Symplecticness conditions of some low order partitioned methods for non-autonomous Hamiltonian systems

Abstract

We consider the application of partitioned Runge-Kutta (PRK) methods to non-autonomous Hamiltonian systems. Necessary and sufficient conditions for the symplecticness of PRK methods are given, more particularly for two low order PRK methods: the partitioned (explicit-implicit) Euler method and the 2-stage Lobatto IIIA-B PRK method. Both methods are often the basis of composition schemes of higher order. In particular for irreducible PRK methods we show the necessity for the nodes of the two underlying PRK methods to be equal.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. 1.

    Abia, L., Sanz-Serna, J.M.: Partitioned Runge-Kutta methods for separable Hamiltonian problems. Math. Comput. 60, 614–634 (1993)

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Bader, P., Blanes, S., Casas, F., Kopylov, N., Ponsada, E.: Symplectic integrators for second-order linear non-autonomous equations. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 330, 909–919 (2018)

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Blanes, S., Casas, F.: Splitting methods for non-autonomous separable dynamical systems. J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 39, 5405–5423 (2006)

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Blanes, S., Casas, F.: A concise introduction to geometric numerical integration. Monographs and Research Notes in Mathematics Chapman and Hall/CRC (2016)

  5. 5.

    Blanes, S., Moan, P.: Splitting methods for non-autonomous Hamiltonian equations. J. Comput. Phys. 170, 205–230 (2001)

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Cano, B., Lewis, H.: A comparison of symplectic and Hamilton’s principle algorithms for autonomous and non-autonomous systems of ordinary differential equations. Appl. Num. Math. 39, 289–306 (2001)

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Diele, F., Marangi, C.: Explicit symplectic partitioned Runge-Kutta Nyström methods for non-autonomous dynamics. Appl. Num. Math. 61, 832–843 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Hairer, E.: Backward analysis of numerical integrators and symplectic methods. Annals Numer. Math. 1, 107–132 (1994)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Hairer, E., Lubich, C., Wanner, G.: Geometric Numerical Integration., Comput Math., 2nd edn., vol. 31. Springer, Berlin (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Hairer, E., Wanner, G.: Solving Ordinary Differential Equations II. Stiff and Differential-Algebraic Problems, Comput Math., 2nd edn., vol. 14. Springer, Berlin (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Marthinsen, H., Owren, B.: Geometric integration of non-autonomous linear Hamiltonian problems. Adv. Comput. Math. 42, 313–332 (2016)

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Sanz-Serna, J.M.: Geometric integration. In: Duff, I.S., Watson, G.A. (eds.) The State of the Art in Numerical Analysis (York, 1996), Inst. Math. Appl. Conf. Ser. New Ser. Oxford University Press, Clarendon, vol. 63, pp 121–143 (1997)

  13. 13.

    Sanz-Serna, J.M.: Symplectic Runge–Kutta schemes for adjoint equations, automatic differentiation, optimal control, and more. SIAM Rev. 58, 3–33 (2016)

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Sanz-Serna, J.M., Calvo, M.P.: Numerical Hamiltonian Problems, Appl. Math. and Math Comput., vol. 7. Chapman & Hall, London (1994)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the anonymous referees for their constructive criticisms which helped improve the clarity of the paper.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laurent O. Jay.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix: Main lines of a proof of Theorem 2.2

Appendix: Main lines of a proof of Theorem 2.2

To prove the necessity of conditions (2.4b) we have assumed that the PRK method is irreducible in the sense given in [9, VI.7] and [9, Theorem VI.7.10, p. 222]. A reducible PRK method is defined as a method having equivalent stages (Qi = Qj and Pi = Pj for ij). We have also added the condition (2.8), i.e., that no index i exists where bi = 0 and \({\widehat {b}_{i}}=0\). This eliminates methods having stages that have no influence on the numerical solution q1, p1 similar to the DJ-irreducibility of RK methods [10, Definition 12.15]. This is justified as follows. We already know that the conditions (2.4a), and (2.4c) are necessary for symplecticness. Assuming that there is an index i such that bi = 0 or \({\widehat {b}_{i}}=0\), supposed to be unique for now, from the necessary conditions (2.4a) and (2.4c) we then obtain \({\widehat {b}_{i}}=0\), bi = 0, aji = 0, and \({\widehat {a}_{ji}}=0\) for j ∈{1, … , s}∖{i}. Hence, clearly in this situation the internal stages Qi, Pi will not influence the solution q1, p1 and the other internal stages Qj, Pj for ji. If there is more than one index i with bi = 0 and \({\widehat {b}_{i}}=0\), then one can easily show that all those internal stages can only influence each other, but they can influence neither the solution q1, p1, nor the other internal stages Qj, Pj with coefficients \(b_{j}={\widehat {b}}_{j}\not =0\). With that additional assumption (2.8) one is then in position to prove the necessity of (2.4b).

Proof

We can extend the sets of trees considered in [9, VI.7] and [9, Theorem VI.7.10, p. 222] by having an extra type of nodes, say grey nodes, standing for the value 1 of the scalar differential equation \(\dot {t}=1\). We use the notation and definitions given in [9] though we exchange the role of q and p and f and g. No node is attached on top of a grey node since the partial derivatives of a constant vanish. A branch leading to a grey node stands for a partial differentiation with respect to t. For the order conditions of partitioned methods, grey nodes need not be indexed. When a grey node follows a black node with index j, then the sum in the order conditions over the index j = 1, … , s must contain the coefficients cj. When a grey node follows a white node with index j, then the sum in the order conditions over the index j = 1, … , s must contain the coefficients \({\widehat {c}_{j}}\). Consider a P-series with coefficients a(u)

$$ \left( \begin{array}{c} {\sum}_{u\in TP_{q}}\frac{h^{|u|}}{\sigma(u)}a(u)F(u)(t_{0},q_{0},p_{0}) \\ {\sum}_{u\in TP_{p}}\frac{h^{|u|}}{\sigma(u)}a(u)F(u)(t_{0},q_{0},p_{0}) \end{array}\right) $$

For a P-series to be symplectic one of the necessary conditions for autonomous Hamiltonian systems is to have

$$ a(u) \text{ is independent of the color of the root of } u. $$

The same necessary condition holds for non-autonomous Hamiltonian systems for trees also containing grey nodes. This can be easily shown on a similar example given in the proof of [9, Theorem VI.7.4, p. 217] where the top black node of the tree u is replaced by a grey node. For that tree we take

$$ H(t,q,p)=q^{1}p^{2}p^{3}q^{4}+q^{3}t+p^{4} $$

and for that Hamiltonian we get

$$ F^{2}(u)(t,q,p)=(-1)^{\delta(u)}\sigma(u)q^{1},\qquad F^{1}({\bar u})(t,q,p)=(-1)^{\delta(u)}\sigma(u)p^{2} $$

where \({\bar u}\) is the tree obtained from u by replacing its black root with a white root. These elementary differentials are the only contribution to

$$ \left( \frac{\partial(q_{1},p_{1})}{\partial {q_{0}^{1}}}\right)^{T}J_{n} \left( \frac{\partial(q_{1},p_{1})}{\partial {p_{0}^{2}}}\right) $$

and we get

$$ 0=\left( \frac{\partial(q_{1},p_{1})}{\partial {q_{0}^{1}}}\right)^{T}J_{n} \left( \frac{\partial(q_{1},p_{1})}{\partial {p_{0}^{2}}}\right)= (-1)^{\delta(u)}h^{|u|}(a(u)-a({\bar u})). $$

Now to prove our statement we can consider the same PRK matrix ΦPRK as given in [9, VI.7] and [9, Theorem VI.7.10, p. 222], we do not even need to consider trees with grey nodes in that matrix. We define the vector \(d\in {\mathbb {R}}^{s}\) with elements \(d_{i}:=b_{i}c_{i}-{\widehat {b}}_{i}{\widehat {c}}_{i}\) for i = 1, … , s. For irreducible PRK methods we already know that the condition \({\widehat {b}}_{i}=b_{i}\) for i = 1, … , s is necessary for symplecticness, hence we obtain \(d_{i}=b_{i}(c_{i}-{\widehat {c}}_{i})\) for i = 1, … , s. The vector d satisfies

$$ d^{T}{\varPhi}_{PRK}=0 $$

since \(d^{T}\phi (u)=a(v)-a({\bar v})\) where v is obtained from u by appending a grey node to its root and \(a(v)=a({\bar v})\) for vTPq as seen above. Since the matrix ΦPRK is of maximal rank s we must have d = 0, hence its components satisfy \(d_{i}=b_{i}(c_{i}-{\widehat {c}}_{i})=0\) for i = 1, … , s. Since bi ≠ 0 for i = 1, … , s we obtain (2.4b). □

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jay, L.O. Symplecticness conditions of some low order partitioned methods for non-autonomous Hamiltonian systems. Numer Algor 86, 495–514 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11075-020-00898-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Hamiltonian systems
  • Non-autonomous
  • Partitioned Runge-Kutta methods
  • Symplecticness