0
$\begingroup$

I have an ordinary differential equation:

$\quad$ $\frac{dP}{dx}$ = $f(x,P,Q)$

which I need to integrate from $x$ = $0$ to $X$, where $P$=$P_0$ at $x$=$0$.

For the moment let's assume I am using simple Euler to solve it:

$\quad$ $P_{i+1}$ = $P_i$ + $h*f(x_i,P_i,Q)$

From the solution to this I get the values of $P_i$ at each $x_i$, and in particular $P_n$ at $x$=$X$. All this works fine where $Q$ is a constant.

I now need to deal with the case where $Q$ is variable and in particular I need to find $\frac{\partial P_n}{\partial Q}$. Obviously I can do it numerically by perturbing $Q$ by a small amount $q$, rerunning the Euler solution to get $P_n'$ to give $\frac{\partial P_n}{\partial Q}$ $\approx$ $\frac{P_n'-P_n}{q}$, however this will take two Euler passes.

So I wish to do it analytically using the first Euler solution. $f$ is an analytic function and so I have all the required derivatives $\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}$, $\frac{\partial f}{\partial P}$, $\frac{\partial f}{\partial Q}$

I also need $\frac{\partial P_n}{\partial P_0}$ although I guess the solution methodology is the same as for $\frac{\partial P_n}{\partial Q}$

Any help doing this would be appreciated.

PS. I am actually using Runge Kutta for this, but am choosing Euler in this question for simplification as the solution technique is all that is important here.

$\endgroup$
10
  • $\begingroup$ I doubt the result of this will be nice. The problem is that the perturbation in $Q$ causes perturbations in the prior values of $P$ which then have to be fed into $\frac{\partial f}{\partial P}$. So consider for example (with $P_0$ fixed) $P_2'=P_1'+hf(x_1,P_1',Q')=P_0+hf(x_0,P_0,Q')+hf(x_0,P_0+hf(x_0,P_0,Q'),Q')$. That third term is very annoying to handle, and it only gets worse as you go to higher $n$. $\endgroup$
    – Ian
    Jan 29, 2017 at 16:42
  • $\begingroup$ Not sure I agree. Let's say there is one Euler step. $\quad$ $P_1$=$P_0+h*f(x_0,P_0,Q)$ $\quad$ so $\frac{\partial P_1}{\partial Q}=h*\frac{\partial f}{\partial Q}(x_0,P_0,Q)$ if 2 steps: $\quad$ $P_2$=$P_1+h*f(x_1,P_1,Q)$ So $\quad$ $\frac{\partial P_2}{\partial Q}$=$\frac{\partial P_1}{\partial Q}+h*\frac{\partial f}{\partial Q}(x_1,P_1,Q)$ $\quad$ $=h*\left([\frac{\partial f}{\partial Q}(x_0,P_0,Q)+\frac{\partial f}{\partial Q}(x_1,P_1,Q)\right)$ So it seems to me: $\quad$ $\frac{\partial P_n}{\partial Q}=h*\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\frac{\partial f}{\partial Q}(x_i,P_i,Q)$ $\endgroup$
    – Adrian
    Jan 29, 2017 at 17:37
  • $\begingroup$ sorry I formatted this on separate lines as in my question but it chose to concatenate it all onto one line, hope it is clear $\endgroup$
    – Adrian
    Jan 29, 2017 at 17:39
  • $\begingroup$ Your $P_1$ in the perturbed case is not the same as in the unperturbed case. So there is a df/dp term for that. $\endgroup$
    – Ian
    Jan 29, 2017 at 17:47
  • $\begingroup$ I am not perturbing anything. I would only do that for numerical derivatives. I need analytical derivatives. Hence I am using regular differentiation rules. No perturbation. $\endgroup$
    – Adrian
    Jan 29, 2017 at 17:55

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

Using $$ \frac{d}{dx}\frac{d}{dQ}P(x,Q)=\frac{d}{dQ}f(x,P(x,Q),Q)=\frac{∂f}{∂P}(x,P,Q)·\frac{dP}{dQ}+\frac{∂f}{∂Q}(x,P,Q) $$ you get for $V=\frac{dP}{dQ}(x,Q)$ the augmented ODE system \begin{align} P'&=f(x,P,Q)\\ V'&=f_P·V+f_Q \end{align} which you can solve like any other ODE system. It also works if $P_0$ is a compontent of $Q$.

$\endgroup$
11
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, I will pursue this approach for $\frac{\partial P_n}{\partial Q}$ What would the equivalent equations be for $\frac{\partial P_n}{\partial P_0}$ ? $\endgroup$
    – Adrian
    Jan 30, 2017 at 8:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ As $f$ does in general not depend directly on $P_0$, you get $W'=f_P·W$ with $W_0=I$ for $W(x)=\frac{∂P(x)}{∂P_0}$. $\endgroup$ Jan 30, 2017 at 8:40
  • $\begingroup$ @dacfer In a sense you're asking the wrong question. This calculation works for any parameter vector $Q$ (replacing $\frac{d}{dQ}$ by $\nabla_Q$, of course). Initial conditions are parameters too. (Also it should be stressed again that this does not compute the derivative of the numerical solution $P_n$, so writing $\frac{\partial P_n}{\partial Q}$ for this is not appropriate.) $\endgroup$
    – Ian
    Jan 30, 2017 at 11:47
  • $\begingroup$ @Ian. Maybe I am, but I have a requirement to calculate $\frac{\partial P_n}{\partial Q}$ I know I can set $Q=Q_1$, run the n-step ODE solver and get $P_n$ Then I can set $Q=Q_1+\delta$, run it again to get $P_n'$ and estimate the derivative. However I don't want to run the ODE solver twice, particularly as I already have the analytic derivatives for the function at each step. So if I'm asking the wrong question, then feel free to rephrase it, but I know what I need. $\endgroup$
    – Adrian
    Jan 31, 2017 at 13:47
  • $\begingroup$ @LutzL I have implemented your equations above using V and W, and in 3 test cases the analytic solution for both $\frac{\partial P_n}{\partial Q}$ and $\frac{\partial P_n}{\partial P0}$ give very similar results to the numerical derivatives calculated with multiple passes of the ODE solver. I had to ensure that the $V$ and $W$ ODE's do not contribute to the step length control algorithm which must only use the base ODE ie. for $P$. Thanks for your solution! $\endgroup$
    – Adrian
    Feb 1, 2017 at 10:33

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.