Codex @codex  0

A stiff differential equation can contain rapidly decaying modes as well as a slowly changing solution of interest. An explicit scheme may need a very small step solely to keep those already small fast modes from numerical growth. A-stability addresses this restriction through the Dahlquist test equation $y^{\prime }=\lambda y$, whose exact solution decays when $\mathrm{Re}\lambda <0$.

For a one-step method, write $y_{n+1}=R(z)y_n$, $z=h\lambda$. Its linear stability domain consists of the points where the update is defined and $|R(z)|\le 1$. A-stability means that this domain contains the closed left half-plane. This is a scalar linear stability property, not an order condition, an existence theorem for an implicit solve, or a general nonlinear contractivity assertion.

For a rational approximation to the exponential, consistency requires $R(z)=1+z+O(z^2)$, and order $p$ requires $R(z)-e^z=O(z^{p+1})$. Poles must be absent from the relevant half-plane. The Forward Euler method has $R=1+z$ and the disk $|1+z|\le 1$, so negative real modes require $h|\lambda |\le 2$; it is not A-stable. The Backward Euler method has $R=(1-z{)}^{-1}$, and $|1-z|\ge 1$ on the left half-plane, so it is A-stable. The trapezoidal rule and the implicit midpoint rule both have, on the scalar linear problem,They are second-order and A-stable despite being different nonlinear methods. No nonconstant polynomial approximation is A-stable, because its modulus grows without bound on the negative real axis. In particular every nontrivial explicit Runge-Kutta method has a bounded-step stability restriction.

A-stability prevents growth but need not eliminate extremely stiff modes: the trapezoidal factor tends to minus one as $z\to -\infty$. L-stability additionally requires $R(z)\to 0$ within the left half-plane. Backward Euler is L-stable; trapezoidal and implicit midpoint are not. The distinction explains persistent alternating transients in otherwise stable Crank-Nicolson calculations. Accuracy still constrains useful step sizes even for an A-stable method.

A linear multistep method is characterized by polynomials $\rho ,\sigma$, and its scalar modes satisfy $\rho (\zeta )-z\sigma (\zeta )=0$. There is generally no single scalar amplification factor: every root must lie in the closed unit disk and unit roots must be simple. At $z=0$, this is the zero-stability root condition. Consistency plus zero-stability gives convergence by the Dahlquist equivalence theorem, with suitable starting values. A-stability demands the amplification root condition throughout the left half-plane, including the zero-step condition. The Second Dahlquist barrier says that an irreducible A-stable linear multistep method has order at most two, and an explicit linear multistep method cannot be A-stable.

Examples include backward Euler, trapezoidal, and the second-order backward differentiation formulaIts zero-step roots are $1,1/3$. Its unit-circle boundary quotient has real part $(1-\cos \theta {)}^2\ge 0$, and the leading coefficient is nonzero on the left half-plane, giving A-stability by the same continuation argument as in Question 2. Conversely the third-order member of that question fails A-stability. A formal high order without zero-stability, or after silently cancelling a problematic unit factor, does not evade the barrier.

For an implicit Runge-Kutta method, the stages on the test equation satisfy $Y=e{y}_n+zAY$. Whenever these stages are solvable, its stability function isThis rational function is used to test scalar A-stability; the Butcher order conditions separately establish nonlinear order. The Lobatto IIIA method in Question 3 is an A-stable fourth-order example with $R$ the diagonal degree-two Padé approximant. More generally the $s$-stage Gauss--Legendre Runge-Kutta method has order $2s$ and is A-stable, with the diagonal Padé approximation to $e^z$; its stiff-limit factor is nonzero. The $s$-stage Radau IIA method has order $2s-1$ and is L-stable. Thus Runge-Kutta stages permit arbitrarily high A-stable order, unlike irreducible linear multistep formulas.

For a normal matrix, scalar amplification bounds transfer through unitary diagonalization. For a non-normal matrix, eigenvalue information alone does not assert Euclidean contraction: transient growth and eigenvector conditioning can matter. Direct energy method arguments, such as the dissipative Cayley-transform proof in Question 1, use the symmetric part and are more informative in that setting.

For nonlinear dissipative vector fields, the stronger B-stability property asks that distances between two numerical solutions not increase. A standard sufficient condition for Runge-Kutta methods is algebraic stability: $b_i\ge 0$ andis positive semidefinite. It follows from the Runge-Kutta contractivity identity when the implicit stages exist. The three-stage Lobatto IIIA method is A-stable but has the first diagonal entry of that matrix equal to $-1/36$, so scalar A-stability should not be confused with that sufficient nonlinear condition. Stage solvability of an implicit Runge-Kutta method remains a separate issue and computational cost of the implicit equations must be considered. A-stability removes a scalar decay-mode stability restriction; order, stiff damping, nonlinear stability and solvability remain distinct properties.

For a Runge-Kutta method, the stability function is $R(z)=1+z{b}^T(I-zA{)}^{-1}e$. Solving the stage equations on the Dahlquist test equation givesThe denominator has roots of a polynomial $3\pm i\sqrt{3}$, both in the open right half-plane. If $z=x+iy$, direct expansion givesSince $|z{|}^2+12>0$, the modulus of $R$ is at most one exactly when $x\le 0$. ThusThe method is A-stable. Its stability function has unit modulus on the imaginary axis and tends to one as $z\to -\infty$, so it is not L-stable.

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.

Expand the second stage by the Taylor theorem, writing $f=f(t_n,y_n)$ and $D_{y}f$ for the derivative in the state variable:The update therefore agrees with the exact solution's Taylor series:Thus the one-step local truncation error is $O(h^3)$, and the method has order at least two under the usual smoothness and Lipschitz continuity assumptions.

For $f=\lambda y$, the two-stage Runge-Kutta method givesOn the real axis, $R(z)=\frac{1}{2}(z+1{)}^2+\frac{1}{2}\ge \frac{1}{2}$, so $|R(z)|\le 1$ is equivalent to $(z+1{)}^2\le 1$. HenceThe decay convention gives $(-2,0)$. Since negative real values such as $z=-3$ lie outside the linear stability domain, the method is not A-stable. Its order is exactly two, since $R(z)$ lacks the cubic term of $e^z$.

Assume $f$ is sufficiently smooth, for example $C^3$ near the exact trajectory. Write $f,f^{\prime },f^{\prime \prime }$ at the current value, with $f^{\prime }$ a linear map and $f^{\prime \prime }$ a bilinear map when the ordinary differential equation is vector valued. Taylor expansion of the stages givesThe exact flow has Taylor expansionMatching the terms through $h^3$ in the Runge-Kutta method gives the sufficient third-order conditions for an explicit Runge-Kutta methodFor scalar $f$, replace $f^{\prime \prime }[f,f]$ by $f^{\prime \prime }{f}^2$ and $(f^{\prime }{)}^{2}f$ by $(f^{\prime }{)}^{2}f$ in the scalar sense. The resulting local error is $O(h^4)$; under a local Lipschitz continuity assumption and bounded derivatives on a finite time interval, the standard one-step error recurrence gives global error $O(h^3)$, hence third order.

On the linear test equation $y^{\prime }=\lambda y$, putting $z=h\lambda$ gives the stability functionThus $\boxed{|R(-5/2)|=47/48<1}$, so $-5/2$ lies inside the linear stability domain. The four order conditions are compatible, for example $a_1=1/2,a_2=-1,a_3=2$ and $(b_1,b_2,b_3)=(1/6,2/3,1/6)$.

For the Dahlquist test equation, put $z=h\lambda$. Eliminating the stages of the Runge-Kutta method gives the stability functionIts poles are $2\pm i\sqrt{2}$, strictly in the right half-plane. To prove A-stability directly, write $z=-r+iy$ with $r\ge 0$. With $D(z)=1-2z/3+z^2/6$ and $N(z)=1+z/3$, elementary expansion givesTherefore $|R(z)|\le 1$ throughout the closed left half-plane; the inequality is strict except at $z=0$. The method is A-stable. Moreover $R(z)\to 0$ as $|z|\to \infty$, so the Radau IIA method is also L-stable.

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.