Skip to main content

differential equations - How to speed up the integral in NDSolve?


On the MMA.SE, there have been several question on how to solve equations including integral using NDSolve, see example 1, example 2, and example 3. Many people, like me, have a hard time with this kind of problem. I had raised the last one 5 months ago and obtained a promising answer, since then I have been tried to solve the following equation for a spatially periodic function $u(x,t)$ on $[-L,L]$ with $2L$ periodicity:


$$\partial_t u + u\partial_x u + \partial_x^2 u +\partial_x^4 u + a{\rm{int}}[\partial_x^3u] + bu^3 {\rm{int}} [(\partial_x^2u) {\rm{int}}[\partial_x u] ] = 0, \tag{1}$$


where $a$ and $b$ are constants, and $\rm{int}[f]$ is a spatial integral for a periodic function $f(x,t)$


$${\rm{int}}[f](x,t)=\frac{1}{2L}\mathrm{PV}\int_{-L}^L f(x^\prime,t)\cot\left[\frac{\pi(x-x^\prime)}{2L}\right]\:\mathrm{d}x^\prime, \tag{2} $$


which should be understood in the sense of principal value (PV) since there is a singularity at $x=x^\prime$.


This equation is subjected to periodic boundary conditions and an initial condition. In my real problem, it has several $\rm{int}$ terms and its nest, like ${\rm{int}}[(\partial_x^2u) \rm{int}[\cdots] ]$, which will be solved over a large domain and a long time, say, $L=30$ and $t_\text{max}=200$ (much larger than those in my original post). I tried Michael's answer but found that even for that simplified version of Eq.(1) (without the last nested term) the code is extremely slow, though it works. Actually, I also posted my answer based on the finite difference method, but the accuracy of my code is not as good as Michael's. (That is why I didn't accept any answer.) Also, the problem has stiffness due to the high-order derivatives and nonlinear terms. So I have added some Method options to NDSolve ProcessEquations.


The Mathematica code



L = 30; tmax = 30; a = 1; b = 1/100; c = 1/(2 L); e = 1/10; nGrid = 91;
ic[x_] = e*Cos[\[Pi]*x/L];

sys = {D[u[x, t], t] + u[x, t]*D[u[x, t], x] + D[u[x, t], {x, 2}] +
D[u[x, t], {x, 4}] + a*int[D[u[x, t], {x, 3}], x, t] +
b*u[x, t]^3*intnest[D[u[x, t], {x, 2}]*int[D[u[x, t], x], x, t], x, t] == 0, u[-L, t] == u[L, t], u[x, 0] == ic[x]};

periodize[data_] := Append[data, {N@L, data[[1, 2]]}];(*for periodic interpolation*)

Block[{int, intnest},

(* IC fools ProcessEquations to consider int[] as a good num.fn.*)
int[uppp_, x_?NumericQ, t_ /; t == 0] := (cnt++;
c*NIntegrate[D[ic[xp], {xp, 3}]*Cot[\[Pi] (x - xp)/(2*L)], {xp, x - L, x, x + L},
Method -> {"InterpolationPointsSubdivision", Method -> {"PrincipalValue", "SymbolicProcessing" -> 0}},
PrecisionGoal -> 8, AccuracyGoal -> 8, MaxRecursion -> 10]);
int[uppp_?VectorQ, xv_?VectorQ, t_?NumericQ] := Function[x, cnt++;
c*NIntegrate[Interpolation[periodize@Transpose@{xv, uppp}, xp,
PeriodicInterpolation -> True]*Cot[\[Pi] (x - xp)/(2*L)], {xp, x - L, x, x + L},
Method -> {"InterpolationPointsSubdivision", Method -> {"PrincipalValue", "SymbolicProcessing" -> 0}},
PrecisionGoal -> 8, AccuracyGoal -> 8, MaxRecursion -> 10]] /@xv;

intnest[upp_, x_?NumericQ, t_ /; t == 0] := (cnt2++;
c*NIntegrate[D[ic[xp], {xp, 2}]*int[D[ic[xp], xp], x, t]*Cot[\[Pi] (x - xp)/(2*L)], {xp, x - L, x, x + L},
Method -> {"InterpolationPointsSubdivision", Method -> {"PrincipalValue", "SymbolicProcessing" -> 0}},
PrecisionGoal -> 8, AccuracyGoal -> 8, MaxRecursion -> 10]);
intnest[upp_?VectorQ, xv_?VectorQ, t_?NumericQ] := Function[x, cnt2++;
c*NIntegrate[Interpolation[periodize@Transpose@{xv, upp}, xp,
PeriodicInterpolation -> True]*Cot[\[Pi] (x - xp)/(2*L)], {xp, x - L, x, x + L},
Method -> {"InterpolationPointsSubdivision", Method -> {"PrincipalValue", "SymbolicProcessing" -> 0}},
PrecisionGoal -> 8, AccuracyGoal -> 8, MaxRecursion -> 10]] /@xv;
(*monitor while integrating pde*)

Clear[foo];
cnt = 0; cnt2 = 0;
PrintTemporary@Dynamic@{foo, cnt, cnt2, Clock[Infinity]};
(*broken down NDSolve call*)
Internal`InheritedBlock[{MapThread},
{state} = NDSolve`ProcessEquations[sys, u, {x, -L, L}, {t, 0, tmax},
Method -> {"MethodOfLines",
"SpatialDiscretization" -> {"TensorProductGrid",
"MinPoints" -> nGrid, "MaxPoints" -> nGrid, "DifferenceOrder" -> "Pseudospectral"},
Method -> {"StiffnessSwitching", "NonstiffTest" -> Automatic}},

AccuracyGoal -> Infinity, WorkingPrecision -> 20,
MaxSteps -> \[Infinity], StepMonitor :> (foo = t)];
Unprotect[MapThread];
MapThread[f_, data_, 1] /; ! FreeQ[f, int] := f @@ data;
Protect[MapThread];
NDSolve`Iterate[state, {0, tmax}];
sol = NDSolve`ProcessSolutions[state]]] // AbsoluteTiming

My problem


As mentioned above, the code is very slow. An estimation: $>2$ hrs may be required to obtain convergence with tmax = 1. Btw, the "slwcon" and "ncvb" warning could be ignored (see Michael's comments following his answer there). Is there any approach that would help speed up the code? Thank you very much.



Some ideas


As suggested by Henrik Schumacher, the combination of NIntegrate and Interpolation limits the speed of this code. Maybe it could be better to use a fixed quadrature rule and implement the integration with ListConvolve. But I need help with implementing this idea in my problem, so I bring this problem here in the hope that someone could help.


I am thinking that can we divide the interval into a uniform grid with $2M$($=\rm{nGrid}-1$) mesh points defined by $x_m=(m-M)h$, where $h=L/M$. Please see also my answer to a similar problem. Then the integral term (2) could be evaluate at the midpoints $x_{i+1/2}=(x_i+x_{i+1})/2$, for $i=0,1,\ldots,2M-1$, (note the periodicity demands $u_0=u_{2M}$) using a certain integration rule, e.g., trapezoidal rule, with $x_i$ as integration nodes. In this way, the principal value integral could be efficiently computed, as if it were simply an ordinary integral.



Answer



It is possible to solve this problem using the decomposition of the solution in a Fourier series. Then it is possible to replace the integrals with the coefficients of the Fourier series using the following obvious property
$$\frac {1}{2\pi}\int _{-\pi}^{\pi}e^{-inx'}\cot((x-x')/2)dx'=ie^{-inx}(1+ \mbox{sign}(n)) $$ It is exactly equal to FourierCoefficient[Cot[(x - xp)/2], xp, n] The result is a fairly simple code. But the calculation does not coincide with that obtained using the author's code. It means that we have to write another third code to test these two. For ease of use of Fourier series, we convert the coordinate and time according to x->k0 x, t->k0 t, k0=Pi/L.


L = 30; tmax = 30; a = 1; b = 1/100; c = 1/(2 L); e = 1/10; nn = 10; k0 = Pi/L; tm = tmax*k0;
a1 = a/k0;
uf[x_, t_] := Sum[f[k][t] Exp[I k x], {k, -nn, nn}]
eq = Table[

f[m]'[t] +
I Sum[ If[Abs[m - k] <= nn, f[m - k][t], 0] k f[k][t], {k, -nn,
nn, 1}] - k0*m^2 f[m][t] + k0^3 m^4 f[m][t] -
a k0^2 (I m)^3 I (1 - Sign[m]) f[m][t] +
b k0^2 Sum[
If[Abs[m - k - s1 - s2 - s3] <= nn,
f[s1][t] f[s2][t] f[s3][t] f[k][t] f[m - k - s1 - s2 - s3][
t] I (1 - Sign[k]) I (1 - Sign[m - k - s1 - s2 - s3]),
0], {s1, -nn, nn}, {s2, -nn, nn}, {s3, -nn, nn}, {k, -nn,
nn}] == 0, {m, -nn, nn, 1}];


ic = Table[
f[m][0] ==
e (KroneckerDelta[m, 1] + KroneckerDelta[m, -1])/2, {m, -nn, nn,
1}];
var = Table[f[i], {i, -nn, nn, 1}];
soli = NDSolve[{eq, ic}, var, {t, 0, tm}]; // AbsoluteTiming

Here is a comparison with the calculation using code @user55777 (left), Fourier (top right) and both codes at time t = 30 (bottom left). The bottom right shows the calculation without integrals (green curve) and with integrals (red curve) by the Fourier method.


Plot3D[Evaluate[Re[uf[x, t] /. soli]], {x, -Pi, Pi}, {t, 0, tm}, 

Mesh -> None, ColorFunction -> "Rainbow"]

Figure 1


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

plotting - Filling between two spheres in SphericalPlot3D

Manipulate[ SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, Mesh -> None, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], {n, 0, 1}] I cant' seem to be able to make a filling between two spheres. I've already tried the obvious Filling -> {1 -> {2}} but Mathematica doesn't seem to like that option. Is there any easy way around this or ... Answer There is no built-in filling in SphericalPlot3D . One option is to use ParametricPlot3D to draw the surfaces between the two shells: Manipulate[ Show[SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], ParametricPlot3D[{ r {Sin[t] Cos[1.5 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[1.5 Pi], Cos[t]}, r {Sin[t] Cos[0 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[0 Pi], Cos[t]}}, {r, 1, 2 - n}, {t, 0, Pi}, PlotStyle -> Yellow, Mesh -> {2, 15}]], {n, 0, 1}]

plotting - Plot 4D data with color as 4th dimension

I have a list of 4D data (x position, y position, amplitude, wavelength). I want to plot x, y, and amplitude on a 3D plot and have the color of the points correspond to the wavelength. I have seen many examples using functions to define color but my wavelength cannot be expressed by an analytic function. Is there a simple way to do this? Answer Here a another possible way to visualize 4D data: data = Flatten[Table[{x, y, x^2 + y^2, Sin[x - y]}, {x, -Pi, Pi,Pi/10}, {y,-Pi,Pi, Pi/10}], 1]; You can use the function Point along with VertexColors . Now the points are places using the first three elements and the color is determined by the fourth. In this case I used Hue, but you can use whatever you prefer. Graphics3D[ Point[data[[All, 1 ;; 3]], VertexColors -> Hue /@ data[[All, 4]]], Axes -> True, BoxRatios -> {1, 1, 1/GoldenRatio}]

plotting - Mathematica: 3D plot based on combined 2D graphs

I have several sigmoidal fits to 3 different datasets, with mean fit predictions plus the 95% confidence limits (not symmetrical around the mean) and the actual data. I would now like to show these different 2D plots projected in 3D as in but then using proper perspective. In the link here they give some solutions to combine the plots using isometric perspective, but I would like to use proper 3 point perspective. Any thoughts? Also any way to show the mean points per time point for each series plus or minus the standard error on the mean would be cool too, either using points+vertical bars, or using spheres plus tubes. Below are some test data and the fit function I am using. Note that I am working on a logit(proportion) scale and that the final vertical scale is Log10(percentage). (* some test data *) data = Table[Null, {i, 4}]; data[[1]] = {{1, -5.8}, {2, -5.4}, {3, -0.8}, {4, -0.2}, {5, 4.6}, {1, -6.4}, {2, -5.6}, {3, -0.7}, {4, 0.04}, {5, 1.0}, {1, -6.8}, {2, -4.7}, {3, -1.