Backslide introduced in 9, persisting through 13.

I am trying to solve the KdV equation numerically. The following code would work perfectly in version 5:

q[x_] = (Erf[x] - 1)/2 - 5 Sech[x - 1]; xmax = 300; tmax = 10;

NDSolve[{D[u[x, t], t] == -D[u[x, t], x, x, x] + 6 u[x, t] D[u[x, t], x], 
u[x,0] == q[x], u[-xmax, t] == -1, u[xmax, t] == 0, 
Derivative[1, 0][u][-xmax, t] == 0, Derivative[1, 0][u][xmax, t] == 0}, 
u, {t, 0, tmax}, {x, -xmax, xmax}, Method -> StiffnessSwitching]

but fails in 12.3.0 for Mac with the error:

At t==1.57.., stepsize is effectively zero

Obviously the method used by Mathematica produces oscillations on the positive half-axis, which should not be there. Any hints on how to get a valid numerical solution with Mathematica? Thanks.


Another problem related to conservation law. Based on the experience obtained in e.g. here, let's avoid symbolic expansion of D. I'll use pdetoode for the task.

q[x_] = (Erf[x] - 1)/2 - 5 Sech[x - 1]; 
xmax = 300; tmax = 15;

With[{u = u[x, t], mid = mid[x, t]}, 
  eq = {D[u, t] == D[mid, x], mid == -D[u, x, x] + 3 u^2}];
ic = u[x, 0] == q[x];

points = 1500; difforder = 2; domain = {-xmax, xmax}; 
grid = Array[# &, points, domain];
(* Definition of pdetoode isn't included in this post,
   please find it in the link above. *)
ptoofunc = pdetoode[{u, mid}[x, t], t, grid, difforder];
odeadd = ptoofunc /@ eq[[2]];
ode = Block[{mid}, Set @@ odeadd; eq[[1]] // ptoofunc];

odeic = ptoofunc@ic;
sollst = NDSolveValue[{ode, odeic}, u /@ grid, {t, 0, tmax}]; // AbsoluteTiming
(* {34.3459, Null} *)

sol = rebuild[sollst, grid, 2]; // AbsoluteTiming

rstlst = Plot[sol[x, #] // Evaluate, {x, -xmax, xmax}, PlotRange -> {-8, 1}, 
      PlotPoints -> 50] & /@ Range[0, tmax, 0.5]; // AbsoluteTiming

ListAnimate[rstlst, ControlPlacement -> Top]

enter image description here

DensityPlot[sol[x, t] // Evaluate, {x, -xmax, xmax}, {t, 0, tmax}, PlotPoints -> 200, 
 PlotRange -> All, ColorFunction -> Function[z, ColorData["AvocadoColors"][1 - z]]]

Mathematica graphics

Oh, I didn't set the boundary conditions, but given the solution is localized i.e. there's no interaction between boundary and solution, this should not be too big a problem.

Increasing points to 2000 doesn't significantly change the solution, and the result is consistent with that of v5.2:

enter image description here

So I guess the solution is reliable.

I tested the sample in other versions, and found the backslide is introduced in v9:

v9.0.1 enter image description here v8.0.4 enter image description here

Further check shows NDSolve has used 9615 grid points in v5.2, and 9681 in v8.0.4 for spatial discretization, thus this seems to be a backslide of priori error estimates. If we set the Method -> {"MethodOfLines", "SpatialDiscretization" -> {"TensorProductGrid", "MaxPoints" -> 9615, "MinPoints" -> 9615, "DifferenceOrder" -> 4}, Method -> "StiffnessSwitching"} in higher versions:

enter image description here

NDSolve gives the desired result. Notice Method -> "StiffnessSwitching" is necessary here.

But still, my method that takes the consevation law into consideration is cheaper. (Only 1500 grid points are needed. )

  • $\begingroup$ I have decided to accept this solution, since it is much faster and the result coincides with some alternative code from Baumann I have found. Thanks! $\endgroup$
    – gerald
    Jan 18 at 12:35

Manually specifying a Method ("MethodOfLines") with a minimum spatial discretization works (and you have to increase the maximum number of allowed steps).

Also, use your q[x] to define the boundary conditions or they're getting invalid for smaller xmax. This is especially true, since xmax=300 is too much for this problem apparently. (At least for me looking at the produced solution)

q[x_]=(Erf[x]-1)/2-5 Sech[x-1];

    D[u[x,t],t]==-D[u[x,t],x,x,x]+6 u[x,t] D[u[x,t],x],

Plotting this with


yields the following plot:

Solution Density Plot

You can always increase the spatial discretization to increase the resulting resolution. Hope this helps.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Lack of resolutions was indeed the issue (+1). Plot3D[First[u /. sol][x, t], {x, -200, 200}, {t, 0, 10}, PlotRange -> All, PlotPoints -> 300, ViewPoint -> {0, -2.4, 1}]` gives a striking visual. $\endgroup$
    – bbgodfrey
    Jan 15 at 15:40
  • $\begingroup$ Since this problem solved by increasing the spatial discretization, I am wondering maybe it can be also solved by finite element method using small enough cell size? $\endgroup$
    – xinxin guo
    Jan 15 at 16:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @xinxinguo No, currently FEM can only handle PDE whose differential order is no more than 2: mathematica.stackexchange.com/a/199369/1871 $\endgroup$
    – xzczd
    Jan 16 at 3:06
  • $\begingroup$ @xzczd thanks, I didn't know that. :) $\endgroup$
    – xinxin guo
    Jan 16 at 3:25
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks to both of you for your help! I don't see much difference in height, but there seems a shift between both solutions. It looks like the NDSolve solution is ahead of the pdetoode solution. I doubled the points with pdetoode and (visually) there is no difference, while the NDSolve solution is even further ahead. I also compared with some code from Baumann "Mathematica In Theoretical Physics". And this seems to match perfectly with what pdetoode produces. $\endgroup$
    – gerald
    Jan 18 at 12:33

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.