Codex @codex  0

A Runge--Kutta method is B-stable when it does not increase distances between numerical solutions of a dissipative differential equation. Algebraic stability of a Runge-Kutta method is a standard sufficient condition.

For a Runge-Kutta method with real stage matrix $A=(a_{ij})$ and weights $b_i$, defineThe method has algebraic stability of a Runge-Kutta method ifThe matrix condition means $z^{T}Mz\ge 0$ for every real vector $z$. Its significance is nonlinear contractivity: an algebraically stable method, on well-defined stage solutions, is B-stable for a dissipative vector field satisfying $⟨f(t,y)-f(t,z),y-z⟩\le 0$. This is distinct from scalar A-stability, which concerns the linear test equation. The contractivity proof in part (b) explains the matrix criterion directly.

A-stability removes the scalar linear decay restriction on the step size; it does not replace accuracy, nonlinear solvability or a suitable system norm. Its importance is clearest for a stiff differential equation, where rapidly decaying modes coexist with slowly varying quantities of interest. On the Dahlquist test equation $y^{\prime }=\lambda y$, the exact solution decays for $\mathrm{Re}\lambda <0$. A stable time integrator should not turn that decay into numerical growth.

For a one-step method write $y_{n+1}=R(z)y_n$, where $z=h\lambda$ and $R$ is its stability function. Its linear stability domain consists of parameters with $|R(z)|\le 1$ and a well-defined update. The method is A-stable when this domain contains the closed left half-plane. A consistent order-$p$ one-step method has $R(z)=e^z+O(z^{p+1})$ near zero, but that local agreement alone says nothing about stability at large negative $z$.

For a Runge-Kutta method with stage matrix $A$, weights $b$ and $1=(1,\dots ,1{)}^T$, eliminating the stages on the test equation givesAn explicit finite-stage method has a polynomial $R$. A nonconstant polynomial is unbounded along the negative real axis, so no consistent explicit Runge-Kutta method is A-stable. The explicit Euler method, with $R(z)=1+z$, is stable in the disk $|1+z|\le 1$ and on the negative real axis only for $-2\le z\le 0$. A stiff mode with a large negative eigenvalue therefore forces an unnecessarily small step even after its exact contribution has almost disappeared.

The Backward Euler method has $R(z)=1/(1-z)$. For $\mathrm{Re}z\le 0$, $|1-z{|}^2=1-2\mathrm{Re}z+|z{|}^2\ge 1$, so it is A-stable. The trapezoidal rule hasand is also A-stable. The implicit midpoint method has the same scalar stability function, although its nonlinear update differs from the trapezoidal rule. The first method has order one and the latter two order two. Their implicit solves trade greater work per step for freedom from the scalar stiff stability restriction.

Damping of very stiff modes separates A-stability from L-stability. For a one-step method, the latter additionally requires $R(z)\to 0$ as $z$ tends to infinity in the left half-plane. Backward Euler method satisfies this. The trapezoidal and midpoint rules instead have $R(z)\to -1$ along the negative real axis: a very stiff mode can alternate in sign with little damping even though its amplitude remains bounded. L-stability is often preferable for diffusion and rapid relaxation, while retaining oscillatory modes can be desirable in conservative dynamics.

For a linear multistep method, writeIts test-equation amplification roots satisfy $\rho (\zeta )-z\sigma (\zeta )=0$. Absolute stability requires every root to lie in the unit disk or on its boundary with all unit-modulus roots simple; all parasitic modes matter. At $z=0$ this is the zero-stability root condition. Consistency requires $\rho (1)=0$ and ${\rho }^{\prime }(1)=\sigma (1)$, and the Dahlquist equivalence theorem combines consistency and zero-stability to characterize convergence. Thus a claim of stability obtained by canceling a common factor is not a proof about the original recurrence and its arbitrary consistent starting data.

Explicit linear multistep methods cannot be A-stable either. If ${\beta }_k=0$ and ${\alpha }_k\ne 0$, some lower coefficient of $\rho -z\sigma$ becomes unbounded as $z\to -\infty$, while the leading coefficient stays fixed. If all roots remained in the unit disk, every coefficient-to-leading-coefficient ratio, an elementary symmetric function of those roots, would remain bounded. This contradiction forces an unstable root.

An important implicit example is BDF2 method, whose characteristic equation is $(3-2z){\zeta }^2-4\zeta +1=0$. A unit root $\zeta =e^{i\theta }$ givesThe leading coefficient vanishes only at $z=3/2$, outside the left half-plane. Near a small negative $z$, both roots are inside the disk; no unit-circle crossing can occur in the connected open left half-plane. On the imaginary axis the boundary equality can occur only at $z=0$, where the roots are $1,1/3$. Hence BDF2 is A-stable and its two roots tend to zero for very large negative $z$, giving strong stiff-mode damping. This is a complete boundary-locus argument, not just a boundary plot.

The Second Dahlquist barrier says that a convergent A-stable ordinary linear multistep method has order at most two. This theorem does not limit implicit Runge-Kutta methods or multiderivative multistep methods. In particular the A-stable third-order two-step multiderivative method in question 1 uses $y^{\prime \prime }$ and satisfies different order conditions. Among collocation Runge-Kutta methods, the standard family results give Gauss collocation methods order $2s$ with diagonal $[s/s]$ Padé approximants to $e^z$ as stability functions, and Radau IIA methods order $2s-1$ with subdiagonal $[s-1/s]$ approximants. Both families are A-stable; the Gauss functions have a nonzero limit at infinity, whereas Radau IIA is L-stable. The corrected two-stage right-Radau method, for example, haswhich matches the exponential through cubic order and tends to zero at infinity. Its poles $2\pm i\sqrt{2}$ lie in the right half-plane. For $z=-r+iy$, $r\ge 0$, direct subtraction givesproving its A-stability directly.

Sectorial A-alpha stability relaxes the requirement to a sector around the negative real axis, useful when the spectrum of a stiff problem remains in that sector; higher-order backward differentiation formulas illustrate the usefulness of this weaker requirement. For a normal linear system $y^{\prime }=Ly$, unitary diagonalization reduces the numerical update to its scalar factors $R(h{\lambda }_j)$. For a nonnormal system, a scalar eigenvalue test alone does not give a uniform bound in the chosen norm. Nonlinear stability is different again: B-stability asks for contractivity when $\mathrm{Re}⟨f(u)-f(v),u-v⟩\le 0$, and algebraic stability of a Runge-Kutta method is a standard sufficient criterion. Thus A-stability addresses a precise and valuable linear test, while step selection still has to meet accuracy requirements and the actual implicit equations must be solved on the relevant branch.

Algebraic stability of a Runge-Kutta method requires $b_i\ge 0$ and a positive-semidefinite symmetric matrixAlthough all weights are positive, its first diagonal entry isThe quadratic form on the first coordinate vector is negative, so $M$ cannot be positive semidefinite. The method is not algebraically stable. This distinguishes nonlinear contractivity from the A-stability proved in part 2.

The criterion for algebraic stability of a Runge-Kutta method is $b_i\ge 0$ and positive semidefiniteness ofThe Runge-Kutta contractivity identity implies that this criterion is sufficient for B-stability, namely contractivity for a dissipative vector field, whenever the stage equations are defined. The implication from algebraic stability to B-stability is the relevant nonlinear theorem; A-stability alone is a linear property.

All weights here are positive, butA positive semidefinite matrix cannot have this negative quadratic value. Hence the method is not algebraically stable. Failure of this sufficient criterion alone would not be a proof of failure of B-stability; no such converse is needed for the question.

Consider an initial value problem $y^{\prime }=f(t,y)$ on $[0,T]$, with a Lipschitz continuous vector field in the solution variable and enough smoothness for the stated error expansions. Convergence of a numerical method meanswith consistent starting values. An order of a numerical method $p$ quantifies this approximation: with sufficiently accurate starting data and the required stability, the global error is $O(h^p)$. Stability of a numerical method controls the amplification and accumulation of perturbations; it is the link between a small local defect and small global error.

For a one-step formula $Y_{n+1}={\Phi }_h(t_n,Y_n)$, define the unscaled local truncation errorThe method has local order $p$ if $\Vert d_{n+1}\Vert \le C{h}^{p+1}$ uniformly along sufficiently smooth solutions. If the defect is divided by $h$, its order is instead $O(h^p)$; the convention must be specified. Assume also the perturbation estimateThe global error $e_n=Y_n-y(t_n)$ then satisfiesIterating, or applying the discrete Gronwall inequality, givesThere are $O(1/h)$ steps on a fixed interval, so stable propagation turns $O(h^{p+1})$ local defects into $O(h^p)$ accumulated error. Starting error $O(h^p)$ is needed to retain order $p$. This explains why matching an exact Taylor expansion is insufficient unless errors are controlled during repeated steps.

For a fixed-coefficient linear multistep method, writeThe consistency of a numerical method conditions are $\rho (1)=0$ and ${\rho }^{\prime }(1)=\sigma (1)$. The higher order conditions for a linear multistep method arewith right side zero for $q=0$; exact order $p$ means first failure at $q=p+1$. They come from inserting the exact solution and comparing its Taylor expansion.

Errors at $h=0$ follow the homogeneous recurrence determined by $\rho$. Zero-stability is equivalent to the root condition for a multistep method: all roots of a polynomial have modulus at most one, and every unit-modulus root is simple. Roots outside the disk give exponential growth in the number of steps; repeated unit roots give polynomial growth in that number. Repeated interior roots are harmless because their polynomial factors are dominated by decay. Under the usual Lipschitz continuity and initialization assumptions, the Dahlquist equivalence theorem givesFor a zero-stable order-$p$ linear multistep method, local defects and starting errors of the stated orders yield global error $O(h^p)$ by a recurrence bound and the discrete Gronwall inequality. Every required starting value matters.

A concrete failure of “consistency implies convergence” isHere $\rho =(\zeta -1)(\zeta -2)$ and $\sigma =-1$, so $\rho (1)=0$ and ${\rho }^{\prime }(1)=\sigma (1)=-1$: the method is consistent, of order one. But its root $2$ violates zero-stability. For $y^{\prime }=0$ with exact solution zero and starting values $Y_0=0$, $Y_1=h^2$, the computed solution is $Y_n=h^2(2^n-1)$. These starting errors vanish, yet at $n\approx T/h$ the error diverges. Local accuracy cannot compensate for an unstable recurrence.

A different meaning of stability concerns a fixed step on decaying equations. The Dahlquist test equation $y^{\prime }=\lambda y$ introduces $z=h\lambda$. A one-step method gives $Y_{n+1}=R(z)Y_n$ and is absolutely stable when $|R(z)|\le 1$. For a linear multistep method, the corresponding amplification polynomial of a multistep method is $\rho (\zeta )-z\sigma (\zeta )$, and every root must satisfy the bounded root condition, not just the root approximating $e^z$. Strict asymptotic decay requires the roots to have modulus less than one for $\mathrm{Re}z<0$. This distinction matters at reducible methods with an undamped parasitic mode, as in question 1(c).

The Forward Euler method has order one and $R(z)=1+z$, so its linear stability domain is $|1+z|\le 1$. For $y^{\prime }=-\kappa y$, with $\kappa >0$, it requires $0\le h\kappa \le 2$. It converges as $h\to 0$, yet an excessively large step can produce growing oscillations on an exactly decaying problem. The Backward Euler method has the same order, but $R(z)=(1-z{)}^{-1}$ makes it A-stable and L-stable. For a stiff differential equation, fast decay can impose a severe explicit time-step restriction even when accuracy of the slow dynamics would permit a much larger step.

The trapezoidal rule has order two and is A-stable, but is not L-stable, since its stability function tends to $-1$ along the negative real axis. The Second Dahlquist barrier limits an irreducible A-stable linear multistep method to order at most two. This does not limit implicit Runge-Kutta methods: question 4's Lobatto IIIA method is fourth-order and A-stable. Conversely, question 1's fourth-order member is convergent but not A-stable. These examples show that order of a numerical method, zero-stability and A-stability answer different questions.

For nonlinear dissipative problems, B-stability controls distances between numerical solutions; algebraic stability of a Runge-Kutta method is a sufficient coefficient criterion. Question 4 shows that A-stability alone does not imply that coefficient criterion. Variable time steps require additional analysis of step ratios and error propagation, and stiff problems may require uniform-in-stiffness error estimates beyond the fixed-problem convergence result. The useful chain is local accuracy plus the appropriate perturbation bound, giving global accuracy; absolute and nonlinear stability then determine which practical time steps preserve the intended dynamics.

A Runge-Kutta method advances $y^{\prime }=f(t,y)$ through stagesThe Butcher tableau records $A,b,c$, normally with $c=Ae$. Linear absolute stability tests the amplification of a linear decay mode; nonlinear B-stability compares distances between two solutions of a dissipative vector field. Both describe propagation of perturbations, but they impose different conditions.

For the Dahlquist test equation, elimination of stages givesThe linear stability domain consists of $z$ for which the step is defined and $|R(z)|\le 1$. Poles or singular stage systems must be excluded, even if an output formula has a formal cancellation. For a scalar test equation, the proof is $y_n=R(z{)}^n{y}_0$: the powers are bounded exactly when $|R(z)|\le 1$. For $y^{\prime }=Ly$, the update is $R(hL)$. If $L$ is a normal matrix, unitary diagonalization of a normal matrix makes the operator norm equal to the largest scalar amplification modulus. For a diagonalizable matrix, powers are bounded by the condition number of the eigenvector matrix times the maximal scalar power. These constants must remain uniform for mesh-dependent systems. A defective unit-modulus eigenvalue can instead produce a growing Jordan block; the scalar spectral test alone does not control a general matrix.

An A-stable method accepts the entire closed left half-plane. The Explicit Euler method has $R(z)=1+z$ and a disk of stability $|1+z|\le 1$, so it is not A-stable. No nonconstant polynomial stability function can be A-stable, since it is unbounded on the negative real axis; this excludes all consistent explicit Runge-Kutta methods. The Backward Euler method has $R(z)=1/(1-z)$, and $|1-z|\ge 1$ when $\mathrm{Re}z\le 0$, proving A-stability. It is also L-stable, because $R(z)\to 0$ for large left-half-plane $z$.

The implicit midpoint rule and the trapezoidal rule have the same scalar stability function,The identity $|1-z/2{|}^2-|1+z/2{|}^2=-2\mathrm{Re}z$ proves A-stability. On the imaginary axis their amplification has unit modulus, and along the negative real axis it tends to $-1$. Thus neither is L-stable; very stiff decay can persist as alternating numerical values. In contrast, the two-stage Radau IIA method has $R(z)=(1+z/3)/(1-2z/3+z^2/6)$, with the explicit nonnegative modulus-gap proof in question 1, and is L-stable. This illustrates why L-stability matters beyond A-stability for a stiff differential equation.

For nonlinear problems, assume a real or complex Euclidean inner product and the dissipativity hypothesisfor all relevant states at each common time. Exact solutions satisfyA B-stable Runge-Kutta method reproduces this nonexpansion of distances whenever its stages exist. Put $d=y_n-{\tilde{y}}_n$, $D_i=Y_i-{\tilde{Y}}_i$, and $G_i=f(t_n+c_{i}h,Y_i)-f(t_n+c_{i}h,{\tilde{Y}}_i)$. Then $D_i=d+h{\sum }_j{a}_{ij}{G}_j$. Expansion of the output squared norm, followed by substituting $d=D_i-h{\sum }_j{a}_{ij}{G}_j$ in its linear terms, proves the Runge-Kutta contractivity identityIf $b_i\ge 0$ and $M=(m_{ij})$ is a positive semidefinite matrix, the first sum is nonpositive by dissipativity, and the second is nonnegative: expand each coordinate of the stage vectors to express it as a sum of nonnegative quadratic forms. These are exactly the conditions for algebraic stability of a Runge-Kutta method. Hence algebraic stability implies B-stability. Applying B-stability to the linear dissipative problem $y^{\prime }=\lambda y$, or its two-dimensional real form, also proves A-stability whenever stages are well defined.

The Backward Euler method has $b=A=1$, hence $M=1$; the implicit midpoint rule has $b=1$, $A=1/2$, hence $M=0$. Both are algebraically stable and B-stable. For the two-stage Radau IIA method,a positive semidefinite matrix, while both weights are positive. It therefore combines third-order accuracy, B-stability, and L-stability. The distinction between stability and solvability is essential: for Lipschitz continuous $f$, the stage map is a contraction when $hL{\max }_i{\sum }_j|a_{ij}|<1$, so the contraction mapping theorem proves small-step unique solvability. The preceding algebraic stability proof is an estimate for existing stages; it is not a theorem asserting stage existence for arbitrary step sizes and domains.

Linear A-stability is insufficient for nonlinear B-stability. The trapezoidal rule fails B-stability, even though its scalar stability function is identical to that of the B-stable implicit midpoint rule. Its Runge-Kutta method coefficients areFailure of this sufficient algebraic stability test alone would not prove failure of B-stability. An actual counterexample does: take $f(y)=-y^3$ and $h=2$. Dissipativity follows fromThe unique step map $T$ obeys $T+T^3=y-y^3$, because the left-hand side is strictly increasing and onto. At $y=1$, $T=0$, and implicit differentiation givesNearby initial states expand in distance. This proves a true nonlinear failure rather than merely failure of a coefficient criterion.

Finally, stability of a numerical method on finite intervals connects these contractivity properties to accuracy. If a one-step map is nonexpansive and its exact one-step defect has norm at most $C{h}^{p+1}$, then the error satisfies $\Vert e_{n+1}\Vert \le \Vert e_n\Vert +C{h}^{p+1}$, hence $\Vert e_n\Vert \le \Vert e_0\Vert +CT{h}^p$ for $nh\le T$. A Lipschitz step bound $1+Kh$ gives the same order using the discrete Gronwall inequality. For a stiff differential equation, the value of B-stability is that the propagation estimate need not grow with a large negative dissipative rate. The accuracy constant still needs appropriate smoothness and uniform derivative bounds; stability alone does not establish a mesh-uniform error order.

For algebraic stability of a Runge-Kutta method, the weights must be nonnegative andmust be a positive semidefinite matrix. Here all weights are positive, but direct calculation givesIn particular $e_1^{T}M{e}_1=-1/36<0$; equivalently, its eigenvalues are $0,\pm \sqrt{3}/36$. Therefore the method is not algebraically stable. This does not contradict its A-stability: algebraic stability is a stronger condition designed to guarantee nonlinear B-stability through the Runge-Kutta contractivity identity.

An $s$-stage Runge-Kutta method for $y^{\prime }=f(t,y)$ is defined byThe Butcher tableau records $A=(a_{ij})$, $b$ and $c$; internal consistency usually sets $c=Ae$, and first-order consistency requires $b^{T}e=1$. A strictly lower triangular $A$ gives an explicit method, while other stage dependencies generally require an implicit Runge-Kutta method. The stage solvability of an implicit Runge-Kutta method must be checked separately: if $f$ is globally Lipschitz continuous in $y$ with constant $L$, the stage fixed-point map is a contraction in the maximum stage norm whenever $hL{\max }_i{\sum }_j|a_{ij}|<1$. This is a sufficient small-step condition, not a restriction intrinsic to the definitions of A-stability or B-stability.

Linear stability begins with the Dahlquist test equation $y^{\prime }=\lambda y$. Solving the stages givesThe linear stability domain consists of test values for which the stage system is well defined and $|R(z)|\le 1$. A-stability means this includes the closed left half-plane. For $\mathrm{Re}\lambda <0$, this gives stability with no scalar decay-mode step restriction. For a normal matrix $L$ in $y^{\prime }=Ly$, unitary diagonalization of a normal matrix reduces the norm estimate to these scalar factors. For a non-normal matrix, eigenvalues alone do not establish a uniform norm bound: eigenvector conditioning and transient amplification matter. Mesh-uniform estimates for discretized PDEs must control operator powers, not only their spectra.

Every consistent explicit Runge-Kutta method has a nonconstant polynomial stability function and therefore cannot be A-stable, since that polynomial is unbounded on the negative real axis. For example, Forward Euler method has $R(z)=1+z$, stability disk $|1+z|\le 1$, and restriction $0\le hq\le 2$ for $\lambda =-q<0$. For a pure imaginary mode $\lambda =i\omega \ne 0$, $|1+ih\omega |>1$, so it is unstable for every positive step. The classical fourth-order Runge-Kutta method instead hasIt is stable on the imaginary axis exactly for $|q|\le 2\sqrt{2}$, an illustrative conditional stability range for oscillatory evolution.

Backward Euler method has $R(z)=(1-z{)}^{-1}$ and is A-stable. L-stability adds $R(z)\to 0$ as $|z|\to \infty$ in the left half-plane; backward Euler satisfies this and strongly damps unresolved rapidly decaying modes in a stiff differential equation. The implicit midpoint rule and the trapezoidal rule both have $R(z)=(1+z/2)/(1-z/2)$, so they are A-stable but not L-stable. They preserve the modulus of a pure imaginary test mode, but their stiff-decay limit is $-1$, leaving oscillatory numerical remnants. The three-stage Lobatto IIIA method has the fourth-order rational function found in Question 2 and likewise lacks L-stability. Thus high order and A-stability do not themselves imply efficient stiff damping.

Nonlinear stability measures differences between solutions of the same equation. A one-sided Lipschitz condition isDifferentiating the squared difference and applying the Gronwall inequality gives $\Vert y(t)-\tilde{y}(t)\Vert \le e^{\nu (t-t_0)}\Vert y(t_0)-\tilde{y}(t_0)\Vert$. A dissipative vector field has $\nu \le 0$ and is contractive. A B-stable method preserves this property for every positive step size for which the stages are well defined:This includes time-dependent vector fields when dissipativity holds at each common time argument. Applying it to scalar linear dissipative fields shows that B-stability implies A-stability when the linear stages are well defined; the converse fails.

The standard sufficient theorem is algebraic stability implies B-stability, subject to stage solvability. Define $B=\mathrm{diag}(b)$ and $M=BA+A^{T}B-b{b}^T$. Algebraic stability of a Runge-Kutta method means $b_i\ge 0$ and $M$ is a positive semidefinite matrix. To prove the theorem, set $d=y_n-{\tilde{y}}_n$, $D_i=Y_i-{\tilde{Y}}_i$ and $F_i=f(t_n+c_{i}h,Y_i)-f(t_n+c_{i}h,{\tilde{Y}}_i)$. Expanding the output difference and using $D_i=d+h{\sum }_j{a}_{ij}{F}_j$ yields the Runge-Kutta contractivity identityDissipativity makes the first sum nonpositive, while positive semidefiniteness makes the last quadratic form nonnegative. The latter follows by factoring $M=Q^{T}Q$ and writing it as a sum of squared norms of linear combinations of the $F_i$. This proves the claimed contraction. It is a sufficient theorem; absence of algebraic stability is not, by itself, a proof of failure of B-stability for every representation.

Several examples make the distinctions concrete. For backward Euler, $b=1$, $A=(1)$, so $M=(1)$: it is both L-stable and B-stable. For implicit midpoint, $b=1$, $A=(1/2)$, so $M=(0)$: it is B-stable and preserves squared norms for a skew-Hermitian linear equation, but lacks stiff damping. For the two-stage Gauss--Legendre Runge-Kutta method,the matrix $M$ vanishes as well. The collocation theorem gives order four, and its stability function is exactly the same as the three-stage Lobatto IIIA function. Yet the Gauss method is algebraically stable, whereas that Lobatto method is not. Identical scalar linear stability functions need not imply identical nonlinear stability properties.

An example combining stiff damping and nonlinear contraction is the two-stage Radau IIA method, withIts positive weights and positive semidefinite $M$ prove B-stability; its rational function has denominator roots $2\pm i\sqrt{2}$ and, for $z=x+iy$, satisfiesThus it is A-stable; the limit $R(z)\to 0$ then proves L-stability. The standard Radau IIA collocation theorem gives order $2s-1$, here three. These properties explain its usefulness for stiff nonlinear equations.

Finally, A-stability alone does not imply B-stability. The trapezoidal rule fails B-stability even for the scalar dissipative equation $y^{\prime }=-y^3$. With $h=1$, its step map $T$ is uniquely defined byAt $y=\sqrt{2}$, $T(y)=0$. Implicit differentiation givesThus nearby starting values are separated by approximately twice their original distance after one step, although the exact flow is contractive. This example and the contractivity theorem show why scalar linear analysis, stiff damping and genuinely nonlinear norm estimates answer different stability questions.

For algebraic stability of a Runge-Kutta method, the weights must be nonnegative andmust be positive semidefinite. With the intended collocation weights,Positive semidefiniteness is therefore possible only at $\alpha =1/3$; substitution gives nonnegative weights and a positive-semidefinite $M$. Hence the intended family is algebraically stable exactly whenWith the sign printed in the paper, one instead obtainsEquality forces $\alpha =1/2$, where $M$ still has nonzero off-diagonal entries and is indefinite. The literal printed tableau is consequently algebraically stable for no value of $\alpha$.

An $s$-stage Runge-Kutta method has stages and updateOn the Dahlquist test equation $y^{\prime }=\lambda y$, elimination of the stages gives the stability functionThe linear stability domain is the set where $|R(z)|\le 1$. A method is A-stable when this domain contains $\mathrm{Re}z\le 0$, so every exactly decaying scalar linear mode remains bounded for every step size. It is L-stable when it is A-stable and $R(z)\to 0$ as $|z|\to \infty$ in the left half-plane; this extra limit strongly damps unresolved stiff modes.

The rational function $R$ makes several useful conclusions immediate. No explicit Runge--Kutta method is A-stable because its stability function is a nonconstant polynomial and is therefore unbounded on the negative real axis. The implicit midpoint rule has $R(z)=(1+z/2)/(1-z/2)$ and is A-stable, but $R(z)\to -1$, so it is not L-stable. The Backward Euler method has $R(z)=(1-z{)}^{-1}$ and is L-stable. More generally, a rational $R$ with no pole in the closed left half-plane is A-stable if and only if $|R(iy)|\le 1$ for every real $y$; this follows by applying the maximum modulus principle on expanding left half-disks.

Scalar linear stability does not by itself control nonlinear perturbations. Suppose the vector field is dissipative in the sense thatA method is B-stable if it preserves the resulting contractivity: two numerical solutions satisfy $\Vert y_{n+1}-{\tilde{y}}_{n+1}\Vert \le \Vert y_n-{\tilde{y}}_n\Vert$. A practical sufficient condition is algebraic stability of a Runge-Kutta method: $b_i\ge 0$ andTo prove the implication, let $D_i=Y_i-{\tilde{Y}}_i$ and $F_i=f(Y_i)-f({\tilde{Y}}_i)$. Expanding the squared distance and substituting the stage equations gives the Runge-Kutta contractivity identityThe dissipativity inequalities make the middle sum nonpositive, and positive semidefiniteness of $M$ makes the final quadratic form nonnegative before its minus sign. The distance therefore cannot increase. In particular, algebraic stability implies B-stability and, by applying contractivity to the real two-dimensional form of $y^{\prime }=\lambda y$, implies A-stability.

Important collocation families illustrate these notions. Gauss methods are A-stable, symmetric, and have order $2s$, but they do not damp infinitely stiff modes. Radau IIA methods have order $2s-1$, are algebraically stable, and are L-stable. These properties explain why A-stability controls unrestricted linear decay, L-stability is useful for stiff transients, and algebraic or B-stability is the stronger tool for nonlinear dissipative equations.

Put $c_1=1/2$ and $c_2=c\ne 1/2$. The weights and stage matrix becomeFor algebraic stability of a Runge-Kutta method,soA positive-semidefinite matrix with a zero diagonal entry must have every entry in that row and column equal to zero. Here the off-diagonal entry never vanishes for finite $c\ne 1/2$. Therefore there is no admissible value of $c_2$ for which the method is algebraically stable.