Advertisement

Numerical Algorithms

, Volume 53, Issue 2–3, pp 239–260 | Cite as

The reliability/cost trade-off for a class of ODE solvers

  • W. H. Enright
  • Li Yan
Original Paper

Abstract

In the numerical solution of ODEs, it is now possible to develop efficient techniques that will deliver approximate solutions that are piecewise polynomials. The resulting methods can be designed so that the piecewise polynomial will satisfy a perturbed ODE with an associated defect (or residual) that is directly controlled in a consistent fashion. We will investigate the reliability/cost trade off that one faces when implementing and using such methods, when the methods are based on an underlying discrete Runge-Kutta formula. In particular we will identify a new class of continuous Runge-Kutta methods with a very reliable defect estimator and a validity check that reflects the credibility of the estimate. We will introduce different measures of the “reliability” of an approximate solution that are based on the accuracy of the approximate solution; the maximum magnitude of the defect of the approximate solution; and how well the method is able to estimate the maximum magnitude of the defect of the approximate solution. We will also consider how methods can be implemented to detect and cope with special difficulties such as the effect of round-off error (on a single step) or the ability of a method to estimate the magnitude of the defect when the stepsize is large (as might happen when using a high-order method at relaxed accuracy requests). Numerical results on a wide selection of problems will be summarized for methods of orders five, six and eight. It will be shown that a modest increase in the cost per step can lead to a significant improvement in the quality of the approximate solutions and the reliability of the method. For example, the numerical results demonstrate that, if one is willing to increase the cost per step by 50%, then a method can deliver approximate solutions where the reported estimated maximum defect is within 1% of its true value on 95% of the steps.

Keywords

Runge-Kutta methods Initial value problems Defect Error control Continuous methods 

Mathematics Subject Classifications (2000)

65L05 65L10 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Dormand, J.R., Prince, P.J.: A family of embedded Runge-Kutta formulae. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 6, 19–26 (1980)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Enright, W.H.: Analysis of error control stategies for continuous Runge-Kutta methods. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 26(3), 588–599 (1989)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Enright, W.H.: A new error-control for initial value solvers. Appl. Math. Comput. 31, 288–301 (1989)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Enright, W.H.: The relative efficiency of alternative defect control schemes for high-order continuous Runge-Kutta formulas. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 30(5), 1419–1445 (1993)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Enright, W.H., Hayes, W.B.: Robust and reliable defect control for Runge-Kutta methods. ACM Trans. Math. Softw. 33(1), 1–19 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Enright, W.H., Jackson, K.R., Nørsett, S.P., Thomsen, P.G.: Interpolants for Runge-Kutta formulas. ACM Trans. Math. Softw. 12(3), 193–218 (1986)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Enright, W.H., Muir, P.H.: New interpolants for asymptotically correct defect control of BVODEs. Numer. Algorithms (2009, in press)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Enright, W.H., Pryce, J.D.: Two FORTRAN packages for assessing initial value methods. ACM Trans. Math. Softw. 13(1), 1–27 (1987)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gladwell, I., Shampine, L.F., Baca, L.S., Brankin, R.W.: Practical aspects of interpolation in Runge-Kutta codes. SIAM J. Sci. Statist. Comput. 8, 322–341 (1987)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Higham, D.J.: Robust defect control with Runge-Kutta schemes. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 26, 1175–1183 (1989)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Higham, D.J.: Runge-Kutta defect control using Hermite-Birkhoff interpolation. SIAM J. Sci. Statist. Comput. 12, 991–999 (1991)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yan, L.: Robust and reliable defect control for Runge-Kutta methods. MSc thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    MathWorks: Matlab 6. MathWorks, Natick (2000)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shampine, L.F.: Solving ODEs and DDEs with residual control. Appl. Numer. Math. 52, 113–127 (2005)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shampine, L.F.: Interpolation for Runge-Kutta methods. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 22, 1014–1027 (1985)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Verner, J.H.: Differentiable interpolants for high-order Runge-Kutta methods. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 5, 1446–1466 (1993)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. H. Enright
    • 1
  • Li Yan
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations