Previous ToC Up Next

## 1.1. Starting at Square One

Bob: It has been a lot of fun, to derive so many different algorithms and to implement them all in our two-body code.

Alice: Yes, I enjoyed it too, and I must admit, I learned a lot in the process. But I still have the feeling that I'm missing some basic pieces of insight. Do you remember how we struggled, trying to prove that the Abramowicz and Stegun formula was correct, the fourth-order scheme that had a misprint in it?

Bob: But you figured it out, didn't you?

Alice: Well, yes, after a false start. And it was a bit alarming that at first I didn't even realize that it was a false start. And to be completely honest, even now I'm not a full hundred percent sure that we got things right. Let me put it this way, I feel that I haven't yet gotten a finger-tip feeling for what Runge-Kutta schemes are, and how they really tick.

Bob: There must be several text books that you can look at. Surely they will explain things in more depth than you want to know.

Alice: I did look at some books on numerical methods, but none of them gave me what I really wanted to see. Some of them were just too mathematical in their concern and notation, others didn't provide the type of real detail that I wanted to see, yet others specialized on particular approaches. What I really would like to see is a pedestrian approach, no attempt to design special improvements. While I'm interested in all the extras, from embedded higher-order schemes to using extrapolation methods and symplectic schemes and what have you, I really would like to first understand the basics better.

Bob: You mean, just the straightforward Runge-Kutta schemes of relatively low order, without any extra bells and whistles?

Alice: Exactly. Here is an idea. If we limit ourselves to performing at most two new force calculations per time step, things can't possibly get too complex. Our Abramowicz and Stegun formula already had three force calculations per time step, and I'm not suggesting that we explore explicitly the whole landscape around that formula, at least not yet.

Bob: So you want to explore a smaller landscape, just to see in front of your eyes how everything works. And while the simplest schemes, like forward Euler and leapfrog, use only one new force calculation per time step, you want to explore the full landscape of two new force calculations per time step. Hmm, I like that. And I'm sure it would be good for our students too, to see such an explicit survey.

Alice: I think so, but really, right now my main motivation is just for myself to see exactly how those classical Runge-Kutta derivations are done, from scratch, without taking anything on faith.

Bob: I like the idea, and I'm game. Where shall we start?

## 1.2. Keeping it Simple

Alice: One problem for astronomers using books on numerical solutions to differential equations is that most books focus on first-order differential equations. In contrast, we typically work with second-order differential equations, and often ones with special properties. The gravitational equations of motion for the N-body problem, for example, have a force term that is independent of time and velocity.

This suggests to me that we should divide our work into two stages. First we try to figure out how to solve a general first-order differential equation, using up to two force calculations per step. This will reproduce the results from the standard text books, no doubt, but it will give us experience and will allow us to establish a notation and a systematic procedure.

Then, in the second stage, we can cut our teeth on the gravitational N-body system, to see what special methods will work there, and why, and how. The Abramowicz and Stegun formula, for example, is tailored already to second-order differential equations, albeit a general one in which there is still a possible velocity dependence present in the force calculations. We can go one step further, specializing to position dependence only, and just see what spectrum of methods we will find.

Then, with a bit of luck, we will have gained enough experience to be able to look over the horizon, to get an idea what you could do with, say, three new force calculations per step, which is the landscape within which the Abramowicz and Stegun formula was grown.

Bob: A somewhat ambitious project, but still quite doable, I think. You basically want to take the next step beyond forward Euler and leapfrog, in any possible direction, and see the dimensionality of the space of possible directions.

Alice: Something like that, yes. But let us restrict ourselves, at least at first, to Runge-Kutta methods. This will mean no multi-step methods, such as the original Aarseth scheme. It also means that we won't use higher derivatives, such as the Hermite scheme. In addition, we will exclude the use of implicit methods, which require iteration.

Bob: You could argue that, with two new force calculations per time step, you should allow implicit schemes that have just one new force calcuation per time step.

Alice: You could, even though it is not immediately clear that one iteration will provide you sufficiently rapid convergence. Also, the resulting class of implicit schemes is rather restricted. Perhaps we can look at that later. For now, I really want to be austere and stay to the absolute basics.

Bob: Okay: explicit Runge-Kutta methods using up to two new force calculations per time step, and no evaluations of jerks or anything else.

## 1.3. Notation

Alice: Let us start by choosing a specific notation. For the simplest form of differential equation, we can write: where we will call the variable the position and the variable the time. The solution of this equation is given by . When we solve this equation numerically, we use a finite time step . For now, we will analyze the properties of the first time step. We choose at the beginning of the first time step, and we denote the positions at the beginning and end of the first time step by and , respectively: We can introduce the usual notation where a dot over a variable indicates the time derivative and a prime indicates the space derivative:  If we now want to determine the time derivative of the force, we can use the chain rule, differentiating the force first with respect to its argument x, and multiplying the result with the time derivative of x: For the various derivatives of the position, we can introduce the historical notation in terms of velocity, acceleration, jerk, snap, crackle and pop, respectively: These expressions are especially useful for the type of second-order differential equation encountered in classical mechanics: which can be written as a system of two first-order differential equations: However, for now we will stick to the first-order differential equation, using the general expression that we started with, but without any explicit time dependence.

## 1.4. A Matter of Interpretation

Bob: Even though this is just a warming-up exercise, it would be nice to give a physical interpretation to the first-order differential equation that you wrote down: You have been calling a force, but that doesn't seem right. This equation tells us that the velocity is prescribed, and equal to . A true force would give rise to an acceleration, not a velocity.

Alice: In principle that is correct, but in practice, if we have a lot of resistance, it is the velocity that is proportional to the force. If you move a spoon through molasses, you have to push twice as hard to go twice as fast.

Bob: But even in that case, the initial acceleration must still be proportional to the applied force.

Alice: Yes, but only very briefly. As soon as you pick up a very small amount of speed, friction starts to resist, canceling part of your force. So after the initial transients die out, the velocity settles to a constant value, proportional to the force you use. From than on, in the limit of changes that are slow with respect to the duration of the transients, the acceleration is proportional to the rate of change of the force, not to the magnitude of the force.

Bob: I don't like the idea of posing a problem, and then neglecting the interesting part of the solution, namely the transients.

Alice: So for once you are looking for a more clearly abstract model; I thought you would like a quick and dirty physics example!

Bob: Molasses may indeed be too dirty for me. Why don't we stick with considering as a velocity.

Alice: But the left hand side of the differential equation is a velocity. The right-hand side has to be something else. In Newtonian dynamics we have , which means that the acceleration is proportional to the net force acting on the body. You now want to have a velocity, but you have to specify what it is that is imposing itself on your particle to produce that velocity.

Bob: Well, yeah, hmmm, let's see, that's not so clear.

Alice: Forgive the pun, but why don't we stick to molasses?

Bob: Ah, I got it! Hey, elementary, my dear Watson. If a particle would be rolling down a potential well, without any friction, the total energy would be constant. If we write for the potential energy per unit mass, and for the total energy per unit mass, then the velocity can be expressed as: Alice: Bravo, that works. Interesting. I hadn't even considered such a possibility, probably because I started out calling a force from the beginning.

Bob: Okay, so we're talking now about a particle in a potential well.

Alice: You may, but I still prefer to talk about molasses, since in that case we can make a more smooth transition to the case of a second order differential equation.

## 1.5. Taylor Series

Bob: I still prefer my interpretation. Let's just agree to disagree.

Alice: Fine with me, since, after all, the math will be the same.

Bob: Exactly. Okay, let's get to work. You have struggled with these things a lot more than I have. How do we get started?

Alice: We want to check the quality of any given numerical approximation scheme to the solution of our differential equation. In order to do so, we can compare such a scheme with a Taylor series development of the true solution, around the starting point of our one integration step.

In other words, we can express the position at the end of one time step in the following Taylor series: The velocity at time zero is given directly by the differential equation. The higher derivatives of the position, starting with the acceleration, can be found by differentiating both sides of the differential equation, one or more times. This leads to expressions such as: The last two lines can be derived in the same way as the second line, by fully writing out the differentiations, using the chain rule.

By the way, here the acceleration comes out nicely as the rate of change of the force applied, as would happen for a spoon moving slowly through molasses.

Bob: That would take a lot of getting used to! For me, the acceleration is just the rate of change of the velocity.

Alice: But isn't that a tautology? After all, the acceleration is by definition the rate of change of the velocity, as a mathematical construction. I thought we were trying to come up with a physical system as an example.

Bob: But a potential well is surely a physical system! And what I thought is that we had agreed to disagree.

Alice: I agree!

## 1.6. New Force Evaluations

Bob: Me too. Coming back to our task, I like the systematic approach idea, of using up to two new force evaluations per time step. Well, this gives us two choices: either one or two force evaluations.

Alice: Actually, there are four choices. In each case, we can try to recycle a previous force calculation in the next step, or we don't.

Bob: You mean that you use the last force calculation, at the end of a given step, as the first force value that you use for the next step?

Alice: Exactly. And this will put rather strict conditions on the nature of that force calculation.

Bob: It means, of course, that a force calculation needs to take place at the boundary of two steps, otherwise you can't recycle it. But that doesn't seem to be a particularly severe restriction to me.

Alice: In principle, you could even recycle a force that is used in the middle, if you would be willing to used the remembered values of the previous step, you could still recycle. However, that would mean that we would go beyond Runge-Kutta methods, and enter the area of multi-step methods.

Bob: Let's not get into that, at least not know. I'd be happy to first explore the landscape of Runge-Kutta algorithms. Okay, as long as we let our last force calculation occur at the end of a step, we can recycle that calculation for the next step.

Alice: Oh, no, it's not that simple. In a general Runge-Kutta approach, you compute a few forces here and there, and only after doing that, you combine those forces in such a way as to get a combination of them, to give you a value of the new position accurate to high order.

Now the force that you would evaluate at that new position, at the beginning of the next time step, will in general not be the same as the force that you have calculated at the end of the current time step. Even though it was evaluated at the same time, it will in general be evaluated at a slightly different place. The reason is that at the time of evaluation, you didn't yet have in hand the most accurate estimate for the new position.

Bob: Hmm, that's tricky. I hadn't thought about that.

Alice: I hadn't either, until I started playing with some of those schemes in detail. All the more reason to take a really pedestrian approach, and just write everything out, to make sure we're not overlooking something or jumping to conclusions!

To start with, let us not try to recycle any forces. Within that category of attempts, we will first investigate what can happen when we allow just one force evaluation per step, and then we will move on to two force evaluations per step. After that, we'll look at recycling.

Bob: Fair enough!

## 1.7. One Force Evaluation per Step

Alice: At the start of a time step, the only evaluation of the right-hand side of the differential equation that is possible is the one at : This leads to the following dimensionally correct expression: Combining the last two equations, we have We can compare this expression with our Taylor series: Using Eqs. (
12) we can write this as How accurate is our new value after we take one step? Let us see how well we can match Eq. (15) with Eq. (17), in successive powers of . The constant term matches trivially, and our first condition arises from the term linear in : hence Equation 19 looks ok.

We have no free parameter left, so this leads us to the only possible explicit first-order integration scheme which is the forward-Euler algorithm. This scheme is only first-order accurate, since it cannot possibly reproduce the term in Eq. (17): such a match would require , which is certainly not true for general force prescriptions.

Bob: Of course, forward Euler is the simplest possible scheme. It is what anyone would have guessed, if they had guessed any scheme at all

Alice: That may be true, but I, for one, like to see a derivation for any integration scheme, even the simplest and humblest of them all. It is all nice and fine to say that something is intuitively obvious, but I am much happier if you can prove that something is not only simple, but actually the simplest, and under certain plausible restrictions, the only one of its kind.

Bob: Can't argue about taste. I can see your point, but any good point can be pressed to extremes. Well, as long as you do the calculating, I'll sit back and relax.

## 1.8. Two Force Evaluations per Step

Alice: Now we can move to more interesting venues, when we allow two force evaluations per step. After a first evaluation of the right-hand side of the differential equation, we can perform a preliminary integration in time, after which we can evaluate the right-hand side again, at a new position: We can now use a more general expression for the new position, in which we rely on the preliminary information that has been gathered in the two force evoluations. Since each force evaluation has the dimension of a time derivative of the position, we have to multiply each one with a single power of . The coefficient for each term is, as yet, arbitrary, so let us parametrize them as follows: We can combine these equations, and write them as Bob: Our strategy is again to compare this expression with a Taylor series defined at the start of the time step, right?

Alice: Yes. And since that Taylor series for is defined as a series in , we must somehow translate the above expressions, too, a series in , around .

Bob: The main obstacle here is , which itself involves an expression that depends on .

Alice: The solution here is that we can develop itself in a Taylor series around . In general, for any function of , we can write the Taylor series for a position near as: In our particular case, this gives us: We thus find for the new position, at the end of our time step: We can now compare this expression with the Taylor series expansion of the true orbit: Using Eq. (12), we can write this as To what order can we make Eqs. (26) and (28) compatible? Starting with terms to first order in , we have to insist that which leads to the condition To second order in , we would like to satisfy: which can be done through the condition Would it be possible to match Eqs. (26) and (28) also to third order in ? This would require While we can match the first term on the right-hand side, by choosing , this would require that , which is not true for general force prescriptions.

## 1.9. A One-Parameter Family of Algorithms

Bob: So we have to conclude that our scheme is only second-order accurate. That makes sense: with one force evaluation, we got a first-order scheme, and with two force evaluations, we get a second-order scheme. Presumably with p force evaluations, you get a scheme that is accurate to order p.

Alice: I would have guessed so too, but this is not so. Your guess is correct for order 3 and 4, but it turns out that you need 6 force evaluations to build an algorithm that is accurate to order 5!

Bob: That is surprising!

Alice: It is, until you realize that you get more and more equations that you have to satisfy. The number of such conditions grows quite a bit faster than the the number of force calculations. This is not yet obvious in what we have done, but if will become obvious pretty soon. In general, there are a lot of complicated combinatorial surprises in Runge-Kutta derivations.

Bob: Fascinating. But for now, at least, it seems that going to higher order gives us more freedom, rather than less. Unlike the first-order case, we now have an extra parameter to play with.

We started with three free parameters, , , and . Since we only have the two boxed conditions above, we can expect to be left with one degree of freedom in choosing the coefficients in our algorithm.

Alice: Well, let's check. If we define , we find: We thus obtain the following one-parameter family of algorithms: Bob: Ah, this is nice. I recognize some of the algorithms that I've been using in the past. One classical choice for a second-order Runge-Kutta is , leading to: This one goes under the name `improved Euler scheme.'

Another classical choice is , which gives: This integration scheme is called the `midpoint scheme.'

Alice: Yes, and now we have given a derivation for why they work. In general, for higher-order algorithms, you have to follow such a derivation to convince yourself that the recipe has the order that is claimed for it. However, in this second-order case, you can still use your intuition to convince yourself that the expressions are okay.

For , we effectively average the evaluations at the beginning and at the end of the trial step, and you can imagine that this gives you one extra order of accuracy, since you effectively cancel the types of error you would make if you were using a force calculation only at one end of the step.

Similarly, for , we use the evaluation at the end of a smaller trial step that brings us approximately mid-way between the beginning and the end of the step. Then, at that point, we again obtain an estimate for the average of the forces at begin and end of the time step.
 Previous ToC Up Next