diff --git a/docs/source/bibliography.rst b/docs/source/bibliography.rst
index ab2a29f..5352c65 100644
--- a/docs/source/bibliography.rst
+++ b/docs/source/bibliography.rst
@@ -94,6 +94,10 @@
    Part II: Implementation and Experiments**, Management Science,
    20(5), 863-874, 1974.
 
+.. [Press] W. H. Press, S. A. Teukolsky, W. T. Vetterling
+   & B. P. Flannery, **Numerical Recipes**, Cambridge University
+   Press, 2007.
+
 .. [Ridders] C. J. F. Ridders, **Accurate computation of F'(x) and
    F'(x) F"(x)**, Advances in Engineering Software 4(2), 75-76, 1978.
 
diff --git a/docs/source/derivatives.rst b/docs/source/derivatives.rst
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e0638c9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/source/derivatives.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,1005 @@
+.. default-domain:: cpp
+
+.. cpp:namespace:: ceres
+
+.. _chapter-on_derivatives:
+
+==============
+On Derivatives
+==============
+
+.. _section-introduction:
+
+Introduction
+============
+
+Ceres Solver like all gradient based optimization algorithms, depends
+on being able to evaluate the objective function and its derivatives
+at arbitrary points in its domain. Indeed, defining the objective
+function and its `Jacobian
+<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobian_matrix_and_determinant>`_ is
+the principal task that the user is required to perform when solving
+an optimization problem using Ceres Solver. The correct and efficient
+computation of the Jacobian is the key to good performance.
+
+Ceres Solver offers considerable flexibility in how the user can
+provide derivatives to the solver. She can use:
+
+ 1. :ref:`section-analytic_derivatives`: The user figures out the
+    derivatives herself, by hand or using a tool like
+    `Maple <https://www.maplesoft.com/products/maple/>`_ or
+    `Mathematica <https://www.wolfram.com/mathematica/>`_, and
+    implements them in a ::class:`CostFunction`.
+ 2. :ref:`section-numerical_derivatives`: Ceres numerically computes
+    the derivative using finite differences.
+ 3. :ref:`section-automatic_derivatives`: Ceres automatically computes
+    the analytic derivative.
+
+Which of these three approaches (alone or in combination) should be
+used depends on the situation and the tradeoffs the user is willing to
+make. Unfortunately, numerical optimization textbooks rarely discuss
+these issues in detail and the user is left to her own devices.
+
+The aim of this article is to fill this gap and describe each of these
+three approaches in the context of Ceres Solver with sufficient detail
+that the user can make an informed choice.
+
+tl;dr
+-----
+
+And for the impatient amongst you, here is some high level advice:
+
+ 1. Use :ref:`section-automatic_derivatives`.
+ 2. In some cases it maybe worth using
+    :ref:`section-analytic_derivatives`.
+ 3. Avoid :ref:`section-numerical_derivatives`. Use it as a measure of
+    last resort, mostly to interface with external libraries.
+
+.. _section-spivak_notation:
+
+Spivak Notation
+===============
+
+To preserve our collective sanities, we will use Spivak's notation for
+derivatives. It is a functional notation that makes reading and
+reasoning about expressions involving derivatives simple.
+
+For a univariate function :math:`f`, :math:`f(a)` denotes its value at
+:math:`a`. :math:`Df` denotes its first derivative, and
+:math:`Df(a)` is the derivative evaluated at :math:`a`, i.e
+
+.. math::
+   Df(a) = \left . \frac{d}{dx} f(x) \right |_{x = a}
+
+:math:`D^nf` denotes the :math:`n^{\text{th}}` derivative of :math:`f`.
+
+For a bi-variate function :math:`g(x,y)`. :math:`D_1g` and
+:math:`D_2g` denote the partial derivatives of :math:`g` w.r.t the
+first and second variable respectively. In the classical notation this
+is equivalent to saying:
+
+.. math::
+
+   D_1 g = \frac{\partial}{\partial x}g(x,y) \text{ and }  D_2 g  = \frac{\partial}{\partial y}g(x,y).
+
+
+:math:`Dg` denotes the Jacobian of `g`, i.e.,
+
+.. math::
+
+  Dg = \begin{bmatrix} D_1g & D_2g \end{bmatrix}
+
+More generally for a multivariate function :math:`g:\mathbb{R}^m
+\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^n`, :math:`Dg` denotes the :math:`n\times m`
+Jacobian matrix. :math:`D_i g` is the partial derivative of :math:`g`
+w.r.t the :math:`i^{\text{th}}` coordinate and the
+:math:`i^{\text{th}}` column of :math:`Dg`.
+
+Finally, :math:`D^2_1g, D_1D_2g` have the obvious meaning as higher
+order partial derivatives derivatives.
+
+For more see Michael Spivak's book `Calculus on Manifolds
+<https://www.amazon.com/Calculus-Manifolds-Approach-Classical-Theorems/dp/0805390219>`_
+or a brief discussion of the `merits of this notation
+<http://www.vendian.org/mncharity/dir3/dxdoc/>`_ by
+Mitchell N. Charity.
+
+.. _section-analytic_derivatives:
+
+Analytic Derivatives
+====================
+
+Consider the problem of fitting the following curve (`Rat43
+<http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/strd/nls/data/ratkowsky3.shtml>`_) to
+data:
+
+.. math::
+  y = \frac{b_1}{(1+e^{b_2-b_3x})^{1/b_4}}
+
+That is, given some data :math:`\{x_i, y_i\},\ \forall i=1,... ,n`,
+determine parameters :math:`b_1, b_2, b_3` and :math:`b_4` that best
+fit this data.
+
+Which can be stated as the problem of finding the
+values of :math:`b_1, b_2, b_3` and :math:`b_4` are the ones that
+minimize the following objective function [#f1]_:
+
+.. math::
+   \begin{align}
+   E(b_1, b_2, b_3, b_4)
+   &= \sum_i f^2(b_1, b_2, b_3, b_4 ; x_i, y_i)\\
+   &= \sum_i \left(\frac{b_1}{(1+e^{b_2-b_3x_i})^{1/b_4}} - y_i\right)^2\\
+   \end{align}
+
+To solve this problem using Ceres Solver, we need to define a
+:class:`CostFunction` that computes the residual :math:`f` for a given
+:math:`x` and :math:`y` and its derivatives with respect to
+:math:`b_1, b_2, b_3` and :math:`b_4`.
+
+Using elementary differential calculus, we can see that:
+
+.. math::
+  \begin{align}
+  D_1 f(b_1, b_2, b_3, b_4; x,y) &= \frac{1}{(1+e^{b_2-b_3x})^{1/b_4}}\\
+  D_2 f(b_1, b_2, b_3, b_4; x,y) &=
+  \frac{-b_1e^{b_2-b_3x}}{b_4(1+e^{b_2-b_3x})^{1/b_4 + 1}} \\
+  D_3 f(b_1, b_2, b_3, b_4; x,y) &=
+  \frac{b_1xe^{b_2-b_3x}}{b_4(1+e^{b_2-b_3x})^{1/b_4 + 1}} \\
+  D_4 f(b_1, b_2, b_3, b_4; x,y) & = \frac{b_1  \log\left(1+e^{b_2-b_3x}\right) }{b_4^2(1+e^{b_2-b_3x})^{1/b_4}}
+  \end{align}
+
+With these derivatives in hand, we can now implement the
+:class:`CostFunction`: as
+
+.. code-block:: c++
+
+  class Rat43Analytic : public SizedCostFunction<1,4> {
+     public:
+       Rat43Analytic(const double x, const double y) : x_(x), y_(y) {}
+       virtual ~Rat43Analytic() {}
+       virtual bool Evaluate(double const* const* parameters,
+                             double* residuals,
+			     double** jacobians) const {
+	 const double b1 = parameters[0][0];
+	 const double b2 = parameters[0][1];
+	 const double b3 = parameters[0][2];
+	 const double b4 = parameters[0][3];
+
+	 residuals[0] = b1 *  pow(1 + exp(b2 -  b3 * x_), -1.0 / b4) - y_;
+
+         if (!jacobians) return true;
+	 double* jacobian = jacobians[0];
+	 if (!jacobian) return true;
+
+         jacobian[0] = pow(1 + exp(b2 - b3 * x_), -1.0 / b4);
+         jacobian[1] = -b1 * exp(b2 - b3 * x_) *
+                       pow(1 + exp(b2 - b3 * x_), -1.0 / b4 - 1) / b4;
+	 jacobian[2] = x_ * b1 * exp(b2 - b3 * x_) *
+                       pow(1 + exp(b2 - b3 * x_), -1.0 / b4 - 1) / b4;
+         jacobian[3] = b1 * log(1 + exp(b2 - b3 * x_)) *
+                       pow(1 + exp(b2 - b3 * x_), -1.0 / b4) / (b4 * b4);
+         return true;
+       }
+
+      private:
+       const double x_;
+       const double y_;
+   };
+
+This is tedious code, which is hard to read with a lot of
+redundancy. So in practice we will cache some sub-expressions to
+improve its efficiency, which would give us something like:
+
+.. code-block:: c++
+
+  class Rat43AnalyticOptimized : public SizedCostFunction<1,4> {
+     public:
+       Rat43AnalyticOptimized(const double x, const double y) : x_(x), y_(y) {}
+       virtual ~Rat43AnalyticOptimized() {}
+       virtual bool Evaluate(double const* const* parameters,
+                             double* residuals,
+			     double** jacobians) const {
+	 const double b1 = parameters[0][0];
+	 const double b2 = parameters[0][1];
+	 const double b3 = parameters[0][2];
+	 const double b4 = parameters[0][3];
+
+	 const double t1 = exp(b2 -  b3 * x_);
+         const double t2 = 1 + t1;
+	 const double t3 = pow(t2, -1.0 / b4);
+	 residuals[0] = b1 * t3 - y_;
+
+         if (!jacobians) return true;
+	 double* jacobian = jacobians[0];
+	 if (!jacobian) return true;
+
+	 const double t4 = pow(t2, -1.0 / b4 - 1);
+	 jacobian[0] = t3;
+	 jacobian[1] = -b1 * t1 * t4 / b4;
+	 jacobian[2] = -x_ * jacobian[1];
+	 jacobian[3] = b1 * log(t2) * t3 / (b4 * b4);
+	 return true;
+       }
+
+     private:
+       const double x_;
+       const double y_;
+   };
+
+What is the difference in performance of these two implementations?
+
+==========================   =========
+CostFunction                 Time (ns)
+==========================   =========
+Rat43Analytic                      255
+Rat43AnalyticOptimized              92
+==========================   =========
+
+``Rat43AnalyticOptimized`` is :math:`2.8` times faster than
+``Rat43Analytic``.  This difference in run-time is not uncommon. To
+get the best performance out of analytically computed derivatives, one
+usually needs to optimize the code to account for common
+sub-expressions.
+
+
+When should you use analytical derivatives?
+-------------------------------------------
+
+#. The expressions are simple, e.g. mostly linear.
+
+#. A computer algebra system like `Maple
+   <https://www.maplesoft.com/products/maple/>`_ , `Mathematica
+   <https://www.wolfram.com/mathematica/>`_, or `SymPy
+   <http://www.sympy.org/en/index.html>`_ can be used to symbolically
+   differentiate the objective function and generate the C++ to
+   evaluate them.
+
+#. Performance is of utmost concern and there is algebraic structure
+   in the terms that you can exploit to get better performance than
+   automatic differentiation.
+
+   That said, getting the best performance out of analytical
+   derivatives requires a non-trivial amount of work.  Before going
+   down this path, it is useful to measure the amount of time being
+   spent evaluating the Jacobian as a fraction of the total solve time
+   and remember `Amdahl's Law
+   <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl's_law>`_ is your friend.
+
+#. There is no other way to compute the derivatives, e.g. you
+   wish to compute the derivative of the root of a polynomial:
+
+   .. math::
+     a_3(x,y)z^3 + a_2(x,y)z^2 + a_1(x,y)z + a_0(x,y) = 0
+
+
+   with respect to :math:`x` and :math:`y`. This requires the use of
+   the `Inverse Function Theorem
+   <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_function_theorem>`_
+
+#. You love the chain rule and actually enjoy doing all the algebra by
+   hand.
+
+
+.. _section-numerical_derivatives:
+
+Numeric derivatives
+===================
+
+The other extreme from using analytic derivatives is to use numeric
+derivatives. The key observation here is that the process of
+differentiating a function :math:`f(x)` w.r.t :math:`x` can be written
+as the limiting process:
+
+.. math::
+   Df(x) = \lim_{h \rightarrow 0} \frac{f(x + h) - f(x)}{h}
+
+
+Forward Differences
+-------------------
+
+Now of course one cannot perform the limiting operation numerically on
+a computer so we do the next best thing, which is to choose a small
+value of :math:`h` and approximate the derivative as
+
+.. math::
+   Df(x) \approx \frac{f(x + h) - f(x)}{h}
+
+
+The above formula is the simplest most basic form of numeric
+differentiation. It is known as the *Forward Difference* formula.
+
+So how would one go about constructing a numerically differentiated
+version of ``Rat43Analytic`` in Ceres Solver. This is done in two
+steps:
+
+  1. Define *Functor* that given the parameter values will evaluate the
+     residual for a given :math:`(x,y)`.
+  2. Construct a :class:`CostFunction` by using
+     :class:`NumericDiffCostFunction` to wrap an instance of
+     ``Rat43CostFunctor``.
+
+.. code-block:: c++
+
+  struct Rat43CostFunctor {
+    Rat43CostFunctor(const double x, const double y) : x_(x), y_(y) {}
+
+    bool operator()(const double* parameters, double* residuals) const {
+      const double b1 = parameters[0][0];
+      const double b2 = parameters[0][1];
+      const double b3 = parameters[0][2];
+      const double b4 = parameters[0][3];
+      residuals[0] = b1 * pow(1.0 + exp(b2 -  b3 * x_), -1.0 / b4) - y_;
+      return true;
+    }
+
+    const double x_;
+    const double y_;
+  }
+
+  CostFunction* cost_function =
+    new NumericDiffCostFunction<Rat43CostFunctor, FORWARD, 1, 4>(
+      new Rat43CostFunctor(x, y));
+
+This is about the minimum amount of work one can expect to do to
+define the cost function. The only thing that the user needs to do is
+to make sure that the evaluation of the residual is implemented
+correctly and efficiently.
+
+Before going further, it is instructive to get an estimate of the
+error in the forward difference formula. We do this by considering the
+`Taylor expansion <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_series>`_ of
+:math:`f` near :math:`x`.
+
+.. math::
+   \begin{align}
+   f(x+h) &= f(x) + h Df(x) + \frac{h^2}{2!} D^2f(x) +
+   \frac{h^3}{3!}D^3f(x) + \cdots \\
+   Df(x) &= \frac{f(x + h) - f(x)}{h} - \left [\frac{h}{2!}D^2f(x) +
+   \frac{h^2}{3!}D^3f(x) + \cdots  \right]\\
+   Df(x) &= \frac{f(x + h) - f(x)}{h} + O(h)
+   \end{align}
+
+i.e., the error in the forward difference formula is
+:math:`O(h)` [#f4]_.
+
+
+Implementation Details
+^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+
+:class:`NumericDiffCostFunction` implements a generic algorithm to
+numerically differentiate a given functor. While the actual
+implementation of :class:`NumericDiffCostFunction` is complicated, the
+net result is a ``CostFunction`` that roughly looks something like the
+following:
+
+.. code-block:: c++
+
+  class Rat43NumericDiffForward : public SizedCostFunction<1,4> {
+     public:
+       Rat43NumericDiffForward(const Rat43Functor* functor) : functor_(functor) {}
+       virtual ~Rat43NumericDiffForward() {}
+       virtual bool Evaluate(double const* const* parameters,
+                             double* residuals,
+			     double** jacobians) const {
+ 	 functor_(parameters[0], residuals);
+	 if (!jacobians) return true;
+	 double* jacobian = jacobians[0];
+	 if (!jacobian) return true;
+
+	 const double f = residuals[0];
+	 double parameters_plus_h[4];
+	 for (int i = 0; i < 4; ++i) {
+	   std::copy(parameters, parameters + 4, parameters_plus_h);
+	   const double kRelativeStepSize = 1e-6;
+	   const double h = std::abs(parameters[i]) * kRelativeStepSize;
+	   parameters_plus_h[i] += h;
+           double f_plus;
+  	   functor_(parameters_plus_h, &f_plus);
+	   jacobian[i] = (f_plus - f) / h;
+         }
+	 return true;
+       }
+
+     private:
+       scoped_ptr<Rat43Functor> functor_;
+   };
+
+
+Note the choice of step size :math:`h` in the above code, instead of
+an absolute step size which is the same for all parameters, we use a
+relative step size of :math:`\text{kRelativeStepSize} = 10^{-6}`. This
+gives better derivative estimates than an absolute step size [#f2]_
+[#f3]_. This choice of step size only works for parameter values that
+are not close to zero. So the actual implementation of
+:class:`NumericDiffCostFunction`, uses a more complex step size
+selection logic, where close to zero, it switches to a fixed step
+size.
+
+
+Central Differences
+-------------------
+
+:math:`O(h)` error in the Forward Difference formula is okay but not
+great. A better method is to use the *Central Difference* formula:
+
+.. math::
+   Df(x) \approx \frac{f(x + h) - f(x - h)}{2h}
+
+Notice that if the value of :math:`f(x)` is known, the Forward
+Difference formula only requires one extra evaluation, but the Central
+Difference formula requires two evaluations, making it twice as
+expensive. So is the extra evaluation worth it?
+
+To answer this question, we again compute the error of approximation
+in the central difference formula:
+
+.. math::
+   \begin{align}
+  f(x + h) &= f(x) + h Df(x) + \frac{h^2}{2!}
+  D^2f(x) + \frac{h^3}{3!} D^3f(x) + \frac{h^4}{4!} D^4f(x) + \cdots\\
+    f(x - h) &= f(x) - h Df(x) + \frac{h^2}{2!}
+  D^2f(x) - \frac{h^3}{3!} D^3f(c_2) + \frac{h^4}{4!} D^4f(x) +
+  \cdots\\
+  Df(x) & =  \frac{f(x + h) - f(x - h)}{2h} + \frac{h^2}{3!}
+  D^3f(x) +  \frac{h^4}{5!}
+  D^5f(x) + \cdots \\
+  Df(x) & =  \frac{f(x + h) - f(x - h)}{2h} + O(h^2)
+   \end{align}
+
+The error of the Central Difference formula is :math:`O(h^2)`, i.e.,
+the error goes down quadratically whereas the error in the Forward
+Difference formula only goes down linearly.
+
+Using central differences instead of forward differences in Ceres
+Solver is a simple matter of changing a template argument to
+:class:`NumericDiffCostFunction` as follows:
+
+.. code-block:: c++
+
+  CostFunction* cost_function =
+    new NumericDiffCostFunction<Rat43CostFunctor, CENTRAL, 1, 4>(
+      new Rat43CostFunctor(x, y));
+
+But what do these differences in the error mean in practice? To see
+this, consider the problem of evaluating the derivative of the
+univariate function
+
+.. math::
+   f(x) = \frac{e^x}{\sin x - x^2},
+
+at :math:`x = 1.0`.
+
+It is straightforward to see that :math:`Df(1.0) =
+140.73773557129658`. Using this value as reference, we can now compute
+the relative error in the forward and central difference formulae as a
+function of the absolute step size and plot them.
+
+.. figure:: forward_central_error.png
+   :figwidth: 100%
+   :align: center
+
+Reading the graph from right to left, a number of things stand out in
+the above graph:
+
+ 1. The graph for both formulae have two distinct regions. At first,
+    starting from a large value of :math:`h` the error goes down as
+    the effect of truncating the Taylor series dominates, but as the
+    value of :math:`h` continues to decrease, the error starts
+    increasing again as roundoff error starts to dominate the
+    computation. So we cannot just keep on reducing the value of
+    :math:`h` to get better estimates of :math:`Df`. The fact that we
+    are using finite precision arithmetic becomes a limiting factor.
+ 2. Forward Difference formula is not a great method for evaluating
+    derivatives. Central Difference formula converges much more
+    quickly to a more accurate estimate of the derivative with
+    decreasing step size. So unless the evaluation of :math:`f(x)` is
+    so expensive that you absolutely cannot afford the extra
+    evaluation required by central differences, **do not use the
+    Forward Difference formula**.
+ 3. Neither formula works well for a poorly chosen value of :math:`h`.
+
+
+Ridders' Method
+---------------
+So, can we get better estimates of :math:`Df` without requiring such
+small values of :math:`h` that we start hitting floating point
+roundoff errors?
+
+One possible approach is to find a method whose error goes down faster
+than :math:`O(h^2)`. This can be done by applying `Richardson
+Extrapolation
+<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richardson_extrapolation>_` to the
+problem of differentiation. This is also known as *Ridders' Method*
+[Ridders]_.
+
+Let us recall, the error in the central differences formula.
+
+.. math::
+   \begin{align}
+   Df(x) & =  \frac{f(x + h) - f(x - h)}{2h} + \frac{h^2}{3!}
+   D^3f(x) +  \frac{h^4}{5!}
+   D^5f(x) + \cdots\\
+           & =  \frac{f(x + h) - f(x - h)}{2h} + K_2 h^2 + K_4 h^4 + \cdots
+   \end{align}
+
+The key thing to note here is that the terms :math:`K_2, K_4, ...`
+are indepdendent of :math:`h` and only depend on :math:`x`.
+
+Let us now define:
+
+.. math::
+
+   A(1, m) = \frac{f(x + h/2^{m-1}) - f(x - h/2^{m-1})}{2h/2^{m-1}}.
+
+Then observe that
+
+.. math::
+
+   Df(x) = A(1,1) + K_2 h^2 + K_4 h^4 + \cdots
+
+and
+
+.. math::
+
+   Df(x) = A(1, 2) + K_2 (h/2)^2 + K_4 (h/2)^4 + \cdots
+
+Here we have halved the step size to obtain a second central
+differences estimate of :math:`Df(x)`. Combining these two estimates,
+we get:
+
+.. math::
+
+   Df(x) = \frac{4 A(1, 2) - A(1,1)}{4 - 1} + O(h^4)
+
+which is an approximation of :math:`Df(x)` with truncation error that
+goes down as :math:`O(h^4)`. But we do not have to stop here, we can
+iterate this process to obtain even more accurate estimates as
+follows:
+
+.. math::
+
+   A(n, m) =  \begin{cases}
+    \frac{\displaystyle f(x + h/2^{m-1}) - f(x -
+    h/2^{m-1})}{\displaystyle 2h/2^{m-1}} & n = 1 \\
+   \frac{\displaystyle 4 A(n - 1, m + 1) - A(n - 1, m)}{\displaystyle 4^{n-1} - 1} & n > 1
+   \end{cases}
+
+It is straightforward to show that the approximation error in
+:math:`A(n, 1)` is :math:`O(h^{2n})`. To see how the above formula can
+be implemented in practice to compute :math:`A(n,1)` it is helpful to
+structure the computation as the following tableau:
+
+.. math::
+   \begin{array}{ccccc}
+   A(1,1) & A(1, 2) & A(1, 3) & A(1, 4) & \cdots\\
+          & A(2, 1) & A(2, 2) & A(2, 3) & \cdots\\
+	  &         & A(3, 1) & A(3, 2) & \cdots\\
+	  &         &         & A(4, 1) & \cdots \\
+	  &         &         &         & \ddots
+   \end{array}
+
+So, to compute :math:`A(n, 1)` for increasing values of :math:`n` we
+move from the left to the right, computing one column at a
+time. Assuming that the primary cost here is the evaluation of the
+function :math:`f(x)`, the cost of computing a new column of the above
+tableau is two function evaluations. Since the cost of evaluating
+:math:`A(1, n)`, requires evaluating the central difference formula
+for step size of :math:`2^{1-n}h`
+
+Applying this method to :math:`f(x) = \frac{e^x}{\sin x - x^2}`
+starting with a fairly large step size :math:`h = 0.01`, we get:
+
+.. math::
+   \begin{array}{rrrrr}
+   141.678097131 &140.971663667 &140.796145400 &140.752333523 &140.741384778\\
+   &140.736185846 &140.737639311 &140.737729564 &140.737735196\\
+   & &140.737736209 &140.737735581 &140.737735571\\
+   & & &140.737735571 &140.737735571\\
+   & & & &140.737735571\\
+   \end{array}
+
+Compared to the *correct* value :math:`Df(1.0) = 140.73773557129658`,
+:math:`A(5, 1)` has a relative error of :math:`10^{-13}`. For
+comparison, the relative error for the central difference formula with
+the same stepsize (:math:`0.01/2^4 = 0.000625`) is :math:`10^{-5}`.
+
+The above tableau is the basis of Ridders' method for numeric
+differentiation. The full implementation is an adaptive scheme that
+tracks its own estimation error and stops automatically when the
+desired precision is reached. Of course it is more expensive than the
+forward and central difference formulae, but is also significantly
+more robust and accurate.
+
+Using Ridder's method instead of forward or central differences in
+Ceres is again a simple matter of changing a template argument to
+:class:`NumericDiffCostFunction` as follows:
+
+.. code-block:: c++
+
+  CostFunction* cost_function =
+    new NumericDiffCostFunction<Rat43CostFunctor, RIDDERS, 1, 4>(
+      new Rat43CostFunctor(x, y));
+
+The following graph shows the relative error of the three methods as a
+function of the absolute step size. For Ridders's method we assume
+that the step size for evaluating :math:`A(n,1)` is :math:`2^{1-n}h`.
+
+.. figure:: forward_central_ridders_error.png
+   :figwidth: 100%
+   :align: center
+
+Using 10 function evaluations that are needed to compute
+:math:`A(5,1)` we are able to approximate :math:`Df(1.0)` about a 1000
+times better than the best central differences estimate. To put these
+numbers in perspective, machine epsilon for double precision
+arithmetic is :math:`\approx 2.22 \times 10^{-16}`.
+
+Going back to ``Rat43``, let us also look at the runtime cost of the
+various methods for computing numeric derivatives.
+
+==========================   =========
+CostFunction                 Time (ns)
+==========================   =========
+Rat43Analytic                      255
+Rat43AnalyticOptimized              92
+Rat43NumericDiffForward            262
+Rat43NumericDiffCentral            517
+Rat43NumericDiffRidders           3760
+==========================   =========
+
+As expected, Central Differences is about twice as expensive as
+Forward Differences and the remarkable accuracy improvements of
+Ridders' method cost an order of magnitude more runtime.
+
+Recommendation
+--------------
+
+Numeric differentiation should be used when you cannot compute the
+derivatives either analytically or using automatic differention. This
+is usually the case when you are calling an external library or
+function whose analytic form you do not know or even if you do, you
+are not in a position to re-write it in a manner required to use
+automatic differentiation (discussed below).
+
+When using numeric differentiation, use at least Central Differences,
+and if execution time is not a concern or the objective function is
+such that determining a good static relative step size is hard,
+Ridders' method is recommended.
+
+.. _section-automatic_derivatives:
+
+Automatic Derivatives
+=====================
+
+We will now consider automatic differentiation. It is a technique that
+can compute exact derivatives, fast, while requiring about the same
+effort from the user as is needed to use numerical differentiation.
+
+Don't believe me? Well here goes. The following code fragment
+implements an automatically differentiated ``CostFunction`` for
+``Rat43``.
+
+.. code-block:: c++
+
+  struct Rat43CostFunctor {
+    Rat43CostFunctor(const double x, const double y) : x_(x), y_(y) {}
+
+    template <typename T>
+    bool operator()(const T* parameters, T* residuals) const {
+      const T b1 = parameters[0][0];
+      const T b2 = parameters[0][1];
+      const T b3 = parameters[0][2];
+      const T b4 = parameters[0][3];
+      residuals[0] = b1 * pow(1.0 + exp(b2 -  b3 * x_), -1.0 / b4) - y_;
+      return true;
+    }
+
+    private:
+      const double x_;
+      const double y_;
+  };
+
+
+  CostFunction* cost_function =
+        new AutoDiffCostFunction<Rat43CostFunctor, 1, 4>(
+	  new Rat43CostFunctor(x, y));
+
+Notice that compared to numeric differentiation, the only difference
+when defining the functor for use with automatic differentiation is
+the signature of the ``operator()``.
+
+In the case of numeric differentition it was
+
+.. code-block:: c++
+
+   bool operator()(const double* parameters, double* residuals) const;
+
+and for automatic differentiation it is a templated function of the
+form
+
+.. code-block:: c++
+
+   template <typename T> bool operator()(const T* parameters, T* residuals) const;
+
+
+So what does this small change buy us? The following table compares
+the time it takes to evaluate the residual and the Jacobian for
+`Rat43` using various methods.
+
+==========================   =========
+CostFunction                 Time (ns)
+==========================   =========
+Rat43Analytic                      255
+Rat43AnalyticOptimized              92
+Rat43NumericDiffForward            262
+Rat43NumericDiffCentral            517
+Rat43NumericDiffRidders           3760
+Rat43AutomaticDiff                 129
+==========================   =========
+
+We can get exact derivatives using automatic differentiation
+(``Rat43AutomaticDiff``) with about the same effort that is required
+to write the code for numeric differentiation but only :math:`40\%`
+slower than hand optimized analytical derivatives.
+
+So how does it work? For this we will have to learn about **Dual
+Numbers** and **Jets** .
+
+
+Dual Numbers & Jets
+-------------------
+
+.. NOTE::
+
+   Reading this and the next section on implementing Jets is not
+   necessary to use automatic differentiation in Ceres Solver. But
+   knowing the basics of how Jets work is useful when debugging and
+   reasoning about the performance of automatic differentiation.
+
+Dual numbers are an extension of the real numbers analogous to complex
+numbers: whereas complex numbers augment the reals by introducing an
+imaginary unit :math:`\iota` such that :math:`\iota^2 = -1`, dual
+numbers introduce an *infinitesimal* unit :math:`\epsilon` such that
+:math:`\epsilon^2 = 0` . A dual number :math:`a + v\epsilon` has two
+components, the *real* component :math:`a` and the *infinitesimal*
+component :math:`v`.
+
+Surprisingly, this simple change leads to a convenient method for
+computing exact derivatives without needing to manipulate complicated
+symbolic expressions.
+
+For example, consider the function
+
+.. math::
+
+   f(x) = x^2 ,
+
+Then,
+
+.. math::
+
+   \begin{align}
+   f(10 + \epsilon) &= (10 + \epsilon)^2\\
+            &= 100 + 20 \epsilon + \epsilon^2\\
+            &= 100 + 20 \epsilon
+   \end{align}
+
+Observe that the coefficient of :math:`\epsilon` is :math:`Df(10) =
+20`. Indeed this generalizes to functions which are not
+polynomial. Consider an arbitrary differentiable function
+:math:`f(x)`. Then we can evaluate :math:`f(x + \epsilon)` by
+considering the Taylor expansion of :math:`f` near :math:`x`, which
+gives us the infinite series
+
+.. math::
+   \begin{align}
+   f(x + \epsilon) &= f(x) + Df(x) \epsilon + D^2f(x)
+   \frac{\epsilon^2}{2} + D^3f(x) \frac{\epsilon^3}{6} + \cdots\\
+   f(x + \epsilon) &= f(x) + Df(x) \epsilon
+   \end{align}
+
+Here we are using the fact that :math:`\epsilon^2 = 0`.
+
+A **Jet** is a :math:`n`-dimensional dual number, where we augment the
+real numbers with :math:`n` infinitesimal units :math:`\epsilon_i,\
+i=1,...,n` with the property that :math:`\forall i, j\
+\epsilon_i\epsilon_j = 0`. Then a Jet consists of a *real* part
+:math:`a` and a :math:`n`-dimensional *infinitesimal* part
+:math:`\mathbf{v}`, i.e.,
+
+.. math::
+   x = a + \sum_j v_{j} \epsilon_j
+
+The summation notation gets tedius, so we will also just write
+
+.. math::
+   x = a + \mathbf{v}.
+
+where the :math:`\epsilon_i`'s are implict. Then, using the same
+Taylor series expansion used above, we can see that:
+
+.. math::
+
+  f(a + \mathbf{v}) = f(a) + Df(a) \mathbf{v}.
+
+Similarly for a multivariate function
+:math:`f:\mathbb{R}^{n}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^m`, evaluated on
+:math:`x_i = a_i + \mathbf{v}_i,\ \forall i = 1,...,n`:
+
+.. math::
+   f(x_1,..., x_n) = f(a_1, ..., a_n) + \sum_i D_i f(a_1, ..., a_n) \mathbf{v}_i
+
+So if each :math:`\mathbf{v}_i = e_i` were the :math:`i^{\text{th}}`
+standard basis vector. Then, the above expression would simplify to
+
+.. math::
+   f(x_1,..., x_n) = f(a_1, ..., a_n) + \sum_i D_i f(a_1, ..., a_n) \epsilon_i
+
+and we can extract the coordinates of the Jacobian by inspecting the
+coefficients of :math:`\epsilon_i`.
+
+Implementing Jets
+^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+
+In order for the above to work in practice, we will need the ability
+to evaluate arbitrary function :math:`f` not just on real numbers but
+also on dual numbers, but one does not usually evaluate functions by
+evaluating their Taylor expansions,
+
+This is where C++ templates and operator overloading comes into
+play. The following code fragment has a simple implementation of a
+``Jet`` and some operators/functions that operate on them.
+
+.. code-block:: c++
+
+   template<int N> struct Jet {
+     double a;
+     Eigen::Matrix<double, 1, N> v;
+   };
+
+   template<int N> Jet<N> operator+(const Jet<N>& f, const Jet<N>& g) {
+     return Jet<N>(f.a + g.a, f.v + g.v);
+   }
+
+   template<int N> Jet<N> operator-(const Jet<N>& f, const Jet<N>& g) {
+     return Jet<N>(f.a - g.a, f.v - g.v);
+   }
+
+   template<int N> Jet<N> operator*(const Jet<N>& f, const Jet<N>& g) {
+     return Jet<N>(f.a * g.a, f.a * g.v + f.v * g.a);
+   }
+
+   template<int N> Jet<N> operator/(const Jet<N>& f, const Jet<N>& g) {
+     return Jet<N>(f.a / g.a, f.v / g.a - f.a * g.v / (g.a * g.a));
+   }
+
+   template <int N> Jet<N> exp(const Jet<N>& f) {
+     return Jet<T, N>(exp(f.a), exp(f.a) * f.v);
+   }
+
+   // This is a simple implementation for illustration purposes, the
+   // actual implementation of pow requires careful handling of a number
+   // of corner cases.
+   template <int N>  Jet<N> pow(const Jet<N>& f, const Jet<N>& g) {
+     return Jet<N>(pow(f.a, g.a),
+                   g.a * pow(f.a, g.a - 1.0) * f.v +
+		   pow(f.a, g.a) * log(f.a); * g.v);
+   }
+
+
+With these overloaded functions in hand, we can now call
+``Rat43CostFunctor`` with an array of Jets instead of doubles. Putting
+that together with appropriately initialized Jets allows us to compute
+the Jacobian as follows:
+
+.. code-block:: c++
+
+  class Rat43Automatic : public ceres::SizedCostFunction<1,4> {
+   public:
+    Rat43Automatic(const Rat43CostFunctor* functor) : functor_(functor) {}
+    virtual ~Rat43Automatic() {}
+    virtual bool Evaluate(double const* const* parameters,
+                          double* residuals,
+                          double** jacobians) const {
+      // Just evaluate the residuals if Jacobians are not required.
+      if (!jacobians) return (*functor_)(parameters[0], residuals);
+
+      // Initialize the Jets
+      ceres::Jet<4> jets[4];
+      for (int i = 0; i < 4; ++i) {
+        jets[i].a = parameters[0][i];
+        jets[i].v.setZero();
+        jets[i].v[i] = 1.0;
+      }
+
+      ceres::Jet<4> result;
+      (*functor_)(jets, &result);
+
+      // Copy the values out of the Jet.
+      residuals[0] = result.a;
+      for (int i = 0; i < 4; ++i) {
+        jacobians[0][i] = result.v[i];
+      }
+      return true;
+    }
+
+   private:
+    std::unique_ptr<const Rat43CostFunctor> functor_;
+  };
+
+Indeed, this is essentially how :class:`AutoDiffCostFunction` works.
+
+Pitfalls
+--------
+
+Automatic differentiation frees the user from the burden of computing
+and reasoning about the symbolic expressions for the Jacobians, but
+this freedom comes at a cost. For example consider the following
+simple functor:
+
+.. code-block:: c++
+
+   struct Functor {
+     template <typename T> bool operator()(const T* x, T* residual) const {
+       residual[0] = 1.0 - sqrt(x[0] * x[0] + x[1] * x[1]);
+       return true;
+     }
+   };
+
+Looking at the code for the residual computation, one does not foresee
+any problems. However, if we look at the analytical expressions for
+the Jacobian:
+
+.. math::
+
+      y &= 1 - \sqrt{x_0^2 + x_1^2}\\
+   D_1y &= -\frac{x_0}{\sqrt{x_0^2 + x_1^2}},\
+   D_2y = -\frac{x_1}{\sqrt{x_0^2 + x_1^2}}
+
+we find that it is an indeterminate form at :math:`x_0 = 0, x_1 =
+0`.
+
+There is no single solution to this problem. In some cases one needs
+to reason explicitly about the points where indeterminacy may occur
+and use alternate expressions using `L'Hopital's rule
+<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L'H%C3%B4pital's_rule>`_ (see for
+example some of the conversion routines in `rotation.h
+<https://github.com/ceres-solver/ceres-solver/blob/master/include/ceres/rotation.h>`_. In
+other cases, one may need to regularize the expressions to eliminate
+these points.
+
+.. rubric:: Footnotes
+
+.. [#f1] The notion of best fit depends on the choice of the objective
+	 function used to measure the quality of fit. Which in turn
+	 depends on the underlying noise process which generated the
+	 observations. Minimizing the sum of squared differences is
+	 the right thing to do when the noise is `Gaussian
+	 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution>`_. In
+	 that case the optimal value of the parameters is the `Maximum
+	 Likelihood Estimate
+	 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_likelihood_estimation>`_.
+.. [#f2] `Numerical Differentiation
+	 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical_differentiation#Practical_considerations_using_floating_point_arithmetic>`_
+.. [#f3] [Press]_ Numerical Recipes, Section 5.7
+.. [#f4] In asymptotic error analysis, an error of :math:`O(h^k)`
+	 means that the absolute-value of the error is at most some
+	 constant times :math:`h^k` when :math:`h` is close enough to
+	 :math:`0`.
+
+
+
+TODO
+====
+
+#. Inverse function theorem
+#. Add references in the various sections about the things to
+   do. NIST, RIDDER's METHOD, Numerical Recipes.
+#. Calling iterative routines.
+#. Discuss, forward v/s backward automatic differentiation and
+   relation to backprop, impact of large parameter block sizes on
+   differentiation performance.
+#. Why does the quality of derivatives matter?
+#. Reference to how numeric derivatives lead to slower convergence.
+#. Pitfalls of Numeric differentiation.
+#. Ill conditioning of numeric differentiation/dependence on curvature.
diff --git a/docs/source/forward_central_error.png b/docs/source/forward_central_error.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..56d10b0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/source/forward_central_error.png
Binary files differ
diff --git a/docs/source/forward_central_ridders_error.png b/docs/source/forward_central_ridders_error.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ecea674
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/source/forward_central_ridders_error.png
Binary files differ
diff --git a/docs/source/index.rst b/docs/source/index.rst
index 3851dd1..54daed9 100644
--- a/docs/source/index.rst
+++ b/docs/source/index.rst
@@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
 
    installation
    tutorial
+   derivatives
    guide
    features
    faqs
diff --git a/docs/source/nnls_solving.rst b/docs/source/nnls_solving.rst
index cbc3d61..ac617a7 100644
--- a/docs/source/nnls_solving.rst
+++ b/docs/source/nnls_solving.rst
@@ -141,7 +141,7 @@
 Levenberg-Marquardt
 -------------------
 
-The Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm [Levenberg]_ [Marquardt]_ is the
+The Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm [Levenberg]_  [Marquardt]_ is the
 most popular algorithm for solving non-linear least squares problems.
 It was also the first trust region algorithm to be developed
 [Levenberg]_ [Marquardt]_. Ceres implements an exact step [Madsen]_