In (1.1), we assumef “f1`f2 and we consider partitioned integrators that apply different numerical treatments to each fi. We explain is this section how to extend the exotic aromatic B-series formalism to compute order conditions for such partitioned integrators.
The advantage is to treat differently each part of f according to their properties. For example, if f1 is stiff andf2 is non-stiff, one would like to apply an implicit method to f1 and an explicit method for f2 (IMEX methods).
We follow here the formalism of [21, Sect. III.2] for bi-coloured B-series, called P-series.
We introduce white nodes ; they represent the functionf2. Black nodes now correspond to f1 but the root still corresponds toφ. We call these new forests exotic aromatic P-forests.
There are two slight changes in the computation rules compared to the non-partitioned case:
Furthermore, the nodeB can be replaced by an aromatic root or a white node.
• The operator L is now written as
L“Fp ` ` σ2 2 q.
In addition to the partitioning of the method, one can also add a postprocessor. The results of Section 4.3, 5.2 and 5.3 are straightforwardly adapted to the P-forests.
Theorem 5.9. Consider a Runge-Kutta method of order p of the form Yi “Xn`h
řs j“1
aijf1pYjq `axijf2pYjq `diσ?
hξn, i“1, . . . , s, Xn`1 “Xn`h
řs i“1
bif1pYiq `bpif2pYiq `σ? hξn, together with the following Runge-Kutta postprocessor
Yi “Xn`h řs j“1
aijf1pYjq `axijf2pYjq `diσ?
h ξn, i“1, . . . , s, Xn “Xn`h
řs i“1
bif1pYiq `bpif2pYiq `d0σ? h ξn.
Under the notations and assumptions of Theorem 5.7, if we supposef1 andf2 are gradients, if we choose f1, f2 and the coefficients of the method such that γ „0 then the method has at least order p`1 for the invariant measure. In particular, the conditions for consistency and order 2 are in Table 6.
Order Tree τ Fpτqpφq Order condition
1 φ1f1 ř
bi “1 φ1f2 ř pbi “1
2 φ1f11f1 ř
bici´2ř
bidi´2ř
bi`2d0
2 “ ´12 φ1f11f2 ř
bicpi´2ř
bidi´ř
bi´ř pbi`2d0 2 “ ´12 φ1f21f1 ř pbici´2ř pbidi´ř
bi´ř pbi`2d0 2 “ ´12
φ1f21f2 ř pbicpi´2ř pbidi´2ř pbi`2d0
2 “ ´12
φ1∆f1 ř
bid2i ´2ř
bidi´ř
bi`d02“ ´12 φ1∆f2 ř pbid2i ´2ř pbidi´ř pbi`d0
2“ ´12
Table 6: Order conditions for partitioned Runge-Kutta method with postprocessor (See Theorem 5.9). The sums are over all involved indices.
Example. Using the previously introduced formalism, we see that, iff1 andf2 are gradients and f “ f1`f2 satisfies Assumption 2.2, the following method, adapted from [9, Lemma 2.9], is of order 2 for the invariant measure of (1.4)(if it is ergodic).
Xn`1 “Xn`h2f1pXn`1` 12σ?
hξnq ` h2f1pXn`1`32σ? hξnq
`hf2pXn`12σ?
hξnq `σ? hξn, Xn “Xn`12σ?
h ξn.
It can be put in Runge-Kutta form with the coefficients below:
c A pc Ap d
b pb “
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1{2
1 0 1{2 1{2 1 1 0 0 1{2 1 0 1{2 1{2 1 1 0 0 3{2
0 1{2 1{2 1 0 0 and s“0 andd0 “ 12 for the postprocessor.
If we add a family of independent noises pχnqn independent of pξnqn, then by extending Theorem 5.9, we can show that, under the same hypothesis as the previous example, the following IMEX method has order 2 for the invariant measure of (1.4):
Xn`1 “Xn`hf1pXn`1` 12σ?
hχnq `hf2pXn` 12σ?
hξnq `σ? hξn, Xn “Xn`12σ?
h ξn. 5.5 Non-reversible perturbation
An interesting modification of (1.4) is to introduce a non gradient perturbation that pre-serves the invariant measure. It permits for some classes of problems to improve the rate of convergence to equilibrium [30], and it can also reduce the variance [20]. As in Section 5.4, we consider the equation (1.1) where f “f1`f2 and we use bi-coloured forests. We suppose f1 “ ´∇V is a gradient, andf2 is a perturbation of f1 that satisfies
div´ f2e´
2 σ2V¯
“0. (5.2)
The perturbation f2 does not modify the invariant measure. Indeed equation (5.2) implies that the adjoint of Bφ “ φ1pf2q satisfies B˚ρ8 “ 0, and thus the invariant measure is preserved. A simple example of such non gradient perturbation is f2 “ J∇V, with J a fixed antisymmetric matrix. We can now apply all the results of Section 4 that do not use Assumption 2.2. We have the following useful properties.
• We still have the simplification rule (see Proposition 4.7): A B„ σ22
A
B. Furthermore, the node B can be replaced by an aromatic root or a white node.
• The generator reads L“Fp ` ` σ22 q.
• We have Fp q “ ´Fp q, and these differential vanish iff2 “J∇V.
The two first properties allow us to simplify lianas in the forests as we did in Section 5.4.
Then we are left with forests with white nodes such as . This is where the last property comes in handy, as we can integrate by part this tree and obtain „ ´ . We deduce the following theorem.
Theorem 5.10. Consider an ergodic Runge-Kutta method and a postprocessor as in The-orem 5.9, suppose f1“ ´∇V and f2 satisfies (5.2), then under the notations and assump-tions of Theorem 5.7, if the coefficients of the method are chosen such that γ „0 then the method has at least order p`1 for the invariant measure. In particular, the conditions for order 1 and order 2 are in Table 7.
Order Treeτ Fpτqpφq Order condition
1 φ1f1 ř
bi“1
2 φ1f11f1 ř
bici´2ř
bidi´2ř
bi`2d02 “ ´12 φ1f11f2 ř
bicpi`ř
bi´ř pbi“0 φ1f21f1 ř pbici´2ř pbidi`ř pbi´ř
bi´ř pbi`2d0 2“0 φ1f21f2 ř pbicpi´12
´řbpi
¯2
“0 φ1∆f1 ř
bid2i ´2ř
bidi´ř
bi`d02 “ ´12 φ1∆f2 ř pbid2i ´2ř pbidi`ř pbi´ř pbi`d0
2“0
Table 7: Order conditions for partitioned Runge-Kutta method with postprocessor for the perturbed equation (See Theorem 5.10). The sums are over all involved indices.
We note that iff2 “J∇V, we have σ22 „ ´ ´ . In this case, the order condition for can be omitted and the two conditions of and are respectively replaced by
2ÿ
bpidi´ÿ
bpi`ÿ
bicpi´ÿ
bpid2i `ÿ
bi´d02 “0, ÿbpici´ÿ
bpid2i ´ÿ bi`d0
2 “0.
Remark 5.11. In order for the method to satisfy A0 “ L, the condition ř pbi “1 should be added in Table 7, but it is not necessary to achieve order 1 for the invariant measure.
Example. If f1 satisfies Assumption 2.2 and f2 satisfies (5.2), the following consistent postprocessed scheme has order 2 for the invariant measure (if it is ergodic):
Xn`1 “Xn`hf1pXn`σ2?
hξnq `54hf2pXn`σ2? hξnq
´14hf2pXn´2hf2pXn`σ2
?hξnq ´σ2
?hξnq `σ? hξn, Xn “Xn`σ2?
h ξn.
(5.3)
If f2 “J∇V, it needs two evaluations of ∇V per timestep similarly to a standard Runge-Kutta weak order 2 method. For f2 “0, note that the scheme (5.3) coincide with the one proposed in [28], formulated in a different manner (See [44]).
Acknowledgements. The authors would like to thank Hans Munthe-Kaas and Olivier Verdier for helpful discussions about an earlier version of this work. This work was partially supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation, grants No. 200020_144313/1 and 200021_162404.
References
[1] A. Abdulle, I. Almuslimani, and G. Vilmart. Optimal explicit stabilized integrator of weak order one for stiff and ergodic stochastic differential equations. To appear in SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification (JUQ), 2018.
[2] A. Abdulle, D. Cohen, G. Vilmart, and K. C. Zygalakis. High weak order methods for stochastic differential equations based on modified equations. SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 34(3):A1800–A1823, 2012.
[3] A. Abdulle, G. Vilmart, and K. C. Zygalakis. High order numerical approximation of the invariant measure of ergodic SDEs. SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 52(4):1600–1622, 2014.
[4] A. Abdulle, G. Vilmart, and K. C. Zygalakis. Long time accuracy of Lie-Trotter splitting methods for Langevin dynamics. SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 53(1):1–16, 2015.
[5] A. Alamo and J. M. Sanz-Serna. A technique for studying strong and weak local errors of splitting stochastic integrators. SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 54(6):3239–3257, 2016.
[6] S. Anmarkrud and A. Kværnø. Order conditions for stochastic Runge-Kutta methods preserving quadratic invariants of Stratonovich SDEs.J. Comput. Appl. Math., 316:40–
46, 2017.
[7] G. Bogfjellmo. Algebraic structure of aromatic B-series. ArXiv e-prints, May 2015.
[8] N. Bou-Rabee and H. Owhadi. Long-run accuracy of variational integrators in the stochastic context. SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 48(1):278–297, 2010.
[9] C.-E. Bréhier and G. Vilmart. High order integrator for sampling the invariant distri-bution of a class of parabolic stochastic PDEs with additive space-time noise. SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 38(4):A2283–A2306, 2016.
[10] K. Burrage and P. M. Burrage. High strong order explicit Runge-Kutta methods for stochastic ordinary differential equations. Appl. Numer. Math., 22(1-3):81–101, 1996.
Special issue celebrating the centenary of Runge-Kutta methods.
[11] K. Burrage and P. M. Burrage. Order conditions of stochastic Runge-Kutta methods by B-series. SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 38(5):1626–1646, 2000.
[12] J. C. Butcher. The effective order of Runge-Kutta methods. In Conf. on Numerical Solution of Differential Equations (Dundee, 1969), pages 133–139. Springer, Berlin, 1969.
[13] J. C. Butcher. An algebraic theory of integration methods. Math. Comp., 26:79–106, 1972.
[14] J. C. Butcher. Numerical methods for ordinary differential equations. John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd., Chichester, third edition, 2016.
[15] P. Chartier, E. Hairer, and G. Vilmart. Algebraic structures of B-series. Found.
Comput. Math., 10(4):407–427, 2010.
[16] P. Chartier and A. Murua. Preserving first integrals and volume forms of additively split systems. IMA J. Numer. Anal., 27(2):381–405, 2007.
[17] K. Debrabant and A. Kværnø. B-series analysis of stochastic Runge-Kutta methods that use an iterative scheme to compute their internal stage values. SIAM J. Numer.
Anal., 47(1):181–203, 2008/09.
[18] K. Debrabant and A. Kværnø. Composition of stochastic B-series with applications to implicit Taylor methods. Appl. Numer. Math., 61(4):501–511, 2011.
[19] A. Debussche and E. Faou. Weak backward error analysis for SDEs. SIAM J. Numer.
Anal., 50(3):1735–1752, 2012.
[20] A. B. Duncan, T. Lelièvre, and G. A. Pavliotis. Variance reduction using nonreversible Langevin samplers. J. Stat. Phys., 163(3):457–491, 2016.
[21] E. Hairer, C. Lubich, and G. Wanner. Geometric numerical integration, volume 31 of Springer Series in Computational Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, second edition, 2006. Structure-preserving algorithms for ordinary differential equations.
[22] E. Hairer and G. Wanner. On the Butcher group and general multi-value methods.
Computing (Arch. Elektron. Rechnen), 13(1):1–15, 1974.
[23] R. Z. Hasminskii. Stochastic stability of differential equations, volume 7 ofMonographs and Textbooks on Mechanics of Solids and Fluids: Mechanics and Analysis. Sijthoff
& Noordhoff, Alphen aan den Rijn—Germantown, Md., 1980. Translated from the Russian by D. Louvish.
[24] L. Isserlis. On a formula for the product-moment coefficient of any order of a normal frequency distribution in any number of variables. Biometrika, 12, 11 1918.
[25] Y. Komori, T. Mitsui, and H. Sugiura. Rooted tree analysis of the order conditions of ROW-type scheme for stochastic differential equations. BIT, 37(1):43–66, 1997.
[26] M. Kopec. Weak backward error analysis for Langevin process. BIT, 55(4):1057–1103, 2015.
[27] M. Kopec. Weak backward error analysis for overdamped Langevin processes. IMA J.
Numer. Anal., 35(2):583–614, 2015.
[28] B. Leimkuhler and C. Matthews. Rational construction of stochastic numerical meth-ods for molecular sampling. Appl. Math. Res. Express. AMRX, (1):34–56, 2013.
[29] B. Leimkuhler, C. Matthews, and G. Stoltz. The computation of averages from equi-librium and nonequiequi-librium Langevin molecular dynamics. IMA J. Numer. Anal., 36(1):13–79, 2016.
[30] T. Lelièvre, F. Nier, and G. A. Pavliotis. Optimal non-reversible linear drift for the convergence to equilibrium of a diffusion. J. Stat. Phys., 152(2):237–274, 2013.
[31] J. C. Mattingly, A. M. Stuart, and D. J. Higham. Ergodicity for SDEs and approxima-tions: locally Lipschitz vector fields and degenerate noise. Stochastic Process. Appl., 101(2):185–232, 2002.
[32] R. I. McLachlan, K. Modin, H. Munthe-Kaas, and O. Verdier. B-series methods are exactly the affine equivariant methods. Numer. Math., 133(3):599–622, 2016.
[33] G. N. Milstein. Weak approximation of solutions of systems of stochastic differential equations. Teor. Veroyatnost. i Primenen., 30(4):706–721, 1985.
[34] G. N. Milstein and M. V. Tretyakov. Stochastic numerics for mathematical physics.
Scientific Computation. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2004.
[35] G. N. Milstein and M. V. Tretyakov. Computing ergodic limits for Langevin equations.
Phys. D, 229(1):81–95, 2007.
[36] H. Munthe-Kaas and O. Verdier. Aromatic Butcher series. Found. Comput. Math., 16(1):183–215, 2016.
[37] A. Rößler. Stochastic Taylor expansions for the expectation of functionals of diffusion processes. Stochastic Anal. Appl., 22(6):1553–1576, 2004.
[38] A. Rößler. Rooted tree analysis for order conditions of stochastic Runge-Kutta methods for the weak approximation of stochastic differential equations. Stoch. Anal. Appl., 24(1):97–134, 2006.
[39] A. Rößler. Runge-Kutta methods for Itô stochastic differential equations with scalar noise. BIT, 46(1):97–110, 2006.
[40] A. Rößler. Strong and weak approximation methods for stochastic differential equa-tions — some recent developments. InRecent developments in applied probability and statistics, pages 127–153. Physica, Heidelberg, 2010.
[41] J. M. Sanz-Serna. Markov Chain Monte Carlo and Numerical Differential Equation.
Lectures Notes in Mathematics 2082. Springer, Switzerland, 2014.
[42] J. M. Sanz-Serna and A. Murua. Formal series and numerical integrators: some his-tory and some new techniques. In Proceedings of the 8th International Congress on Industrial and Applied Mathematics, pages 311–331. Higher Ed. Press, Beijing, 2015.
[43] D. Talay and L. Tubaro. Expansion of the global error for numerical schemes solving stochastic differential equations. Stochastic Anal. Appl., 8(4):483–509 (1991), 1990.
[44] G. Vilmart. Postprocessed integrators for the high order integration of ergodic SDEs.
SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 37(1):A201–A220, 2015.
[45] K. C. Zygalakis. On the existence and the applications of modified equations for stochastic differential equations. SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 33(1):102–130, 2011.
Appendix
Expression of γr2 in Theorem 4.9.
r