Skip to main content

differential equations - What's behind Method -> {"EquationSimplification" -> "Residual"}


In order to solve a quite large system of differential equations, I have the habit to use the NDSolve command without changing any options. As I wanted more precision, I increased the number of points to integrate. There I get an error and suggestion to use Method -> {"EquationSimplification" -> "Residual"} in NDSolve... which I did and it works fine now.


Can anyone explain to me how it really works and what's behind this method ?



Answer




This post contains several code blocks, you can copy them easily with the help of importCode.




As mentioned in the comment above, the answer is hidden in this tutorial. Given the tutorial is a bit obscure, I'd like to retell the relevant part in an easier to understand way.


For illustration, let's consider the following initial value problem (IVP):


$$ 2 y''(x)=y'(x)-3 y(x)-4 $$$$ y(0)=5,\ y'(0)=7 $$


eqn = 2 y''[x] == y'[x] - 3 y[x] - 4;
ic = {y[0] == 5, y'[0] == 7};

We know this can be easily solved by NDSolve / NDSolveValue:


seq = Sequence[{eqn, ic}, y, {x, 0, 6}];

sol = NDSolveValue[seq];
ListLinePlot@sol

Mathematica graphics


Nevertheless, do you know how NDSolve solves this problem? The process is quite involved of course, but the part relevant to your question is, NDSolve needs to transform the equation to some kind of standard form, which is controlled by EquationSimplification.


Currently there exist 3 possible option values for EquationSimplification: Solve, MassMatrix and Residual. By default NDSolve will try Solve first. What does Solve do? It'll transform the equation to the following form:


$$ y_1'(x)=\frac{1}{2}(-3 y_0(x)+y_1(x)-4)$$ $$ y_0'(x)=y_1(x) $$ $$y_0(0)=5,\ y_1(0)=7$$


i.e. right hand side (RHS) of the resulting system consists no derivative term, and left hand side (LHS) of every equation is only a single 1st order derivative term whose coefficient is $1$. This can be verified with the following code:


{state} = NDSolve`ProcessEquations@seq;


state[NumericalFunction][FunctionExpression]
(* Function[{x, y, NDSolve`y$1$1}, {NDSolve`y$1$1, 1/2 (-4 - 3 y + NDSolve`y$1$1)}] *)

Rule @@ (Flatten@state@# & /@ {Variables, WorkingVariables}) // Thread
(* {x -> x, y -> y, y' -> NDSolve`y$1$1, …… *)

The system is then solved with an ordinary differential equation (ODE) solver.


While when Residual is chosen (or equivalently SolveDelayed -> True is set), the equation will be simply transformed to


$$ 2 y''(x)-y'(x)+3 y(x)+4=0 $$$$ y(0)=5,\ y'(0)=7 $$


i.e. all the non-zero term in the equation is just moved to one side. This can be verified by:



{state2} = NDSolve`ProcessEquations[seq, SolveDelayed -> True];

state2[NumericalFunction][FunctionExpression]
(* Function[{x, y, NDSolve`y$2$1, y$10678,
NDSolve`y$2$1$10678}, {y$10678 - NDSolve`y$2$1,
4 + 3 y - NDSolve`y$2$1 + 2 NDSolve`y$2$1$10678}] *)

Rule @@ (Flatten@state2@# & /@ {Variables, WorkingVariables}) // Thread
(* {x -> x, y -> y, y' -> NDSolve`y$2$1, y' -> y$10678, y'' -> NDSolve`y$2$1$10678} *)


The equation is then solved with a differential algebraic equation (DAE) solver.


Apparently, the former transformation is more complicated. When the equation to be transformed is intricate, or the equation system is very large, or the equation system just can't be transform to the desired form, this transformation can be rather time consuming or even never finishes. The following is a simple way to reproduce the issue mentioned in the question with large system, we just repeat eqn for 3 10^4 times:


$HistoryLength = 0;

sys = With[{n = 3 10^4},
Unevaluated@Sequence[Table[{eqn, ic} /. y -> y@i, {i, n}], y /@ Range@n, {x, 0, 6}]];
NDSolve`ProcessEquations[sys]


In v9.0.1: ndsdtc: The time constraint of 1. seconds was exceeded trying to solve for derivatives, so the system will be treated as a system of differential-algebraic equations. You can use Method->{"EquationSimplification"->"Solve"} to have the system solved as ordinary differential equations.



In v11.2: ntdv: Cannot solve to find an explicit formula for the derivatives. Consider using the option Method->{"EquationSimplification"->"Residual"}.



As one can see, though the warning is different, NDSolve gives up transforming the equation system with Solve method in both cases. (The default TimeConstraint is 1, actually. )


So, when setting Method -> {"EquationSimplification" -> "Residual"} / SolveDelayed -> True, you're turning to a cheaper transforming process for your equations.


At this point, you may be thinking that "OK, I'll always use SolveDelayed -> True from now on", but I'm afraid it's not a good idea, because the DAE solver of NDSolve is generally weaker than the ODE solver. (Here is an example.) In certain cases, one may still need to force NDSolve to solve equation with ODE solver, which may be troublesome. (Here is an example. )


Finally, notice there exist many issues related to EquationSimplification -> Residual and I've avoided talking about most of them in order to keep this answer clean. If you want to know more about the topic, search in this site.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

plotting - How to draw lines between specified dots on ListPlot?

I would like to create a plot where I have unconnected dots and some connected. So far, I have figured out how to draw the dots. My code is the following: ListPlot[{{1, 1}, {2, 2}, {3, 3}, {4, 4}, {1, 4}, {2, 5}, {3, 6}, {4, 7}, {1, 7}, {2, 8}, {3, 9}, {4, 10}, {1, 10}, {2, 11}, {3, 12}, {4,13}, {2.5, 7}}, Ticks -> {{1, 2, 3, 4}, None}, AxesStyle -> Thin, TicksStyle -> Directive[Black, Bold, 12], Mesh -> Full] I have thought using ListLinePlot command, but I don't know how to specify to the command to draw only selected lines between the dots. Do have any suggestions/hints on how to do that? Thank you. Answer One possibility would be to use Epilog with Line : ListPlot[ {{1, 1}, {2, 2}, {3, 3}, {4, 4}, {1, 4}, {2, 5}, {3, 6}, {4, 7}, {1, 7}, {2, 8}, {3, 9}, {4, 10}, {1, 10}, {2, 11}, {3, 12}, {4, 13}, {2.5, 7}}, Ticks -> {{1, 2, 3, 4}, None}, AxesStyle -> Thin, TicksStyle -> Directive[Black, Bold, 12], Mesh -> Full, Epilog -> { Line[ ...

dynamic - How can I make a clickable ArrayPlot that returns input?

I would like to create a dynamic ArrayPlot so that the rectangles, when clicked, provide the input. Can I use ArrayPlot for this? Or is there something else I should have to use? Answer ArrayPlot is much more than just a simple array like Grid : it represents a ranged 2D dataset, and its visualization can be finetuned by options like DataReversed and DataRange . These features make it quite complicated to reproduce the same layout and order with Grid . Here I offer AnnotatedArrayPlot which comes in handy when your dataset is more than just a flat 2D array. The dynamic interface allows highlighting individual cells and possibly interacting with them. AnnotatedArrayPlot works the same way as ArrayPlot and accepts the same options plus Enabled , HighlightCoordinates , HighlightStyle and HighlightElementFunction . data = {{Missing["HasSomeMoreData"], GrayLevel[ 1], {RGBColor[0, 1, 1], RGBColor[0, 0, 1], GrayLevel[1]}, RGBColor[0, 1, 0]}, {GrayLevel[0], GrayLevel...

Is there a way to do conditional matrix loop using 'continue'

I have the following: n = 3; m = 5; ww = RandomReal[{0, 0.1}, {n, n}]; uu = RandomReal[{0, 1}, {m, n}]; pp = RandomReal[{0, 1}, {n, n}]; ss = RandomInteger[{0, 5}, {m, n}]; Grid[{{"ww", "uu", "pp", "ss"}, {ww // TableForm, uu // TableForm, pp // TableForm, ss // TableForm}}, Spacings -> {5, 2}, Dividers -> All] where I would like to look at every element of matrix ss and produce a matrix tt , with zeroes at the locations in ss which have zeroes, and in all other positions do the following: tt = (-1/Subscript[ww, m]) Log[(1 - uu)/(Subscript[pp, m - 1])], where Subscript[ww, m] is the value at index of ww matrix and where Subscript[pp, m - 1] is the value at index-1 of pp matrix. So for example if the first value ever read from matrix ss happens to be 2, then value taken from matrix ww would be from the row 2, but from pp would be from row 1. Also how to tell difference between a 0 as a valid value from within the matrix elemen...