Abstract
Structural analysis (SA) of a system of differentialalgebraic equations (DAEs) is used to determine its index and which equations to be differentiated and how many times. Both Pantelides’s algorithm and Pryce’s \(\varSigma \)method are equivalent: if one of them finds correct structural information, the other does also. Nonsingularity of the Jacobian produced by SA indicates success, which occurs on many problems of interest. However, these methods can fail on simple, solvable DAEs and give incorrect structural information including the index. This article investigates \(\varSigma \)method’s failures and presents two conversion methods for fixing them. Under certain conditions, both methods reformulate a DAE system on which the \(\varSigma \)method fails into a locally equivalent problem on which SA is more likely to succeed. Aiming at achieving global equivalence between the original DAE system and the converted one, we provide a rationale for choosing a conversion from the applicable ones.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Notes
 1.
The colon notation \(p\,{:}\,q\) for integers p, q denotes either the unordered set or the enumerated list of integers i with \(p\le i\le q\), depending on context.
 2.
Throughout this article, “derivatives of \(x_j\)” include \(x_j\) itself as its 0th derivative: \(x_j^{(l)}=x_j\) if \(l=0\).
 3.
When we present a DAE example, we also present its signature matrix \(\varSigma \), the canonical offset pair \((\mathbf {c};\mathbf {d})\), and the associated System Jacobian \(\mathbf {J}\).
 4.
We consider it with parameters \(\beta =\epsilon =1\), \(\alpha _1=\alpha _2=\delta =1\), and \(\gamma =1\), and we use subscripts for parameter indices. The equations \(g_1,g_2\) are renamed \(f_3, f_4\) and the variables \(y_1,y_2\) are renamed \(x_3, x_4\).
References
 1.
Barrio, R.: Performance of the Taylor series method for ODEs/DAEs. Appl. Math. Comput. 163, 525–545 (2005)
 2.
Barrio, R.: Sensitivity analysis of ODEs/DAEs using the Taylor series method. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 27, 929–1947 (2006)
 3.
Brenan, K.E., Campbell, S.L., Petzold, L.R.: Numerical Solution of InitialValue Problems in DifferentialAlgebraic Equations, 2nd edn. SIAM, Philadelphia (1996)
 4.
Campbell, S.L., Griepentrog, E.: Solvability of general differentialalgebraic equations. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 16(2), 257–270 (1995)
 5.
Carpanzano, E., Maffezzoni, C.: Symbolic manipulation techniques for model simplification in objectoriented modelling of large scale continuous systems. Math. Comput. Simul. 48(2), 133–150 (1998)
 6.
Chowdhry, S., Krendl, H., Linninger, A.A.: Symbolic numeric index analysis algorithm for differentialalgebraic equations. Indus. Eng. Chem. Res. 43(14), 3886–3894 (2004)
 7.
Griewank, A.: On automatic differentiation. In: Iri, M., Tanabe, K. (eds.) Mathematical Programming: Recent Developments and Applications, pp. 83–108. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1989)
 8.
Kunkel, P., Mehrmann, V.: Index reduction for differentialalgebraic equations by minimal extension. ZAMM J. Appl. Math. Mech. Z. für Angew. Math. Mech. 84(9), 579–597 (2004)
 9.
Kunkel, P., Mehrmann, V.L.: DifferentialAlgebraic Equations: Analysis and Numerical Solution. European Mathematical Society, Zürich (2006)
 10.
MapleSim: Technological superiority in multidomain physical modeling and simulation (2012). http://www.maplesoft.com/view.aspx?sf=7032
 11.
Mattsson, S.E., Söderlind, G.: Index reduction in differentialalgebraic equations using dummy derivatives. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 14(3), 677–692 (1993)
 12.
Mazzia, F., Iavernaro, F.: Test Set for Initial Value Problem Solvers. Tech. Rep. 40, Department of Mathematics, University of Bari (2003). http://pitagora.dm.uniba.it/~testset/
 13.
Nedialkov, N., Pryce, J.D.: DAETS User Guide. Tech. Rep. CAS 0808NN, Department of Computing and Software, McMaster University, Hamilton (2013). pp 68, DAETS is available at http://www.cas.mcmaster.ca/~nedialk/daets
 14.
Nedialkov, N.S., Pryce, J.D.: Solving differentialalgebraic equations by Taylor series (I): computing Taylor coefficients. BIT Numer. Math. 45(3), 561–591 (2005)
 15.
Nedialkov, N.S., Pryce, J.D.: Solving differentialalgebraic equations by Taylor series (III): the DAETS code. JNAIAM J. Numer. Anal. Indus. Appl. Math. 3, 61–80 (2008)
 16.
Nedialkov, N.S., Pryce, J.D., Tan, G.: Algorithm 948: DAESA—a Matlab tool for structural analysis of differentialalgebraic equations: software. ACM Trans. Math. Softw. 41(2), 12:1–12:14 (2015)
 17.
Pantelides, C.C.: The consistent initialization of differentialalgebraic systems. SIAM J. Sci. Stat. Comput. 9, 213–231 (1988)
 18.
Pryce, J.D.: Solving highindex DAEs by Taylor series. Numer. Algorithms 19, 195–211 (1998)
 19.
Pryce, J.D.: A simple structural analysis method for DAEs. BIT Numer. Math. 41(2), 364–394 (2001)
 20.
Pryce, J.D., Nedialkov, N.S., Tan, G.: DAESA—a Matlab tool for structural analysis of differentialalgebraic equations: theory. ACM Trans. Math. Softw. 41(2), 9:1–9:20 (2015)
 21.
Reissig, G., Martinson, W.S., Barton, P.I.: Differentialalgebraic equations of index 1 may have an arbitrarily high structural index. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 21(6), 1987–1990 (1999)
 22.
Richardson, D.: Some undecidable problems involving elementary functions of a real variable. J. Symb. Logic 33(4), 514–520 (1968)
 23.
Scholz, L., Steinbrecher, A.: Regularization of DAEs based on the signature method. BIT Numer. Math. 56(1), 319–340 (2016)
 24.
Scholz, L., Steinbrecher, A.: Structuralalgebraic regularization for coupled systems of DAEs. BIT Numer. Math. 56(2), 777–804 (2016)
 25.
Sjölund, M., Fritzson, P.: Debugging symbolic transformations in equation systems. In: Proceedings of EquationBased ObjectOriented Modeling Languages and Tools (EOOLT), pp. 67–74 (2011)
 26.
Tan, G.: Conversion methods for improving structural analysis of differentialalgebraic equation systems. Ph.D. thesis, School of Computational Science and Engineering, McMaster University, 1280 Main St W, Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 1A8, Canada, pp. 168 (2016)
 27.
Tan, G., Nedialkov, N.S., Pryce, J.D.: Conversion methods, block triangularization, and structural analysis of differentialalgebraic equation systems. Tech. Rep. CAS 1604NN, Department of Computing and Software, McMaster University, Hamilton, pp. 25 (2016). http://www.cas.mcmaster.ca/cas/0reports/CAS1604NN.pdf
 28.
The MathWorks, Inc.: Matlab Symbolic Math Toolbox (2016). http://www.mathworks.com/products/symbolic/
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge with thanks the financial support for this research: GT was supported in part by the McMaster Centre for Software Certification through the Ontario Research Fund, Canada, NSN was supported in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and JDP was supported in part by the Leverhulme Trust, the UK. The authors thank the anonymous reviewers for providing valuable suggestions on improving this article.
Author information
Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by Anne Kværnø.
Preliminary results and proof of Lemma 4.4
Preliminary results and proof of Lemma 4.4
Let the notation be as at the start of §4.2. We prove a lemma first and then Lemma 4.4.
Lemma 7.1
Let \(r\in J{\setminus }\bigl \{\,l\,\bigr \}\), \(w_1=y_r+(v_r/v_l)\cdot x_l^{(d_l\overline{c})}\), and
Then
Proof
Obviously \(\sigma \left( x_l,w_1\right) =d_l\overline{c}\) when \(j=l\in J\). Now consider the case \(j\ne l\). Since \(x_j\) can occur only in \(v_r\) and \(v_l\) in \(w_1\), we have \(\sigma \left( x_j,w_1\right) \le \sigma \left( x_j,\mathbf {v}\right) \le d_j\overline{c}\).
Noting that \(\overline{c}=\max _{i\in M} c_i\), we have \(\overline{c}c_i\ge 0\) for all \(i\in M\). Then (7.2) results from connecting \(\sigma \left( x_j,w_2\right) =\sigma \left( x_j,w_1\right) +(\overline{c}c_i)\) with (4.12) and the results in the previous paragraph.
The proof of Lemma 4.4 uses the two assumptions preceding it.
Proof
Write \(\overline{{\varSigma }}\) in Fig. 1 into the following \(2\times 3\) block form:
We aim to verify below the relations between \(\overline{\sigma }_{ij}\) and \({\widetilde{d}}_j{\widetilde{c}}_i\) in each block.

(1)
\(\overline{{\varSigma }}_{11}\). Consider \(j,r\in J{\setminus }\bigl \{\,l\,\bigr \}\). By (4.10), we substitute \(w_2\) in (7.1) for every \(x_r^{(d_rc_i)}\) in \(f_i\) for all \(i=1\,{:}\,n\). By (7.2), \(\sigma \left( x_j, w_2\right) < d_j c_i\) for all \(i\in M\). So these expression substitutions do not introduce \(x_r^{(d_rc_i)}\) in \(\overline{f}_i\), where \(r\in J{\setminus }\bigl \{\,l\,\bigr \}\). Given M in (4.8), we have \(d_jc_i>\sigma _{ij}\) for all \(i\notin M\) and \(j\in J\). Hence
$$\begin{aligned} \sigma \left( x_j,\overline{f}_i\right) < d_jc_i \qquad \text {for }j\in J{\setminus }\bigl \{\,l\,\bigr \}, \ i=1\,{:}\,n. \end{aligned}$$(7.3)What remains to show is the case \(j=l\). From (4.9), \(x_r^{(d_r\overline{c})}=y_r+ (v_r/v_l) \cdot x_l^{(d_l\overline{c})}\). Taking the partial derivatives of both sides with respect to \(x_l^{(d_l\overline{c})}\) and applying Griewank’s Lemma (4.1) with \(w=x_{r}^{(d_{r}\overline{c})}\) and \(q=\overline{c}c_i\ge 0\) for all \(i\in M\), we have
$$\begin{aligned} \frac{v_{r}}{v_l} = \frac{\partial x_{r}^{(d_{r}\overline{c})}}{\partial x_l^{(d_l\overline{c})}} = \frac{\partial x_{r}^{(d_{r}\overline{c}+\overline{c}c_i) }}{\partial x_l^{(d_l\overline{c}+\overline{c}c_i)}} = \frac{\partial x_{r}^{(d_{r}c_i)}}{\partial x_l^{(d_lc_i)}}. \end{aligned}$$(7.4)Then
$$\begin{aligned} \frac{\partial \overline{f}_i}{\partial x_l^{(d_lc_i)}}= & {} \frac{\partial f_i}{\partial x_l^{(d_lc_i)}} + \sum _{r\in J{\setminus }\{l\}} \frac{\partial f_i}{\partial x_r^{(d_rc_i)}} \cdot \frac{\partial x_r^{(d_rc_i)}}{\partial x_l^{(d_lc_i)}} \text { by the chain rule} \\= & {} J_{il} + \sum _{r\in J{\setminus }\{l\}} J_{ir} \cdot \frac{v_r}{v_l} = \frac{1}{v_l} \sum _{r\in J} J_{ir} v_r= \frac{1}{v_l}(\mathbf {J} \mathbf {v})_i = 0\,\, \text {by }(6.4) \hbox { and } \mathbf {J} \mathbf {v}=\mathbf {0}. \end{aligned}$$This gives \(\sigma \left( x_l,\overline{f}_i\right) < d_lc_i\) for all \(i=1\,{:}\,n\). Together with (7.3) we have proved the “<” part in \(\overline{{\varSigma }}_{11}\).

(2)
\(\overline{{\varSigma }}_{12}\). The substitutions do not affect \(x_j\), for all \(j\notin L\). By (7.2), such an \(x_j\) occurs in every \( w_2\) of order \(\le d_jc_i\), where \(i\in M\). Hence also \(\sigma \left( x_j,\overline{f}_i\right) \le d_jc_i\) for all \(i=1\,{:}\,n\) and \(j\notin L\).

(3)
\(\overline{{\varSigma }}_{13}\). Consider \(r\in J{\setminus }\bigl \{\,l\,\bigr \}\). For an \(i\in M\), \(y_r\) occurs of order \(\overline{c}c_i\) in \(w_2\) in (7.1). For all \(i=1\,{:}\,n\), if a substitution occurs for an \(x_r^{(d_rc_i)}\) in \(f_i\), then \(\sigma \left( y_r,\overline{f}_i\right) =\overline{c}c_i\); otherwise \(\sigma \left( y_r,\overline{f}_i\right) =\infty \). In either case \(\sigma \left( y_r,\overline{f}_i\right) \le \overline{c}c_i\).

(4)
\(\overline{{\varSigma }}_{21}\). Equalities hold on the diagonal and in the \(l{\text {th}}\) column, as \(y_r^{(d_r\overline{c})}\) and \(y_l^{(d_l\overline{c})}\) occur in \(g_l\), where \(r\in J\). What remains to show is the “<” part. Assume that \(j\,,r\,,l\in J\) are distinct. Then by (4.9) and (4.12),
$$\begin{aligned} \sigma \left( x_{j},g_{r}\right)&=\sigma \left( x_{j}, y_{r}x_{r}^{(d_{r}\overline{c})} + \frac{v_{r}}{v_l} \cdot x_l^{(d_l\overline{c})}\right) \le \sigma \left( x_{j},\mathbf {v}\right) < d_j \overline{c}. \end{aligned}$$(7.5) 
(5)
\(\overline{{\varSigma }}_{22}\). Assume again that \(j\,,r\,,l\) are distinct, where \(r\in J\) and \(j=s+1\,{:}\,n\). Then replacing the “<” in (7.5) by “\(\le \)” proves the “\(\le \)” part in \(\overline{{\varSigma }}_{22}\).

(6)
\(\overline{{\varSigma }}_{23}\). Consider \(r, j\in J\). By \(0=g_l= y_l+ x_l^{(d_l\overline{c})}\) and (4.9), \(y_j\) occurs in \(g_r\) only if \(j=r\), and \(\sigma \left( y_j,g_j\right) =0\). Hence, on the diagonal lie zeros, and everywhere else is filled with \(\infty \).
Also worth noting is that in the \(y_l\) column is only one finite entry \(\sigma _{n+l,n+l}=0\), and that in the \(g_l\) row are only two finite entries \(\sigma _{n+l,n+l}=0\) and \(\sigma _{n+l,l}=d_l\overline{c}\).
Recalling (4.13) for the formulas of \({\widetilde{c}}_i\) and \({\widetilde{d}}_j\) of \(\overline{{\varSigma }}\), we can summarize that the above items (1)–(6) verify the relations between \(\overline{\sigma }_{ij}\) and \({\widetilde{d}}_j{\widetilde{c}}_i\) in \(\overline{{\varSigma }}\) for all \(i,j=1\,{:}\,n+s\); see Fig. 1. \(\square \)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tan, G., Nedialkov, N.S. & Pryce, J.D. Conversion methods for improving structural analysis of differentialalgebraic equation systems. Bit Numer Math 57, 845–865 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s105430170655z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
Keywords
 Differentialalgebraic equations
 Structural analysis
 Modeling
 Symbolic computation
Mathematics Subject Classification
 34A09
 65L80
 41A58
 68W30