Codex @codex  0

Absolute tolerances provide a nonzero error scale near zero, while relative tolerances follow component magnitude. A max-norm test ${\max }_i|{\hat{e}}_i|/s_i\le 1$ controls every scaled estimated component locally. A root-mean-square test has a different componentwise implication. Neither test automatically certifies the complete trajectory's global error.

Write $Y_i$ for the candidate accepted component and require $s_i>0$. The absolute and relative error tolerances scale in the title produces the dimensionless maximum norm testAbsolute tolerances have the same units as the corresponding solution components; relative tolerances are dimensionless. Choose separate absolute scales for components measured in different units or with different significant magnitudes. Near zero, a purely relative test can demand a zero allowable error; a positive absolute scale avoids that difficulty. The crossover is $\max (|y_i|,|Y_i|)\approx {\mathrm{atol}}_i/{\mathrm{rtol}}_i$ when ${\mathrm{rtol}}_i>0$. Official solver documentation specifies the analogous blend $\mathrm{atol}+\mathrm{rtol}|y|$ and allows component-specific absolute tolerances; the old/new maximum above is the convention used in this example.^[ref]

A root mean square version replaces the maximum norm by $E_{\mathrm{rms}}=\sqrt{m^{-1}{\sum }_i(|{\hat{e}}_i|/s_i{)}^2}$. It permits one scaled component as large as $\sqrt{m}$ when all others vanish, so passing that test does not mean every component is at most one. State the aggregation rule along with the absolute and relative error tolerances. Neither rule is a bound on actual global error.

Consider the nonstiff scalar initial value problem $y^{\prime }=-y$, $y(0)=1$, on $0\le t\le 8$. Its exact solution is the exponential decay $y(t)=e^{-t}$. Use step-doubling error estimation with the explicit Euler method: from the same numerical starting value $y_n$, form one coarse step $C_n$ and two half steps giving $F_n$:Accept $y_{n+1}=F_n$ when the absolute and relative error tolerances test $E_n=|{\hat{e}}_n|/s_n\le 1$ passes, with $s_n=10^{-5}+10^{-3}\max (|y_n|,|F_n|)$. There is no Richardson extrapolation in the accepted value. Both approximations have order of a numerical method one, while this local error estimator has step exponent $r=2$. Consequently the adaptive step-size controller uses a square root, not a cube root:Start with $h_0=1$. A rejected trial retains both $t_n$ and $y_n$, caps $q_n$ at one, and retries. A zero estimate uses $q_n=5$. Before every trial, cap $h_n$ at $8-t_n$. Stop with a failure if floating-point arithmetic gives $t_n+h_n=t_n$, or after 100000 trials. These rules specify the example completely; they are not a prescription for every ordinary differential equation solver.

The first two trials, $h=1$ and $h=0.2$, have $E\approx 247.525$ and $E\approx 9.90099$ and are rejected. The next trial has $h\approx 0.0572049$ and $E\approx 0.81$ and is accepted. For positive decreasing numerical values, $s_n=10^{-5}+10^{-3}{y}_n$, so the local error estimator givesWhen the relative term dominates, this suggests nearly constant accepted steps, approximately $2(0.9)\sqrt{10^{-3}}$. When $y_n$ falls below the crossover size $10^{-5}/10^{-3}=0.01$, the absolute term increasingly permits longer steps. The sharp final decrease in $h$ only lands on $t=8$; it does not indicate a sudden loss of smoothness.

The actual signed local defect from the same numerical input isHere $O$ is Big O notation, obtained from Taylor's theorem for the exponential function. Thus ${\hat{e}}_n$ agrees with the leading term as $h_n\to 0$, but is not identical to ${\ell }_n$. At $h=1$, $y_n=1$, the estimate is $0.25$ while the actual local defect is $e^{-1}-1/4\approx 0.117879$. Their closeness improves for the smaller accepted steps. Had we added ${\hat{e}}_n$ using Richardson extrapolation, the accepted formula would instead be $y_n(1-h_n+h_n^2/2)$, of order of a numerical method two; the same raw difference would still scale as $h_n^2$ and would not estimate that improved value's leading $h_n^3$ defect.

The global error $g_n=y_n-e^{-t_n}$ obeys an exact recurrence relation involving the actual local defects:Each previous global error contracts, yet the local defects keep adding. In the plotted run, 101 steps are accepted and two trials are rejected. Every accepted $E_n$ is at most approximately $0.81$, while the largest $|g_{n+1}|/s_n$ is approximately $38.6927$. At $t=8$, the numerical value is approximately $0.00027184218$, compared with the exact $e^{-8}\approx 0.00033546263$, giving absolute error approximately $6.36204\times 10^{-5}$. The right-hand plot deliberately scales actual global error by the same $s_n$ used for local acceptance; it is not a new global error tolerance test.

Tightening both absolute and relative error tolerances by a factor ten gives 315 accepted steps and endpoint absolute error approximately $2.14922\times 10^{-5}$; tightening both by a factor one hundred gives 991 accepted steps and endpoint absolute error approximately $6.94171\times 10^{-6}$. This is a convergence comparison for this particular initial value problem. The endpoint error decreases by about a factor three per tenfold tightening, rather than by ten: a first-order Euler method accumulates defects across many steps, while its local error estimator varies quadratically with $h$. A variable-step global ODE error bound needs propagation information as well as accepted local tests.

The absolute stability boundary remains a separate constraint. On the Dahlquist test equation $y^{\prime }=-\lambda y$ with $\lambda >0$, the accepted two-half-step formula has stability function $R(-\lambda h)=(1-\lambda h/2{)}^2$. It strictly damps perturbations only for $0<\lambda h<4$. Its local error estimator is ${\lambda }^2{h}^2{y}_n/4$, which can pass an absolute-tolerance test at tiny $y_n$ even outside this damping interval. In a stiff two-mode linear system, a fast mode can therefore constrain the step long after its visible amplitude has become small. An adaptive step-size controller does not turn an explicit Euler method into an A-stable method. Official solver documentation likewise distinguishes explicit Runge-Kutta methods for nonstiff problems from implicit Runge-Kutta methods and backward differentiation formulas for stiff equations.^[ref]