanks for a great code!
I want to find out the derivatives of a function which has positive support, i.e., the function is defined only for the positive parameter. I have not been able to figure out a way to put constraints on the variable. Can you please suggest a way to do it?
Best
AG.
Thomas Ligon (view profile)
Is there any issue with running DERIVEST within a parfor loop? I have been using it successfully for some time and today I embedded it in a parfor loop, and I got an error that I haven't been able to reproduce singly.
Mahdi S. Hosseini (view profile)
A generalized framework called MaxPol has been recently published and made available here
https://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/63294maxpolsmoothinganddifferentiationpackage
MaxPol provides a framework to design variety of numerical differentiation kernels with properties like:
(1) Cutoff (lowpass) design with no sidelob artifacts (for noiserobust case)
(2) Arbitrary order of differentiation
(3) Arbitrary polynomial accuracy
(4) Derivative matrix design
(5) 2D Derivative Kernels with Steering moments
(6) Intuitive examples in Signal and Image processing
Mark Brandon (view profile)
Using this code for an MLE calculation, and I found it to be fast, seamless, and well conceived. No doubt about it... John D'Errico produces codes that are simple, innovative, and bulletproof. I thank him for his contributions.
Mark
Miguel Martinez de Bujo Alonso de Linaje (view profile)
dengpingjun (view profile)
It's a good toolbox but some serious issues may be in it when I use the function jacobianest/hessianest. For example, when I define the very simple function fun1 in the script file fun1.m:
function res=fun1(x)
if x<=20
error('x must larger than 20');
end
res=sin(x);
end
then fun1 can be calculated at the point 21, the value is 0.8367. However, when using the function jacobianest as the following code
jacobianest(@sin, 21);
I find the following error notice:
error using fun1 (line 3)
20!
error JacobianEst (line 112)
fun(swapelement(x0,i,x0_i  delta(j)));
I don't know why. Hoping for your reply.
Best regards
Pingjun Deng
Filipe Figueiredo (view profile)
Jan (view profile)
M. F. (view profile)
leo nidas (view profile)
close all
clear all
clc
n=100;
m1=1;m2=2;
s1=1;s2=1;
x1=normrnd(m1,s1,n,1);
x2=normrnd(m2,s2,n,1);
h1=0.9*min(std(x1),iqr(x1)/1.34)*length(x1)^(0.2);
h2=0.9*min(std(x2),iqr(x2)/1.34)*length(x2)^(0.2);
F1inv =@(at) ksdensity(x1,at,'function','icdf','width',h1);%'support', 'positive');
F2 =@(at) ksdensity(x2,at,'function','cdf','width',h2);%'support', 'positive');
rochat=@(t) 1F2(F1inv(1t));
t=0:0.01:1;
plot(t,rochat(t));
title('I want the derivative of this curve at any given poit 0<t<1')
%=============================
%I want to find the derivative of rochat at say "at=0.8, 0.6, 0.4, 0.2, 0.1"
myderiv1=derivest(@(x) rochat(x), 0.8)
myderiv1=derivest(@(x) rochat(x), 0.6)
myderiv1=derivest(@(x) rochat(x), 0.4)
myderiv1=derivest(@(x) rochat(x), 0.2)
myderiv1=derivest(@(x) rochat(x), 0.1)
%WHY IS IT THE CASE THAT FOR THE FIRST THREE IT IS 0?
Rodrigo (view profile)
Fantastic tool. Great for spotting typos in gradients and jacobians that are being fed to solvers and optimizers.
Rodrigo Duran (view profile)
@Peng, derivest computes the derivative of a function of one variable, i.e. another function of one variable. The hessian is a square matrix of the second derivatives of a function of an ndimensional variable.
Peng Wang (view profile)
Hi,
I met some problems when using the codes. I wrote:
d=derivest(@(x) exp([1 3]*x0.1)+exp([1 3]*x0.1)+exp([1 0]*x0.1),[0;0])
in MATLAB, but it returns an error:
Error using *
Inner matrix dimensions must agree.
Error in GeneralFunction>@(x)exp([1,3]*x0.1)+exp([1,3]*x0.1)+exp([1,0]*x0.1)
Error in derivest (line 362)
f_plusdel = fun(x0i+h*delta);
But we I use the command hessian in MATLAB:
h=hessian(@(x) exp([1 3]*x0.1)+exp([1 3]*x0.1)+exp([1 0]*x0.1),[0;0])
it returns the right answer.
Can you help me to see what is wrong with derivest?
neiho (view profile)
Hi John,
Thanks for sharing this great package!:) I have a small question:
Can I choose the method (forward, etc.) and precision in jacobianest?
Only (?) jacobianest allows for vectorized code, but no options are provided.
Huck Febbo (view profile)
Thanks Matt J.
I am having other issues with this now though, is hessdiag.m, it goes into this for loop and
for ind = 1:nx
[HD(ind),err(ind),finaldelta(ind)] = derivest( ...
@(xi) fun(swapelement(x0,ind,xi)), ...
x0(ind),'deriv',2,'vectorized','no');
end
and it passes x0(ind), so it passed the first element of the x0 vector to derivest. Then in derivest:
% will we need fun(x0)?
if (rem(par.DerivativeOrder,2) == 0)  ~strncmpi(par.Style,'central',7)
if strcmpi(par.Vectorized,'yes')
f_x0 = fun(x0);
else
% not vectorized, so loop
f_x0 = zeros(size(x0));
for j = 1:numel(x0)
f_x0(j) = fun(x0(j));
end
end
else
f_x0 = [];
end
it fails:
K>> f_x0(j) = fun(x0(j))
In an assignment A(I) = B, the number of elements in B and I must be the same.
Because we passed x0(ind), which is a single number and not the entire vector. Any ideas? I don't want to muddle around in this doe and try to fix it as I assume that I have done something wrong in the first place. Thanks
Matt J (view profile)
@Huck,
This doesn't require any modification of DERIVEST. You can turn any function with extra parameters into a singleargument function using the techniques described here,
http://www.mathworks.com/help/optim/ug/passingextraparameters.html
Huck Febbo (view profile)
Can you please modify this toolbox so that the constraint function can also accept a set of parameters? For instance if I am trying to calculate the Jacobain of my constraints and my constraint function looks like this:
c = constraints(x, auxdata);
% where auxdata is a cell array of parameters that my constraint function needs to run
Thanks!
Matt J (view profile)
It definitely seems a lot more robust than the Optimization Toolbox finite differencers. However, I also see failure cases like that reported by Paul (23 Nov 2015). I'll up my score to 5 stars once those wrinkles are ironed out.
rihab (view profile)
Paul (view profile)
Hi John,
thanks for sharing this code. I found some numerical issues when estimating the Jacobian if the starting point is approaching zero.
For example:
jacobianest(@(x) x+10, 1e12)
is returning zero even though it should be one. A starting point of 1e11 works fine. Zero works as well because it is handled as a special case in the code. The problem is combining very small deltas with the relatively large +10 in the objective function, because delta is scaled by the starting point if the starting point is ~= 0 (line 100 in jacobianest.m). A workaround is just not scaling the deltas by the starting point.
Rodrigo Duran (view profile)
John,
It is because I know that difference formulae are very illconditioned that I am testing to see when does a fancy finitedifference scheme break down. I am looping over different values of coeff to get a feeling for this and every time i hit the mentioned value of coeff I see that derivest does very well at every point in vector v except in a vicinity of v==4. In other words your assumption about my belief is wrong and the question remains: what is so special about v==4 when noise is uniformly and randomly distributed in the interval [1e10,1e10]?
If you run my code several times with the derivest version available here you should see what I mean.
John D'Errico (view profile)
No, no, no. There is no bug, except in your belief that derivest is a tool designed to solve the problem you pose.
A function that contains random noise is by definition not differentiable everywhere. Derivest is not designed to differentiate a noisy function, nor should it be expected to do so. While derivest tries to be insensitive to tiny amounts of noise (essentially in the least significant bits) you invalidate the use of a tool that tries to differentiate a function that actually HAS a derivative.
While the underlying function in your problem HAS a derivative, once you add noise to it, the result is NOT differentiable.
Note that differentiation is an illposed problem, in the sense that it tends to amplify any noise in the function. I'm not sure that it matters, but then you tried to use a higher order method to generate the derivative. This will induce more noise amplification yet.
You might wish to use a tool that can essentially smooth away the noise, differentiating the result. There are many such tools, depending on your application and what you need out the end. This might be anything from a SavitskyGolay tool to a least squares spline or local polynomial model, or other tools.
Rodrigo Duran (view profile)
John,
I was testing finite differences with noise as follows:
coeff=1e10;
v=0:0.1:2*pi;
[d,~]=derivest(@(x) sin(x)+coeff*(1+2*rand(size(x))),v,'deriv',2,'MethodOrder',4);
plot(v,d,'o')
Every time I run this code (i.e. with different noise generated with rand in the interval [coeff coeff]), the error is much larger near v==4. This seems unusual and suggests a bug to me. Didn't look into derivest but thought I would report it.
Thanks for your submissions!!
Rodrigo.
Matthias (view profile)
Hello John,
great work. Very helpful.
I think the hessian calculation can be speeded up significantly, if the evaluation of the function under test is slow (as it is in my case):
In hessian.m you call hessiandiag.m. It needs to calculate the function values at certain sample points.
gradest.m, which is also called by hessian.m, calculates the function values at the same sample points as hessiandiag.m. So it's unnecessary to do it twice.
@Simon Tardivel: I can confirm your obseravtion as well as your workaround. Thank you.
Simon Tardivel (view profile)
Hello John,
Thank you very much for this code. It's well written, simple to use, fast enough for its purpose. It is strange that these functions are still missing in the official builtin functions.
However, I may have found a bug/unexpected behavior. I can't unfortunately share the code (plus it requires thousands of lines of code...) but here's the problem and a working fix:
Situation: a hessdiag I was computing was supposed to yield [a b c] with a,b,c all different from 0. I know they are all different from 0, the laws of physics require it. However b is rather small, usually a couple orders of magnitude smaller than a. a and c are comparable, of opposite sign.
Problem: hessdiag outputted [a,0,0] and the estimated error was [10^7*a, 0, 0].
Fix: I went to derivest and changed the default RombergTerms from 2 to 3. b and c reappeared. b was estimated to about 10^3*a and c was approximately a  and it is their correct values.
I have no idea what the problem fundamentally was. I've just noticed that hessian has default Romberg terms = 3 but doesn't pass this argument to the computation of the gradient that assumes Romberg terms = 2. It seems that, in fact, Romberg terms = 3 is used only for the upper triangle (3+1 really). Maybe that caused the problem? I do not know anything about numerical differentiation methods so that may be completely off point...
Best,
Simon.
Jacob (view profile)
Hello,
I was wondering if you can give me your opinion on the following issue.
jacobianest fails to work for my function and I think the reason may be that I am trying to evaluate the Jacobian at a point near the boundary of the function domain. Is this a reasonable guess? If so, how I can I fix this? My intuition is that the MaxStep is too large and the code tries to evaluate the function where it is not defined. But can I just pick a smaller value of MaxStep?
Thanks!
John D'Errico (view profile)
You do realize that the function you typed is not actually valid MATLAB syntax?
f=@(x)(1/2*x'(Ax) + x'b)
For example, x'b may be ok when you write it on paper, but MATLAB requires a * operator between them to understand that a multiply (dot product) is intended there.
Next, you write this:
f=@(x)(1/2*x'(Ax) + x'b)
derivest(f0,x0),
So, you define the function f, but then try to call derivest with f0. How should it know that you intended something other than what you wrote?
My guess is you are not being careful in what you do. USE VALID SYNTAX.
ak135AK (view profile)
I have a quadratic function:
1/2x'Ax + x'b
but it seems to be not working, does it work in general? or am I making mistake in calling it?
I have tried:
f=@(x)(1/2*x'(Ax) + x'b)
derivest(f0,x0), but always get following error:
Not enough input arguments.
Error in derivest (line 362)
f_plusdel = fun(x0i+h*delta);
Is there something to do in order to get it working?
Thanks !
John D'Errico (view profile)
You might THINK of the gradient of a function of multiple variables as the derivative, but it is not. A derivative is defined on a function of ONE variable, at least, unless they have changed calculus since I took it.
derivest computes the derivative, dy/dx, of a function y(x), a function of one variable.
The fact is, I do provide a gradient calculator in the package, so you might have tried that! Look at the help. Look at the demos.
Finally, I'm not going to look that carefully at your code to see if it makes sense. But a quick glance shows lines like this:
p = max(p,0.0000001);
This will make your function nondifferentiable, and should have no purpose at all since you are computing a loglikelihood function in the first place! It does seem irrelevant of course, since you fail to use p after that in your code. Why compute something if you intend to dump it in the bit bucket?
These next lines do however get used, and they will indeed make the function nondifferentiable.
y = reshape(y,max(alt),max(ncs));
x = reshape(exp(v(b)),max(alt),max(ncs));
So I think you need to consider what it is you are doing, and maybe if there is a reason why an optimizer fails, if it presumes the function it is trying to optimize is differentiable, when your function is not so.
Sebastian (view profile)
Hi there,
I am currently working on getting MATLAB to optimize LogLikelihood functions for some econometric models. The problem is that the internal optimiser seems to have issues with maximising these functions. Thus, I want to see if things get better if I provide a good numerical estimate of the gradient. Thus, I found this toolbox. However, I have some problems to make it run. Here is a very easy example of the function I am trying to optimize:
function logli = logl(b,v,ncs,alt,y)
y = reshape(y,max(alt),max(ncs));
x = reshape(exp(v(b)),max(alt),max(ncs));
p = x(y == 1)./sum(x)';
p = max(p,0.0000001);
logli = sum(log(x(y == 1)./sum(x)'));
end
where
v is an anonymous function like
v = @(b) b(1)*x1 + b(2)*x2 + b(3)*x3
b is the parameter vector with starting values
b = [0,0,0]
ncs and alt are identifyer variables
y is the independent variable
Now if I want to obtain the first derivative I use:
[der,errest] = derivest(@(b)logl(b,v,ncs,alt,y),b)
but get the error message:
Error using derivest (line 409)
fun did not return the correct size result (fun must be vectorized)
If I specify:
[der,errest] = derivest(@(b)logl(b,v,ncs,alt,y),b,'Vectorized','no')
It seems to pass only one dimension of b as I get
Attempted to access b(2); index out of bounds because numel(b)=1.
The data structure of these problems is:
ncs alt y x1 x2 x3
1 1 1 x11 x21 x31
1 2 0 x12 x22 x32
1 3 0 x13 x23 x33
2 1 0 x11 x21 x31
2 2 1 x12 x22 x32
2 3 0 x13 x23 x33
...
I would be very happy about any recommendation on how to use the derivest function in that case.
Cheers
Sebastian
John D'Errico (view profile)
The simple answer is to use the hessian function. For example, I'll compute a second derivative
d^2f/dxdy
of the function:
y = sin(x + y^2)
at the point (x,y) = (2,3). I'll do it using these tools, then do it again using the symbolic toolbox to verify the answer.
fun = @(xy) sin(xy(1) + xy(2).^2);
format long g
hessian(fun,[2 3])
ans =
0.999990206550529 5.99994123927655
5.99994123927655 36.0084988318012
So the second partial you want is the (1,2) element, thus the off diagonal element of the hessian matrix.
Now verify that value using symbolic means.
syms x y
fs = sin(x + y.^2);
dfs_dxdy = diff(diff(fs,x),y)
dfs_dxdy =
2*y*sin(y^2 + x)
subs(dfs_dxdy,{x,y},[2 3])
ans =
6*sin(11)
vpa(ans)
ans =
5.9999412393042207423093893941531
So that worked well enough, although it did compute additional terms that we did not really need.
I could do it using derivest too, although it looks like I had to tell derivest that this function is not properly vectorized.
fun = @(x,y) sin(x + y.^2);
So as a function of y, at x == 2, we would have
dfdx = @(y) derivest(@(x)fun(x,y), 2, 'vectorized', 'no');
derivest(dfdx,3,'vectorized','no')
ans =
5.99994123930711
Muhammad Awais (view profile)
Great file, i have a question. I have an objective function and i taking its derivative wrt to input in matlab. I want to take the derivative two times, one time with respect to input and other time with respect to parameter. But if once i have use GRADEST to get the gradient wrt input now i have answer in an number, that is a gradient. How can second time i can take the gradient when i dont have the first derivative in some kind of a formulation.
Guilherme (view profile)
Great File, many thanks for it.
However, I am currently facing some issues with my function (bad scaled parameters), and therefore with the second derivatives matrix (Hessian).
Here is the deal: I am minimizing a cost function (xˆ2 = (y  ymodel)^2), where my model is 3 nonlinear parameter one, using a Nelder Mead algo.
Using the hessian function from your package using bestfit parameters, yielded me some strange results (since Parameter_1 ranges from [0.1:0.9], Parameter_2 from [10:30] and Parameter_3 from [150:250]), that is, I need to reescale them. My question is, what is the best way to do that and does your code endogenously scale the results by any chance ?
Thank you very much in advance,
Niklas (view profile)
kartik srinivasan (view profile)
Andres Tovar (view profile)
Adam Auton (view profile)
Tim (view profile)
Loads better than fmincon's output
Danny (view profile)
Camille (view profile)
Great submission, saves me a lot of work, thanks!
Matthew (view profile)
John D'Errico (view profile)
retrobytes  not all functions will be able to use complex arguments, so derivest avoids that approach. Hyperdual numbers would appear to have the same flaw, at least without a great deal of effort invested.
retrobytes (view profile)
A very useful tool, John, thanks!
Did any of you guys think about implementing the hyperdual numbers approach for this? I recently came across this:
http://www.stanford.edu/~jfike/SNUpresentation_rev4.pdf
and:
http://www.stanford.edu/~jfike/hyperdual.html
and I was wondering if any of you tried it instead of using complex numbers?
Anders MunkNielsen (view profile)
Absolutely awesome work! So easy to use, brilliantly done. This is probably the best thing to happen to mankind since sliced bread. And to put it up for free? John, you sir are a good man!
Roberto Calandra (view profile)
Just great
daisy (view profile)
Md. Ikramul Hasan (view profile)
ehs (view profile)
Woodeast (view profile)
Thanks a lot for this useful tool!
I have a question about how far away will the program evaluate the fun from the initial point. I have a function which only exits in a certain range around the initial point(but big enough in my sense, e.g. starting at .1, requiring >0). However, the program will break down for evaluating out of range points after a fare amount of calculation. Could you please give me some idea about why this happens?
(BTW, my function has some randomness, does this matter?)
Thanks so much!
Andrew Newell (view profile)
Excellent! Some of its predecessors also do accurate derivatives, but this one is particularly easy to use for gradients and Hessians.
Mark (view profile)
H John,
This looks great. I'm trying to use the Hessian function to find the Fisher Information Matrix for Maxlikelihood. However the Hessian program is choosing parameters which are not allowable in my chosen model. How can I restrict the Hessian algorythmn for permissible parameter values
John D'Errico (view profile)
Your problem is in the way you called the code.
H=hessian(@(p) @reg2002, [0.03 3 5])
Here is part of the error message:
"??? The following error occurred converting from function_handle to double:
Error using ==> double
Conversion to double from function_handle is not possible."
Is reg2002 a function mfile, into which you are trying to pass the variable p? If so, then you could have done this
H=hessian('reg2002', [0.03 3 5])
or, you could have done this
H=hessian(@reg2002, [0.03 3 5])
In either case, it assumes that reg2002 is an mfile, and passes in a variable with two elements in it asa vector. It would return a 2x2 Hessian matrix. The use of @reg2002 turns that into a function handle.
See the error message you had though. Matlab sees this:
@(p) @reg2002
and tries to return a function handle as the result of a function. Then my code looks at it, and tries to use the function handle as a number. Of course it fails.
Finally, you might also have done this
H=hessian(@(p) reg2002(p), [0.03 3 5])
Here, you would be creating an anonymous function, a function of the variable p. It is yet another function handle that the code can use properly.
emma liu (view profile)
hi John, many thanks for the wonderful suite!
I met a problem when I use the function from the mfile. my code is:
H=hessian(@(p) @reg2002, [0.03 3 5])
??? The following error occurred converting from function_handle to double:
Error using ==> double
Conversion to double from function_handle is not possible.
Error in ==> derivest at 330
f_x0(j) = fun(x0(j));
Error in ==> hessdiag at 59
[HD(ind),err(ind),finaldelta(ind)] = derivest( ...
Error in ==> hessian at 74
[hess,err] = hessdiag(fun,x0);
I don't what is wrong here. is there mistakes I made? many thanks in advance.
Emma
John D'Errico (view profile)
Felipe  Note that the submissions #15235 and #26807 actually appeared AFTER my tool (#13490) did. Submissions are assigned sequential numbers on the FEX. I see no reason to acknowledge a later submission on the FEX. In general, since forward acknowledgement would seem to require precognition of some sort, it is rather difficult to accomplish. In fact, most of the references in that Wikipedia article referenced appeared several years after this tool was written and posted on the FEX.
I will modify the title in light of your comment though, since the phrase might conceivably confuse some people.
Felipe G. Nievinski (view profile)
"Automatic" in the title might confound viewers that it implements "automatic differentiation", see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_differentiation> and submission # 26807.
You might want to use the acknowledgement field so that related submission #15235 backlinks to yours.
Haven't tried it yet, reason why I'm not rating it.
Kulan (view profile)
Sturla Kvamsdal (view profile)
Hi John,
Thank you very much for the great suite!
The information on the Hessianfunction explicitly states that it is not for frequent use on an expensive to evaluate objective function. I tried it anyway, because that is what I need. Most of the time, I get something reasonable (hard to check, but I'll worry about that later), but sometimes I get NaN's. Any idea what the problem might be?
Perhaps some more details are warranted: The function I want to differentiate is a likelihoodfunction. It is a function of time, and I need the Hessian at the maximum for each timestep. (The maximum is one point associated to the last time period.) The function takes 5 parameters.
Any help or ideas appreciated!
Thank you very much,
Sturla
John D'Errico (view profile)
If you are looking for all of the second partials, then yes, a loop on the Hessian computation seems the solution.
Aydin Buluc (view profile)
Hi John,
Thanks much for the quick response.
jacobianest was indeed what I needed, should have looked into the whole package first.
I was looking at the hessian function, which doesn't allow me to use a vector function (perhaps understandably, as the output would be a tensor otherwise).
Proceeding with the matrixvector example
@(x) A*x;
Should I loop over the rows of and call hessian m times to get all the Hessians?
for i=1:m
f = @(x) A(i,:)*x; // Returns a scalar
[h(i) herr(i)] = hessian(f, x0);
end
Thanks,
 Aydin
John D'Errico (view profile)
Hi Aydin,
The trick is, derivest itself takes only a function of a single variable. Suppose I had a scalar function of three variables. Thus it takes a set of three variables, returning a single number. If you wish to compute a partial derivative of that function, then you get a single number out. But that is a partial derivative, NOT a derivative. "The" derivative of a scalar function of three variables is given by the gradient vector, composed of three partial derivatives. So I have provided the tool gradest. Use it for scalar functions of multiple variables.
Now, suppose I have a function of n variables, that produces m output results? (This is what you have by the way.) Now you must compute a Jacobian MATRIX, an m by n matrix of partial derivatives. Again, derivest is not the tool, nor is gradest. This is a different problem that requires a different tool yet, so I wrote jacobianest.
>> A = magic(3)
A =
8 1 6
3 5 7
4 9 2
>> [J,Jerr] = jacobianest(fun,[1;2;3])
J =
8 1 6
3 5 7
4 9 2
Jerr =
7.7667e14 9.7084e15 5.3057e14
2.6528e14 4.3706e14 7.09e14
3.8833e14 9.4059e14 1.9417e14
In the case that you really only wanted to know the derivative of a specific element of the result, with respect to a specific single variable out of the several inputs, you need to define a function where the OTHER variables are held fixed. Thus...
>> x1 = 1;
>> x2 = 2;
>> fun2 = @(x3) [0 1 0]*fun([x1;x2;x3]);
>> [d23,derr] = derivest(fun2,3,'vectorized','no')
d23 =
7
derr =
4.785e14
Thus, fun2 fixes the first two variables, then extracts out the second output result. derivest can now operate, as long as I tell it that this function is not vectorized. It is not set up to take a vector of inputs and produce one result for each. fun2 takes only a scalar input, and produces only a scalar output.
John
Aydin Buluc (view profile)
Hi John,
Thanks for the lovely tool.
I couldn't figure out how to differentiate multivariable functions with it though. For example,
f = @(x) A*x
where A is a matrix and x is a vector.
Your code seems to do the following:
% Loop over the elements of x0, reducing it to
% a scalar problem. Sorry, vectorization is not
% complete here, but this IS only a single loop.
der = zeros(nx0);
errest = der;
finaldelta = der;
for i = 1:n
...
end
while A*x doesn't really reduce to a single scalar problem as far as I can see. Any suggestions?
Alessandro (view profile)
Sorry John, sorted out the problem, was my fault... thanks again for these useful codes.
Alessandro
Alessandro (view profile)
Hi John,
I tried to run the Rosenbrock example included in the help of your routine hessian, i.e. I ran
rosen = @(x) (1x(1)).^2 + 105*(x(2)x(1).^2).^2;
[h,err] = hessian(rosen,[1 1])
I get the following error:
"??? Error using ==> subsindex
Function 'subsindex' is not defined for values of class 'function_handle'."
do you know how to solve this?
thank you.
Alessandro
John D'Errico (view profile)
I believe that fmincon has improved since my statement in the past, so that the hessian as returned is now a better approximation. Of course, if you supply the hessian, no updates are needed.
Januj (view profile)
Hi Errico,
In another post, you stated that matlab does not compute the Hessian very well. Is this why the Hessian may not get updated in fmincon? Secondly, would providing a usersuppled Hessian (through the DERIVEST routine, for e.g.) be able to improve the ability of fmincon to update the Hessian in all cases? Thanks!
Kimonas Fountoulakis (view profile)
HI Errico
I tried to expand your code in order to derivate Bilinear Matrix inequalities. The program is still in a rough form, in particular I didn't implement the error part of the estimation, but I was able to produce derivatives of a BMI function correctly. If you are interested in sending you the programm please let me know. I will try though one of these days to implement the error term as well.
Kimonas
John D'Errico (view profile)
Hi Andrew,
The point is, derivest uses a sequence of nested approximations, using a geometric sequence of points for the steps. For example, suppose we chose to compute the derivative of tan(x), at x = pi*2/3.
[D,errest] = derivest(@tan,pi*2/3)
D =
4
errest =
7.0302e13
Tan(x) has a singularity at x = pi/2, so if the step size is chosen to be large enough, the approximations will actually span that singularity. This will cause the corresponding estimate to be useless, but since there are multiple estimates produced, some of them will be good, and I can figure out which estimates in the sequence ARE good and which ones are bad.
I pick that estimate with the lowest predicted error, along with some additional criteria.
A nice thing about the nested sequence of approximations is it allows me to deal with functions that have problem scaling. I can almost always find a viable solution.
John
Andrew Newell (view profile)
In derivest_demo.m, I found the following statement:
"Although a central rule may put some samples in the wrong places, it may still succeed"
How would it put samples in the "wrong places"?
John D'Errico (view profile)
Hi Prasanna,
In theory, I could have written derivest to provide higher derivatives. In practice, high order numerical differentiation is difficult to do. Differentiation is a noise amplifier. It takes any tiny noise in your system, and boosts it. By the time you get up to the 4th derivative or so, the noise down in the least significant bits can start to cause numerical problems. For this reason, I limited it there. Any further, and I was no longer able to trust what was coming out in some test cases. And since I had to put a limit somewhere, I chose 4 as the maximum order of derivative it would provide.
You can use the error estimate provided as a measure of how well I think I was able to do. As an example, try a simple trig function. Differentiate sin(x), at x = pi/4. The result will always be plus or minus sqrt(2)/2, depending on the derivative order.
>> fun = @sin;
>> [D,DE] = derivest(fun,pi/4,'derivativeorder',1)
D =
0.70711
DE =
7.0617e15
For the first derivative, I can give virtually full precision. However, the second derivative is not quite so verifiably computable, and the error estimate reflects that fact.
>> [D,DE] = derivest(fun,pi/4,'derivativeorder',2)
D =
0.70711
DE =
1.666e12
>> [D,DE] = derivest(fun,pi/4,'derivativeorder',3)
D =
0.70711
DE =
6.6146e11
>> [D,DE] = derivest(fun,pi/4,'derivativeorder',4)
D =
0.70711
DE =
1.9122e05
See that by the time I've gotten to the 4th derivative, derivest tells me only to trust the first 4 or 5 digits in the result. Had I allowed higher orders here, the result would rapidly become a virtual random number generator.
Now, with care, one could modify the code to work for 5th derivatives. Just look for par.DerivativeOrder, and see what was done, extending the code for 5th order derivatives. A quick check through the code finds only one or two spots where serious understanding of the methods employed was necessary. (To be honest, leave such a modification of the code to me.)
Can you nest derivest calls? Yes, in theory you can do so to produce higher order derivatives, and the error estimate will tell you if it thinks it is generating garbage for a result. This test computes the 5th derivative of sin(x), at pi/4.
>> format long g
>> d2 = @(x) derivest(fun,pi/4 + x,'derivativeorder',2);
>> [d5,d5err] = derivest(d2,0,'derivativeorder',3)
d5 =
0.707106775613828
d5err =
4.17633428512851e08
>> sqrt(2)/2
ans =
0.707106781186548
Note that derivest thinks it was able to do so reasonably well, and it was just about right on where it tells you to no longer trust the digits in the result. In fact, in this case, the nested result is probably more accurate than a direct computation of the 5th derivative. So the 3rd derivative of the second derivative is more accurate (but a bit slower!) than a direct computation of the 5th derivative.
HTH,
John
Prasanna Venkatesh (view profile)
Hello John,
This piece of code is great. I had one question, I have a function for which I have no analytical expression, hence cannot vectorize it. But I can do pretty fast numerical computation of it and I know that it has smooth first, second, third and fourth derivatives by applying your DerivTest function on it. I need one more derivative to complete my calculation and I was wondering if I should make an anonymous function out of the fourth derivative calculation using DerivTest and take its first derivative to get the fifth. I wanted to know if there is some specific reason for which this code goes only upto 4th derivative?
J West (view profile)
Thanks very much, that was exceptionally helpful. These are a nice set of functions and very much appreciated.
Unsurprisingly, calling a loop to gradest for several points inside fminsearch is not the fastest thing in the world, but such are the tradeoffs, and it does seem to do the job!
John D'Errico (view profile)
I have provided the related function gradest to compute a gradient, zipped with derivest. For example, I'll pick arbitrary values for the parameters k1,k2,k3,k4,k5, and then define a function handle.
k1 = 1/2;
k2 = 1/3;
k3 = 1/4;
k4 = 1/5;
k5 = 1/6;
fun = @(xyz) k1*xyz(1)*(1 ...
exp(k2*(xyz(2)^k3)*(xyz(3)^k4)*(xyz(1)^k5)))
Now, call gradest...
gradest(fun,[1 2 3])
ans =
0.21997 0.018836 0.010046
For multiple points, wrap a loop around the call to gradest.
John
J West (view profile)
I may be missing something obvious here, but is there a clever way to use derivest to calculate a set of partial derivatives?
I have a function something like
f = k1 * x * (1  exp(k2*(y^k3)*(z^k4)*(x^k5))
and would like to be able to calculate partial derivatives df/dx, df/dy, and df/dz for sets of specific values of x, y, and z.
I am doing this in order to calculate an error weighting for least squares fitting  I have uncertainties in x, y, and z which I would like to map onto f in order to determine a weighting factor for the minimization (so I want the gradient at each point). I would prefer to determine the derivative numerically because that will allow me the most flexibility in being able to try different forms of the function, etc.
Many thanks.
John D'Errico (view profile)
Large relative reported errors might mean that the derivative computed is small compared to the uncertainty in it. It may also mean that there is some problem in the computation, leaving the derivative uncertain. It is difficult to know what has happened from only this description.
One option is to compute the derivative in question using derivest in stead of the hessian tool. While this will be less efficient, there are many more options for overcoming problems that I have provided in derivest itself. That way you could be sure of what is the problem, and hopefully overcome it.
pekka (view profile)
Hi,
I have some problem that sometimes when I compute the hessian I get that err contains terms that are larger than terms in the reported hessian. What are the reasons for this and are there any general ways to rewrite something to avoid this problem?
V (view profile)
thank you very much for your quick reply
i'll get release 14 or 7
John D'Errico (view profile)
Hi V,
You must be using an old MATLAB release. Here is what happens when I try your example in R2010a:
>> myfun1 = inline('exp(x)');
[d,err]=derivest(myfun1,1,'Vectorized','no')
d =
2.7183
err =
2.1641e14
So then I looked more carefully at your comment. I see the warning message gives the answer away.
Warning: File: C:\MATLAB6p5\work\derivest.m Line: 463 Column: 1
Unmatched "end".
You are running version 6.5 (i.e., release 13.) Derivest was written in Release 14, or version 7. As such, it uses several things that will cause your MATLAB release to be quite unhappy.
Sorry,
John
V (view profile)
hi john,
i tried this
myfun1 = inline('exp(x)');
[d,err]=derivest(myfun1,1,'Vectorized','no')
and i got the error below,
thanks for any help you can provide
Warning: File: C:\MATLAB6p5\work\derivest.m Line: 463 Column: 1
Unmatched "end".
(Type "warning off MATLAB:m_warning_end_without_block" to suppress this warning.)
Warning: File: C:\MATLAB6p5\work\derivest.m Line: 523 Column: 1
Unmatched "end".
(Type "warning off MATLAB:m_warning_end_without_block" to suppress this warning.)
Warning: File: C:\MATLAB6p5\work\derivest.m Line: 538 Column: 1
Unmatched "end".
(Type "warning off MATLAB:m_warning_end_without_block" to suppress this warning.)
Warning: File: C:\MATLAB6p5\work\derivest.m Line: 573 Column: 1
Unmatched "end".
(Type "warning off MATLAB:m_warning_end_without_block" to suppress this warning.)
Warning: File: C:\MATLAB6p5\work\derivest.m Line: 659 Column: 1
Unmatched "end".
(Type "warning off MATLAB:m_warning_end_without_block" to suppress this warning.)
Warning: File: C:\MATLAB6p5\work\derivest.m Line: 759 Column: 1
Unmatched "end".
(Type "warning off MATLAB:m_warning_end_without_block" to suppress this warning.)
??? Error using ==> factorial
N must be a positive integer.
Error in ==> C:\MATLAB6p5\work\derivest.m (fdamat)
On line 564 ==> c = 1./factorial(1:2:(2*nterms));
Error in ==> C:\MATLAB6p5\work\derivest.m
On line 275 ==> fdarule = [1 0]/fdamat(par.StepRatio,1,2);
Richard Crozier (view profile)
Another really excellent piece of code, I hope TMW buy you a nice christmas present every year for extending their software so extensively for them.
David Doria (view profile)
Adam (view profile)
Hello,
Hessian does not work, neither in any example nor when I try to use it. It gives the message:
Function 'subsindex' is not defined for values of class 'function_handle'.
All other functions seem to be great though..
Best,
Adam
Michelle (view profile)
Hi John,
Thanks for the timely and detailed reply! I had assumed that derivest handles all cases. Now I see jacobianest is a standalone function. Thanks again! And great code!
Michelle
John D'Errico (view profile)
Hi Michelle,
The problem is, when you define myfun as you have, it is not a scalar valued function. It returns a vector argument. Thus we can do this:
myfun=inline('[exp(x);exp(2*x)]');
myfun(2)
ans =
7.3891
54.598
See that there are two numbers returned for a scalar input.
(By the way, I'd strongly recommend the use of function handles and anonymous functions instead of inline functions. An inline function is comparatively very slow to evaluate.)
The derivest code computes the derivative of a scalar valued function. Change your function to return a scalar value, as do myfun1 and myfun2 below, and derivest works as designed.
myfun1 = inline('exp(x)');
[d,err]=derivest(myfun1,1,'Vectorized','no')
d =
2.7183
err =
9.3127e15
myfun2 = inline('exp(2*x)');
[d,err]=derivest(myfun2,1,'Vectorized','no')
d =
14.778
err =
1.8401e13
Now, how might one define the derivative of a vector valued function? This is defined mathematically as the Jacobian. In fact, in the derivest suite, I have provided the jacobianest function to compute what you wish. It works on a vector valued function, returning a jacobian matrix. Here, since the parameter of these functions is a scalar, the Jacobian matrix is just a vector of length 2.
[d,err] = jacobianest(myfun,1)
d =
2.7183
14.778
err =
3.6841e14
1.4736e13
John
Michelle (view profile)
Thanks so much for making such a useful suite available!
I was experimenting with the code and typed in the following two commands:
>> myfun=inline('[exp(x);exp(2*x)]')
>> [d,err]=derivest(myfun,1,'Vectorized','no')
but got back error messages that read
??? In an assignment A(I) = B, the number of elements in B and
I must be the same.
Error in ==> <a href="error:/a/fmalx1/lcl/fma/res1/mxw/research/min/code/matlab/DERIVESTsuite/derivest.m,362,1">derivest at 362</a>
f_plusdel(j) = fun(x0i+h*delta(j));
I'm posting it here because I thought you might be able to spot the problem much more quickly than I could. Could you let me know?
Thanks in advance for your help!
John D'Errico (view profile)
Benn,
My guess is that you have written your own factorial function, probably as a homework assignment, since the error messages show a recursive implementation of factorial. This causes a failure in derivest, since your version is not properly vectorized. By vectorized, I mean that when called with a list of numbers, the Mathworks version of factorial computes the factorial of each number.
You can learn which factorial version is called by typing this at the command line:
which factorial all
MATLAB will show which version of the factorial function will be used. You should see the version that you wrote listed at the very top.
At first, I thought that possibly you simply are using an old version of MATLAB, but this is unlikely, since the Mathworks would never have written the factorial function to have a recursive definition as I see. (Recursive factorial definitions are a nice way to teach a student recursive coding styles, but they are a terrible coding style in practice because of the extraneous, wasted function call overhead just to multiply a list of consecutive numbers together.)
The solution is to remove the bad (homework assignment) version of factorial from your search path. It will be inefficient anyway compared to the supplied version of factorial that MATLAB already comes with, and your version is not properly vectorized. At the very least, move it to another place far down on your search path so that matlab will use the correct version of factorial instead.
John
Benn Eifert (view profile)
help! just downloaded the toolbox and tried to run the most basic example in the derivest documentation:
[d,e]=derivest(@(x) exp(x),1)
and got a bunch of errors of this form:
Error in ==> factorial at 8
x = n*factorial(n1);
Error in ==> factorial at 8
x = n*factorial(n1);
Error in ==> derivest>fdamat at 564
c = 1./factorial(1:2:(2*nterms));
Error in ==> derivest at 283
fdarule = [0 1 0]/fdamat(par.StepRatio,1,3);
Serter YILMAZ (view profile)
Works really fine! very helpful! Thanks...
Mark A. Mikofski (view profile)
This worked better than fminsearch when used as a damped newton method for finding a root with extremely high sensitivity. fminsearch was overly slow, and often overshot the root, even though the tolerance was high, and fzero didn't work at all. Derivest was fast.
This is the second time I've used great code from John D'Erico.
Thanks!
John D'Errico (view profile)
I've just uploaded a new release that repairs the problem of complex domain differentiation. For example, the current release now gets this correct:
exp(1+i)
ans =
1.4687 + 2.2874i
derivest(@(z) exp(z),1+i)
ans =
1.4687 + 2.2874i
liuxbin xbin (view profile)
When I use this function to get the derivative at the complex numbers,problem appears.For example:
derivest(@(z) exp(z),1+i)
ans =
1.46869393991590  2.28735528717885i
However,the derivative of exp(z) at z(complex numbers) should be exp(z)
exp(1+i)
ans =
1.46869393991589 + 2.28735528717884i
which is the conjucate of the above.
Rock 'n' Roll
Rock 'n' Roll
Works just great. I was in a situation where using hessiancs was problematic because the functions being evaluated had a transiently complex nature. hessiancs works well with functions that never use any complex arithmetic, but watch out for using complex steps if the internals use any complex arithmetic, even if the inputs and outputs are both real. Downloaded the package, changed function names, and it worked right out of the box  slower, but 'bulletproof' sometimes beats 'fast'. Good documentation, etc., too. I appreciate that hessiancs used a similar form to the one you used  I'll go back to it when I need more speed and have the time to fix my loss functions.
Scott
Can anyone let me know what conflicted with lightspeed? I'll try to fix it if possible. It might be a function name that I chose. Otherwise, this is just basic Matlab code.
Very useful! I was able to use this to check my symbolically derived hessian matrix in an optimization routine... optimset('DerivativeCheck','on') checks the gradient numerically, but apparently not the hessian.
In case anyone else has a problem, I found that this was incompadible with the matlab Lightspeed toolbox, but that is no doubt the Lightspeed toolbox's fault. Removing lightspeed fixed the issue.
THIS WEBSITE IS VERY HELPFULL :)
I get this error sometimes:
??? Improper assignment with rectangular empty matrix.
Error in ==> derivest at 457
[errest(i),ind] = min(errors);
 why that would be?
The best!