1: \documentclass[prd,aps,twocolumn,floatfix]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage{amssymb,graphicx,epsfig}
3:
4:
5: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
6: \begin{document}
7: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
8:
9: \title{Dynamical control of the constraints growth in free
10: evolutions of Einstein's equations.}
11:
12: \author{Manuel Tiglio}
13:
14: \affiliation{Department of Physics and Astronomy, Louisiana State
15: University, 202 Nicholson Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803-4001}
16:
17: \begin{abstract}
18: I present a new, simple method to dynamically control the growth of
19: the discretized
20: constraints during a free evolution of Einstein's
21: equations. During an
22: evolution, any given family of formulations is adjusted off the constraints surface in a
23: way such that, for any chosen numerical method and arbitrary but fixed
24: resolution,
25: the constraints growth
26: can be minimized with respect to the freedom allowed by the
27: formulation. In particular, provided there is enough freedom, the
28: discretized constraints can be maintained close to its
29: initial truncation
30: value for all times, or decay from it.
31:
32: No a priori knowledge of the solution
33: is needed, and the method can be applied to any formulation of Einstein's
34: equations without affecting hyperbolicity. This method is independent
35: of the numerical algorithm
36: and accounts for constraint violating modes
37: introduced both by continuum instabilities of the formulation and by the
38: numerical method.
39:
40: \end{abstract}
41: \maketitle
42:
43:
44: \section{Motivation and overview}
45:
46: The Einstein equations are typically solved in
47: what is called free or unconstrained evolutions. The equations are
48: split into a set of evolution equations and another one of
49: constraints. The standard procedure is to use initial data that
50: satisfy the constraints and later solve only for the set of evolution
51: equations.
52: The logic is that by virtue of Bianchi identities the
53: constraints should be satisfied at all times if they do so initially
54: and the evolution equations are solved. This is actually true only in
55: the absence of boundaries, or in the future domain of dependence of the
56: initial data; in the presence of boundaries appropriate boundary
57: conditions have to given in such a way that the associated
58: initial-boundary value problem is well posed, a highly non-trivial
59: issue on its own (see \cite{boundaries} for
60: related work).
61:
62: However, problems arise in free evolutions even neglecting the
63: presence of boundaries. Although the constraints should be
64: exactly satisfied at the continuum level, in typical, fixed
65: resolution,
66: numerical simulations of strong fields the constraints quickly grow
67: and eventually the code crashes. For a numerically
68: stable scheme (throughout this paper,
69: the term {\it numerical stability} is used as equivalent to
70: convergence, in the sense of Lax's theorem \footnote{That is, the
71: existence of a precise bound for the numerical
72: solution in terms of the initial data, with the bound
73: being independent of resolution.}) this growth should
74: go away with resolution, but very high resolutions are usually
75: needed if one wants to keep these errors under control by just adding more points to the simulation. Therefore this procedure is
76: not practical and it might not be even feasible.
77:
78:
79: Sometimes it happens there are no
80: growing modes at the continuum, but the
81: discretization one is using, even if numerically stable, can introduce
82: errors that grow quickly in time. Examples of this potential source of
83: instabilities are shown in
84: Ref. \cite{exc}; it is there also explained how to
85: rearrange the semidiscrete equations in order to prevent this when there
86: is a ``conserved'' quantity at the continuum (for example, in the case
87: of wave propagation on a stationary spacetime the physical energy would play this
88: role).
89:
90: The picture that has emerged in other cases is that rapidly growing
91: discrete constraint violating modes are numerical excitations of
92: unstable continuum modes. In other words, solutions of
93: Einstein's evolution equations that are initially slightly off
94: the constraint surface, but then deviate from it very quickly. The
95: standard approach is then to seek formulations that are as stable as
96: possible under continuum constraint violations. A trivial
97: observation here is that when rapidly growing discrete constraint
98: violations appear
99: it is because the given numerical method allows for them.
100:
101: Therefore, I
102: argue that
103: it is desirable to control the {\em discretized}
104: constraints, taking into account possible growth introduced both by the
105: formulation of the equations, {\em and} by the numerical method. The
106: purpose of this paper is to present a method for doing so.
107:
108: As one is interested in solutions that satisfy the constraints,
109: the Einstein evolution equations can be written in infinitely
110: different ways by changing the system's behavior off of the constraint surface. For
111: definiteness I will now concentrate on first order (both in space and
112: time) formulations, though the ideas of this paper clearly do not
113: depend on this and can be applied to second order formulations as
114: well. Beginning with any
115: formulation, e.g. a symmetric hyperbolic one,
116: one can add to the right hand
117: side (RHS) terms proportional to the constraints. That is
118: \begin{equation}
119: \dot{u} = \sum_jA^j(u,t,\vec{x})\partial_ju + B(u,t,\vec{x}) + \mu C \label{linearc}
120: \end{equation}
121: where $B$ and $u$ are a vector valued functions (containing the metric and
122: related variables),
123: \begin{equation}
124: C=\left(C_1 \ldots C_n \right)\;, \label{constraints}
125: \end{equation}
126: with $ C_i = C_i(u,\partial_ju) $, is a vector valued constraint (containing the
127: Hamiltonian, momentum, and perhaps other non-physical constraints that appear
128: as integrability conditions when the system is written in first order form),
129: and $A,\mu$ are matrix-valued functions. The constraints
130: (\ref{constraints}) in Einstein's equations are quasilinear. That is, nonlinear in the field
131: variables $u$, but linear in the spatial derivatives, $\partial_i u$.
132: Adding the constraints in a linear
133: way, as in equation (\ref{linearc}), yields a quasilinear
134: system of hyperbolic partial differential equations, for which many
135: results from the mathematical literature apply \footnote{During preparation of this
136: manuscript, related by work by David Fiske appeared \cite{fiske}, in
137: which the
138: motivation is to make the constraints decay exponentially to zero for any
139: spacetime (i.e. without any a priori knowledge). Presumably the
140: resulting equations are not quasilinear (or linearly degenerate in
141: the vacuum case).}.
142:
143: The freedom in choosing $\mu$
144: was originally used to cast Einstein's equations in symmetric hyperbolic
145: form, later to obtain ``physical'' characteristic speeds (see
146: \cite{hyp} for reviews), and more recently to improve the stability properties of formulations
147: around fixed backgrounds (the number of papers in the area is too large to be
148: reviewed here; see \cite{stability} and references therein). Typically $\mu$ is chosen as a
149: constant matrix; however, it does not appear to be the most effective way of controlling
150: deviations off the constraint surface in a generic case for two reasons: i) some
151: information about the solution (typically, the assumption that it will be
152: close -or actually identical - to some known
153: background) is usually needed in order to choose an optimal
154: $\mu$. However, this kind of information will generically not be
155: available. ii) In principle, constants
156: do not seem the best way to control varying fields.
157:
158: Choosing constant values for $\mu$ seems to be favored for historical
159: reasons, and it is actually not required. Symmetric hyperbolicity and
160: physical characteristic speeds, for example, can be achieved even if
161: using functions of spacetime, provided they are a
162: priori given. See \cite{st} for one example.
163:
164: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
165: \section{Dynamical minimization of the constraints growth: the main idea}
166: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
167:
168: Consider the constraints $C=C(u,D_iu)$, where the operator $D$ may be
169: either a continuum or discrete derivative. Later $D$ will represent
170: discrete derivatives, since the motivation is to control not only
171: continuum constraint violations, but also violations that arise in the
172: discrete equations.
173: For any slicing of spacetime $S _t \times {\cal R}$, define a
174: norm $N_c=N_c(t)$ for the
175: constraints. Note I will always refer to this norm, not the norm
176: associated with the main field variables (will comment on this
177: in the last section). For simplicity I choose the $L_2$ norm,
178: $$
179: N_c(t) = \frac{1}{2}\int_{S_t} \sum_iC_i^2
180: $$
181: where integration is on the spatial hypersurface $S_t$ \footnote{If the
182: derivative is discrete this is to be replaced by a discrete sum, of course.}.
183:
184: One wants this norm either not to grow during an evolution, or least
185: to grow as slowly as possible. As $C$ is a function of the field variables,
186: any solution to the evolution equations automatically determines the
187: rate growth for $N_c$, independent of whether one is considering
188: the fully discrete, semidiscrete or continuum systems. I will concentrate
189: on the last two cases (i.e., with continuous time). In principle the dependence of $N_c$ on the
190: evolution equations is complicated. However, given that $\mu $ is added
191: linearly to the right hand side of the evolution equations, as in
192: Eq.\ref{linearc}, the time derivative of $N_c$ can be written as
193: \begin{eqnarray*}
194: \dot{N}_c &=& \int_{S_t} \sum_iC_i\dot{C_i} \\
195: & =& \int_{S_t} \sum_{i,j} C_i\left[ \frac{\partial C_i}{\partial u_j}\dot{u_j}
196: + \sum_k\frac{\partial C_i}{\partial (D_k u_j)} D_k\dot{u_j}
197: \right]
198: \end{eqnarray*}
199: Using the evolution equations Eq.(\ref{linearc}) and allowing $\mu $ to depend
200: only on time (not on space), the time derivative of the norm can then be written as
201: \begin{equation}
202: \dot{N}_c = I^{(1)} + \mbox{trace} (\mu \times I^{(2)}) \label{split}
203: \end{equation}
204: where
205: \begin{eqnarray}
206: I^{(1)} &=&
207: \int\sum_{i,j} C_i\left[\frac{\partial C_i}{\partial u_j}+
208: \sum_k\frac{\partial C_i}{\partial D_k u_j}D_k \right] \times
209: \nonumber \\
210: && \left[\sum_l(A^lD_lu_j) +B_j\right] \label{split1} \\
211: I^{(2)}_{jl} &=& \int \sum_{i} C_i\left[\frac{\partial C_i}{\partial u_j}+
212: \sum_k\frac{\partial C_i}{\partial D_k u_j}D_k \right]C_l \label{split2}
213: \end{eqnarray}
214: The quantities $\{ N_c,I^{(1)},I^{(2)},\mu \}$ depend only on time, in the case of
215: $\mu$ by assumption and in the others because spatial integration
216: is carried out. The splitting
217: (\ref{split}) is a crucial step in the method presented here,
218: since one gains analytical control on the norm growth as a function of
219: $\mu$. More explicitly: $\dot{N_c}$ is a linear function of $\mu$ (because the
220: constraints are added linearly to the evolution equations).
221:
222: The idea now is to choose $\mu$ such that $\dot{N_c}$ has some desired
223: behavior within
224: the freedom allowed by a given formulation of the evolution equations.
225: As a simple example, consider a single scalar equation. One could
226: choose $\dot{N}_c=0$ by defining $\mu = -I^{(1)}/I^{(2)}$. Or one could
227: choose the norm to decay at a constant or exponential rate
228: by defining $\mu = -(I^{(1)}+d^2)/I^{(2)}$ or
229: $\mu = -(I^{(1)}+d^2N_c)/I^{(2)}$, respectively, with $d$ some constant.
230: On the other hand, if the different components of the $\mu$
231: matrix are restricted to some sets (this is a
232: restriction that appears quite often when requiring symmetric hyperbolicity,
233: physical characteristic speeds, or both) one could define $\mu(t)$
234: as the one that gives the ``smallest'' growth of $\dot{N}_c(t)$ in those
235: sets, etc.
236:
237: This could be done at the continuum. However, the problem is that $\mu$ would
238: then depend on the constraints, which in turn depend on the derivatives of
239: the field variables. As a consequence, the resulting evolution
240: equations would not be quasilinear, and it is far from clear that they would define
241: a well posed initial, or initial-boundary, value problem. Indeed,
242: in Section IV I present numerical evidence that strongly
243: suggests that the resulting system would be ill posed.
244:
245: Therefore, I propose to define $\mu $ through a single
246: resolution run and interpolate the obtained discrete function in order to have it
247: defined at all times. In an actual computation one would choose
248: a fixed resolution and dynamically compute $I^{(1)},I^{(2)}$ and thus a
249: $\mu$ that gives the desired norm behavior, making sure
250: that the resulting $\mu(t)$ is within the range allowed by symmetric
251: hyperbolicity (symmetric hyperbolicity is not a requirement of the
252: method, but ensures well posedness of the initial-boundary value
253: problem, provided appropriate boundary conditions are given).
254: In order to ensure numerical stability this $\mu $ matrix valued
255: function has to be kept fixed at
256: other resolutions. $\mu$ will depend on the original resolution
257: used to define it, but this is not a problem. The important thing is
258: to keep the constraints under control for a given resolution. They
259: will also remain under control for better resolutions if one
260: is in the convergence regime.
261:
262: $\mu $ will also depend on the given problem of interest, and on the
263: numerical method used to solve the equations. That is, for any chosen
264: desired behaviour for $\dot{N}_c$, there will be one $\mu$, and one well
265: posed formulation of the problem for each physical situation one wants
266: to solve for with a given numerical method. This is not a practical
267: problem and, in fact, it seems difficult to
268: find a formulation that has optimum stability properties for
269: all possible solutions and all possible numerical methods.
270:
271: \section{Controlling the constraints norm growth: more details}
272:
273: If possible, one might want the constraints norm growth to be identically zero at all times
274: $\dot{N}_c=0$. A potential problem with this approach is that the resulting
275: $\mu$ might have large values, rapid variations in
276: time, or both. The resulting set of PDE's would then be stiff, having
277: equivalent short timescales, in which case a very small Courant
278: factor would be required. In the next section I show an example
279: where this happens and argue that better results may be obtained by
280: not enforcing $\dot{N}_c=0$. Even if one has enough freedom to
281: enforce $\dot{N}_c=0$,
282: it appears that allowing $N_c$ for some fluctuations around the initial
283: value gives evolutions with better stability. I now elaborate on one
284: way of doing so,
285: assuming one has enough freedom in $\mu$. This approach is
286: highly non unique, and many variations of the fundamental idea presented
287: in this paper seem possible, and worth further exploration. If one
288: chooses
289: \begin{equation}
290: \dot{N_c} = -a N_c \label{edot}
291: \end{equation}
292: with $a>0$, any violation in the constraints will decay exponentially
293: \begin{equation}
294: N_c(t+\Delta t) = N_c(t)e^{-a\Delta t} \label{decay}
295: \end{equation}
296: Choosing a constant $a$ makes the constraints decay for all
297: times, I will discuss this in the last section. Here I take a
298: different approach. I choose a a tolerance value for the
299: norm, $N_c=T$, and solve for $\mu$ such that the constraints decay to this
300: tolerance value after a given relaxation time.
301: More precisely, I choose $a$ such that after time $n_a \Delta t$
302: the constraints will have the
303: value $T$. Replacing $N_c(t+\Delta t)$ by $T$ in equation (\ref{decay})
304: and solving for $a$ gives
305: \begin{equation}
306: a(t) = -\frac{1}{n_a\Delta t}\ln{\left(\frac{T}{N_c(t)}\right)} \; . \label{a}
307: \end{equation}
308: I now solve $\dot{N_c} = -a N_c = I^{(1)} + \mbox{trace}(\mu I^{(2)})$
309: for $\mu$. One solution (non unique, since the equation is scalar and
310: $\mu$ is a matrix) is, assuming $I^{(2)}$ is
311: invertible, and ommiting all the indexes,
312: \begin{equation}
313: \mu = -\frac{\left[I^{(2)}\right]^{-1}\left(aN_c
314: +I^{(1)}\right)}{\dim{\left[I^{(2)}\right]}} \; , \label{mu}
315: \end{equation}
316: with $a(t)$ given by eq.(\ref{a}). Thus, for any value of
317: $N_c$ at time $t$, at time
318: $t+n_a\Delta t$ the value will be $T$. Later in this paper $\Delta t $ will be the
319: discrete time step and, in particular, if $n_a$=1,
320: then $N_c=T$ at each time step.
321:
322: It must be emphasized that these results hold in the semidiscrete
323: case. I.e., for {\em any} - not necessarily high - spatial
324: resolution. But since time has been assumed continuous,
325: the Courant factor must be such that the fully
326: discrete simulation faithfully represents the above semidiscrete
327: calculations (another option would be to perform a fully
328: discrete analysis). In the next section I present some numerical
329: experiments to
330: study, among other issues, the extent to which the fully discrete system represents
331: the semidiscrete analysis. As we will see, at least in the
332: examples here considered, standard values of the
333: Courant factor already yield good results.
334:
335: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
336: \section{Some numerical examples}
337: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
338:
339: In these numerical experiments I use the method of lines
340: and finite differencing. The difference operator chosen is the
341: simplest one that satisfies summation by parts (second order in the
342: interior, and first order in the boundaries), numerical dissipation is
343: introduced taken into account modifications at boundaries,
344: and third order Runge Kutta is used as time integrator (see
345: \cite{exc}).
346:
347: \subsection{The equations}
348: I use the standard ADM equations in spherical symmetry
349: with the exact lapse-area
350: locking choices for the lapse and shift \cite{area} to illustrate and
351: study the method
352: presented here. This choice of lapse and shift amounts to
353: specifying in an arbitrary, but
354: a priori, way the lapse as a function
355: of spacetime, and
356: the shift as $ \beta = \alpha r K_b$. This choice of shift
357: implies that the radial area does not change in time,
358: $\dot{g}_{\theta \theta }=0$, and one can choose $r=g_{\theta
359: \theta }^{1/2} $ as a coordinate. The 3-metric and extrinsic curvature in
360: coordinates $r,\theta, \phi$ then take the form
361: $g_{ij}=diag(a^2,r^2,r^2)$, $K^i_{\;\;j} = diag(K_a,K_b,K_b)$.
362:
363: The evolution equations, with the product of the Hamiltonian
364: constraint and $\mu = \mu(t)$ added to the time derivative of the $K_a$ equation, are
365: \begin{eqnarray}
366: \dot{a} &=& \alpha r(aK_b)' + a\left[\alpha (K_b-K_a) + rK_b \alpha
367: '\right] \label{adot}\\
368: %%%%%%%%%
369: \dot{K_a} &=& (\alpha 'r + 2\alpha)a^{-3}r^{-1}a' - a^{-2}\alpha^{''}
370: + \nonumber \\
371: & & \alpha\left[rK_bK_a' + K_a(K_a+2K_b) \right] + \mu
372: H \label{kadot} \\
373: %%%%%%%%%%%%
374: \dot{K_b} &=& \alpha \left(a^{-3}ra' + rK_bK_b' \right)
375: -a^{-2}r^{-1}\alpha ' + \nonumber \\
376: & & \alpha \left[K_b(K_a+2K_b)+r^{-2}(1-a^{-2})\right] \label{kbdot}
377: \end{eqnarray}
378: These equations constitute a strongly hyperbolic system, and the characteristic
379: speeds are ``physical''(along the light cone or normal to the spatial
380: hypersurfaces): $\beta , \beta \pm \alpha/a$, for any function $\mu
381: (t)$. That is, the equations are strongly hyperbolic even for $\mu =0$, i.e.,
382: the standard ADM equations in spherical symmetry with this choice
383: of gauge are strongly hyperbolic.
384:
385: The Hamiltonian and momentum constraints are, respectively,
386: \begin{eqnarray}
387: H&=& \frac{4}{ra^3}a' + \frac{2}{r^2}(1-a^{-2}) +
388: 2K_b(K_b + 2K_a) \label{ham}\\
389: M&=& K_b' + \frac{K_b-K_a}{r} \label{mom}
390: \end{eqnarray}
391: I perform these experiments with the Painlev\'e-Gullstrand (PG) slicing of
392: the Schwarzschild black hole spacetime,
393: \begin{equation}
394: a=1 \;\;\; , \;\;\;
395: K_a = -\frac{\beta }{2r} \;\;\; , \;\;\;
396: K_b = \frac{\beta}{r}
397: \end{equation}
398: \begin{equation}
399: \alpha = 1 \;\;\; , \;\;\; \beta = \alpha r K_b \label{gauge}
400: \end{equation}
401: This is a stationary, exact solution, of the evolution and constraint
402: equations,
403: (\ref{adot},\ref{kadot},\ref{kbdot}), and (\ref{ham},\ref{mom}),
404: respectively.
405:
406: As boundary conditions I set the time derivative of the incoming
407: characteristic modes to
408: zero. This will define a well posed initial-boundary value problem
409: but in general will violate the constraints. One possibility would
410: be to derive constraint-preserving boundary conditions for this
411: problem. However, this is not the purpose of this paper but, rather, to
412: devise a mechanism to control the
413: constraint growth having fixed, among other things, the boundary
414: conditions. This is not meant to be a replacement for
415: constraint-preserving boundary conditions but, instead, complementary
416: to them.
417:
418:
419: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
420: \subsection{Numerically stable but with fast growing errors simulations}
421: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
422:
423: Evolutions of the PG spacetime with equations
424: (\ref{adot},\ref{kadot},\ref{kbdot}) can give rise to errors that grow fast in time, even
425: with a stable numerical method.
426:
427: Figure 1 shows $N_c$ vs. time for evolutions of PG initial
428: data, at different resolutions. Typical numerical parameters are
429: chosen: Courant factor $\lambda = 0.25$, inner and outer boundaries at
430: $r_i=M, r_o=40M$, respectively, and dissipation parameter $\sigma =
431: 0.1$. The constraints converge to zero
432: with resolution, but at fixed resolution they grow very fast in
433: time. This is not a peculiarity of this formulation and this numerical
434: method but, indeed, is typical for free evolutions of Einstein's
435: equations in the strong field regime.
436:
437:
438: One could attempt to modify the numerics in order to
439: minimize the growth of the constraints, but I do not pursue this approach
440: here.
441: \begin{center}
442: \begin{figure}
443: \epsfig{file=stat_unstable_outer_40M.eps,height=2.5in,angle=0}
444: \caption{Evolution of the Painleve\'e-Gullstrand initial data, without
445: controlling the constraints ($\mu=0$). $N_c$ converges to
446: zero when resolution is increased,
447: but at fixed resolution it grows fast in time, making the code crash
448: around $t=10M$.}
449: \label{unstable}
450: \end{figure}
451: \end{center}
452:
453: An interesting feature of the instabilities of the simulations shown
454: in Figure 1 is that the norm growth is initially negative, but it
455: becomes positive after a single time step, triggering the instability,
456: see (\ref{fluc}) (there, as in the rest of the paper,
457: $\dot{N}_c$ is computed through the semidiscrete expression
458: (\ref{split})).
459: \begin{center}
460: \begin{equation}
461: \begin{tabular}{||l|l|l|l||}\hline
462: $\Delta r$ & $\Delta t$ & $\dot{N}_c(0)$ & $\dot{N}_c(\Delta t)$ \\ \hline
463: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
464: $M/5 $& $5.0\times 10^{-2}$& $-5.01\times 10^{-3}$ & $ 1.47\times
465: 10^{-2}$ \\\hline
466: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
467: $M/10 $& $2.5\times 10^{-2}$& $-1.81\times 10^{-3}$ & $
468: 3.85\times 10^{-3} $ \\\hline
469: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
470: $M/20 $& $1.25\times 10^{-2}$ & $-5.39\times 10^{-4}$ & $ 9.54\times 10^{-4}$ \\\hline
471: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
472: $M/40 $& $6.25\times 10^{-3}$ & $ -1.46\times 10^{-4}$ & $ 2.34\times 10^{-4}$ \\\hline
473: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
474: $M/80 $& $3.12\times 10^{-3}$ & $ -3.82\times 10^{-5}$ & $ 5.76\times 10^{-5}$ \\\hline
475: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
476: \end{tabular}
477: \label{fluc}
478: \end{equation}
479: \end{center}
480: A static choice of $\mu$ cannot account for these fluctuations.
481: In particular, choosing $\mu$ using only the
482: growth rate around the background solution, which in this case would
483: be the initial data, and not the errors introduced during
484: numerical integration, in general will not be able to
485: correct these kind of fluctuations in $\dot{N}_c$.
486:
487: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
488: \subsection{Strictly enforcing semidiscrete norm preservation}
489: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
490: I now discuss some numerical experiments using a dynamically
491: calculated $\mu(t)$ such that $\dot{N_c}=0$ in the semidiscrete case.
492: For a chosen resolution, $\mu$ is defined at each time step by
493: \begin{equation}
494: \mu(n\Delta t) =\left\{
495: \begin{array}{l}
496: -I^{(1)}(n\Delta t)/I^{(2)}(n\Delta t)\;, \; \mbox{ if }I^{(2)}(n\Delta
497: t) \neq 0 \\
498: \mu\left((n-1)\Delta t\right) \;, \; \mbox{ if } I^{(2)}(n\Delta
499: t) = 0 \mbox { and } {n\geq 1} \\
500: 0 \; , \;\;\mbox{ if } I^{(2)}(n\Delta
501: t) = 0 \mbox { and } {n=0}
502: \end{array}
503: \right. \label{strict_eqs}
504: \end{equation}
505: and $\mu(n\Delta t)$ is in turn used to compute the RHS needed to
506: advance $u\left(n \Delta t\right)$.
507:
508: \begin{center}
509: \begin{figure}
510: \epsfig{file=strict_energy.eps,height=2.5in,angle=0}
511: \caption{Strict conservation of the semidiscrete norm ($\dot{N}_c=0$),
512: using different resolutions
513: to define $\mu(t)$, i.e. $\mu$ is dynamically computed at each
514: resolution. The fact that the errors increase when resolution is
515: increased strongly suggest that defining $\mu$ this way leads to an ill-posed
516: problem. The appropriate way of doing a convergence test is shown in
517: Figure \ref{strict_convergence}.}
518: \label{strict_energy}
519: \end{figure}
520: \end{center}
521:
522: Figure \ref{strict_energy} shows the resulting norm as a function
523: of time, for evolutions enforcing $\dot{N}_c=0$ at different resolutions. The code
524: blows up rather fast,
525: and this happens at earlier times when resolution is increased.
526: This last feature should not be seen as an indication of ill-posedness of the method,
527: since Figure \ref{strict_energy} should {\em
528: not} be seen as a convergence test. For such a test one should
529: dynamically define $\mu(t)$ with a given resolution and
530: then keep that $\mu$ fixed for all other runs.
531: Figure \ref{strict_convergence} shows the result of
532: doing so, defining $\mu(t)$ through a run with $\Delta r=M/5$ and then keeping
533: it fixed for a convergence test \footnote{Since $\mu$ is obtained for
534: the coarsest resolution used in the convergence test,
535: some interpolation procedure is needed in order to have this function
536: defined at intermediate time steps. The simple procedure I have followed
537: here is to define the needed intermediate values of $\mu$ between time
538: steps $n$ and $n+1$ just as $\mu(n)$, though better
539: (e.g. trigonometric) interpolation could be used. Another option would
540: be to define $\mu$ through the finest resolution that is going to be
541: used for the convergence test and later coarsen the obtained discrete
542: $\mu$ function.}. As expected, and in contrast to Figure
543: \ref{strict_energy},
544: the norm does decrease as the resolution is increased. Figure
545: \ref{strict_energy}
546: strongly suggests that if one insisted in
547: dynamically defining $\mu$ at each resolution, instead of fixing it at
548: a single resolution, one would end up with an ill-posed problem. On the other hand,
549: fixing $\mu$ leads to a strongly hyperbolic problem and no
550: convergence problems appear.
551:
552: \begin{center}
553: \begin{figure}
554: \epsfig{file=strict_convergence.eps,height=2.5in,angle=0}
555: \caption{Strict conservation of the semidiscrete norm, defining
556: $\mu$ by a $\Delta r=M/5$ run and then fixing $\mu $
557: for all other runs.}
558: \label{strict_convergence}
559: \end{figure}
560: \end{center}
561:
562: Considering these runs with $\dot{N}_c=0$, it appears that enforcing
563: semidiscrete norm preservation is ``too rigid'' (recall the discussion
564: at the beginning of
565: Section III). Figure \ref{strict_mu} shows the $\mu$ functions obtained through
566: the runs of Figure \ref{strict_energy}. Notice that when increasing resolution the
567: $\mu$ that is needed in order to preserve the norm increases quite
568: fast in absolute value. For example, with $\Delta r=M/80$ the
569: initial values of $\mu$ are of order $10^2$. Since $\mu$ appears in
570: the principal part of the equations, having a large value implies the
571: need of a small Courant factor to follow the simulation; while Figures
572: \ref{strict_energy} and
573: \ref{strict_mu}, on the other hand, where obtained using the same Courant factor
574: when changing resolution. A Fourier decomposition of the
575: numerical solution, or an explicit von-Neumann analysis of a linear,
576: constant coefficient problem could give further insight into this question.
577:
578: A second possibility would be to perform a fully discrete analysis (as
579: opposed to the semidiscrete one used in this paper), and to enforce
580: strict conservation of the fully discrete norm, but these issues are not pursued
581: here.
582: \begin{center}
583: \begin{figure}
584: \epsfig{file=strict_mu.eps,height=2.5in,angle=0}
585: \caption{This figure shows $\mu(t)$ for the runs of Figure 2.}
586: \label{strict_mu}
587: \end{figure}
588: \end{center}
589:
590:
591: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
592: \subsection{Dynamically achieving a tolerance value}
593: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
594: I now set a tolerance value $T$, and choose $\mu$ such that $N_c=T$
595: after a given number of timesteps. In doing so I use
596: the semidiscrete expressions (\ref{a},\ref{mu}). If
597: $I^{(2)}$ is zero, $\mu$ will be copied from its previous value, or set to zero if this
598: happens in the first iteration.
599: \begin{center}
600: \begin{figure}
601: \epsfig{file=mu_for_convergence.eps,height=2.5in,angle=0}
602: \caption{This figure shows $\mu$ calculated by setting a tolerance
603: value,
604: $T=5\times 10^{-4}$, and requiring the semidiscrete norm to return
605: to this value after every timestep. $\mu$ is defined using $\Delta
606: r=M/5$, for which the initial, truncation
607: value of the norm is $N_c=4.8\times 10^{-4}$.}
608: \label{mu_conv}
609: \end{figure}
610: \end{center}
611: Figure \ref{mu_conv} shows results with a dynamically defined $\mu$,
612: using the same
613: resolution, domain, Courant and dissipation
614: factors as before. $n_a$ is chosen to be one,
615: corresponding to the norm returning to the specified tolerance value after
616: every time step.
617:
618: The discretized constraints are, of course,
619: not zero initially, even when the initial data is analytic,
620: because computing them involves finite
621: differencing the initial data. The initial value for the norm for
622: this resolution is $N_c=4.8\times
623: 10^{-4}$. Therefore I choose a tolerance value $T=5\times 10^{-4}$, to
624: keep the constraints close to its initial value.
625:
626: Figure \ref{convergence} shows the resulting norms for a convergence test performed with
627: the same resolutions used in Figure \ref{unstable}, and the $\mu$ shown in Figure
628: \ref{mu_conv}. The code runs for $10^4M$ without any sign of
629: instabilities, even with the coarse
630: resolution that was used to define $\mu$.
631: \begin{center}
632: \begin{figure}
633: \epsfig{file=convergence.eps,height=2.5in,angle=0}
634: \caption{A convergence test done with $\mu$ shown in
635: Figure \ref{mu_conv}. Compare the lifetime of these simulations with
636: those of Figure \ref{unstable}.}
637: \label{convergence}
638: \end{figure}
639: \end{center}
640:
641: It could happen that one controls the constraints at the price of
642: introducing other errors. This does not happen, at least in the
643: numerical experiments here considered. In these experiments, not only
644: does the norm associated with the constraints remains close
645: to its initial, truncation value, but the same happens with the norm
646: associated with the main field variables, $N=\int
647: (a^2+K_a^2+K_b^2)$. Since the exact solution is stationary, $N$ being
648: close to its initial value means that the method does not introduce
649: new errors. Figure \ref{norms2} shows $N_c(t)$ and $N(t)$ for
650: the run used to define $\mu$.
651:
652: \begin{center}
653: \begin{figure}
654: \epsfig{file=2norms.eps,height=2.5in,angle=0}
655: \caption{Norms associated with the constraints and with the main
656: field variables, for the run used to obtain $\mu$ shown in Figure \ref{mu_conv}.}
657: \label{norms2}
658: \end{figure}
659: \end{center}
660:
661: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
662: \subsubsection{Dependence of $\mu$ on the tolerance value}
663: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
664: In the previous examples I chose the tolerance value, $T$, to be roughly the initial,
665: truncation error for $N_c$. Although this seems the natural thing to do, I
666: will now discuss sensitivity of the stability method with respect to the
667: chosen value of $T$.
668: \begin{center}
669: \begin{figure}
670: \epsfig{file=energy.eps,height=2.5in,angle=0}
671: \caption{This figure shows the sensitivity of the method to the chosen
672: tolerance value $T$. Values too large (a couple of order of
673: magnitudes bigger than the initial truncation error $N_c(0)$), or
674: smaller than
675: $N_c(0)$, lead to instabilities. Otherwise, no fine tuning of
676: $T$ is required.}
677: \label{fenergy}
678: \end{figure}
679: \end{center}
680: Figure \ref{fenergy} shows results when choosing different
681: tolerance values to define $\mu$, but keeping all other numerical parameters
682: (in particular, the resolution, i.e. Figure \ref{fenergy} {\em is not} a
683: convergence test) fixed. When $T$ is much larger than the
684: initial truncation value of $N_c$, large errors allow triggering of nonlinear
685: instabilities. On the other hand, values of $T$ considerably smaller than the initial truncation one
686: forces $\mu$ to change very fast,
687: and to large values. In either case the code crashes.
688: The $\mu$ functions for two such cases are shown in
689: Figure \ref{mu_bad}.
690: \begin{center}
691: \begin{figure}
692: \epsfig{file=mu_zoom_bad_tolerance.eps,height=2.5in,angle=0}
693: \caption{$\mu$ for two unstable cases, with too large
694: ($T=10^{-1}$) and too small tolerance values ($T=10^{-4}$).}
695: \label{mu_bad}
696: \end{figure}
697: \end{center}
698:
699: Figure \ref{energy_zoom} shows the details of Figure \ref{fenergy} near
700: $t=0$. Notice that not only all the runs begin with the same (truncation) value for
701: $N_c$ (this is expected, since the same resolution is used), but
702: $N_c$ is also the same
703: in the very first timestep. The reason for this is that $\mu =0$ initially for all
704: the runs, because $I^{(2)}=0$ in the initial data. This is a
705: coincidence of the initial data being evolved in this example: the
706: only discretization error in the
707: computation of the Hamiltonian constraint in this model comes from the
708: finite differencing of $a$, which in this example is initially $1$ for all grid
709: points.
710:
711: \begin{center}
712: \begin{figure}
713: \epsfig{file=zoom_energy.eps,height=2.5in,angle=0}
714: \caption{The figure shows details of plot \ref{fenergy}, near $t=0$.
715: The norms in this experiment are the same in the
716: initial data {\em and} first time step, as explained in
717: the body of the paper.}
718: \label{energy_zoom}
719: \end{figure}
720: \end{center}
721:
722: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
723: \subsection{Intentional constraint violations}
724: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
725: As a final numerical example, now I consider initial data
726: that violates the constraints at
727: the continuum. The equations still use the exact lapse and
728: area-locking shift given by Eq.(\ref{gauge}), but now the initial
729: data are given by
730: \begin{eqnarray}
731: a&=&\left(1+s_1e^{-(r-r_0)^2}\right) \\
732: K_a &=& -\frac{\beta }{2r}
733: \left(1+s_2e^{-(r-r_0)^2}\right) \\
734: K_b &=& \frac{\beta}{r}=\left(1+s_3e^{-(r-r_0)^2}\right)
735: \end{eqnarray}
736: When $s_i=0$, this data reduces to that of the PG
737: black hole. The constants $s_i$ are used to introduce an ``asymmetry'' in the
738: perturbations of the PG initial data. The perturbations are rather
739: large, with $s_1$ or order unity. In this example,
740: $s_1=1,s_2=0.5,s_3=0.7$. When $\mu = 0$ the code crashes before $t=4M$
741: at a resolution $\Delta
742: r=M/5$. At this resolution $N_c$ for the initial data is
743: $N_c(0)=2.66\times 10^{-3}$ (one order of magnitude larger
744: than the associated truncation error for the case $s_i=0$, which for
745: this resolution is $N_c=4.8\times 10^{-4}$ ). Thus, I choose a
746: tolerance value of $T=5\times 10^{-3}$, $n_1=10$ in order to avoid
747: fast variations, and
748: rerun, dynamically obtaining $\mu(t)$. Results for the unmodified
749: equations ($\mu =0$), and with a dynamical $\mu$ are shown in Figures
750: \ref{violation}, \ref{violation_mu}. The difference in stability is quite striking,
751: especially considering that the perturbation of the PG
752: initial data is so large.
753: \begin{center}
754: \begin{figure}
755: \epsfig{file=violation.eps,height=2.5in,angle=0}
756: \caption{The norm $N_c$, with and without control of the constraints, for
757: highly perturbed initial data, at a resolution of $\Delta r=M/5$. The initial, truncation error for
758: $N_c$ for this resolution is $N_c(0)=2.66\times 10^{-3}$, and the
759: tolerance value is set to $T=5\times 10^{-3}$.}
760: \label{violation}
761: \end{figure}
762: \end{center}
763:
764: \begin{center}
765: \begin{figure}
766: \epsfig{file=violation_mu.eps,height=2.5in,angle=0}
767: \caption{$\mu$ for the plot of Figure \ref{violation}
768: with dynamical controlled constraints. After some time $\mu$
769: settles down to the value $\mu = -5.8 \times 10^{-3}$.}
770: \label{violation_mu}
771: \end{figure}
772: \end{center}
773:
774: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
775: \section{Remarks}
776: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
777:
778: There is a lot of interest in finding formulations
779: of Einstein's equations with good stability properties off of the
780: constraint surface.
781: So far, most, if not all, of the work
782: has been concentrated in stability properties around known
783: solutions. The purpose of this paper has been to introduce new ideas
784: that hopefully will be helpful in generic evolutions, where one
785: has no a priori knowledge of the solution. This is one fundamental
786: difference with previous approaches.
787:
788: Another difference is that
789: previous work has concentrated on stability properties at
790: the continuum. Although this is an important issue, controlling
791: constraint violating modes introduced by the numerical method is
792: also crucial. Thus, this proposal
793: aims to control discrete constraint violations introduced
794: both by the underlying formulation of equations at the continuum, and
795: whatever numerical method one has chosen.
796:
797: Sometimes it seems that one would ideally want the constraints to decay exponentially to
798: zero \cite{lambda},\cite{fiske}. Although this
799: might be attractive at the continuum, in what concerns the discrete
800: constraints it might be better to maintain them
801: around the initial, truncation error. For example, beginning with
802: initial data corresponding to a stationary spacetime, it seems
803: difficult to imagine that by making the
804: constraints decrease in time through numerical integration (keeping
805: resolution fixed), one would end up
806: with a numerical solution that has smaller errors than the initial data, which was
807: computed by just numerically evaluating the exact solution at given
808: gridpoints. Thus, I have concentrated here on keeping
809: the discrete constraints at some tolerance value, instead of forcing them
810: to decay to zero. However, there may be other scenarios where it is
811: preferable to make them decay to values smaller than the initial one,
812: and the method here presented allows for this as well. Along these
813: lines, an extension of the work presented here
814: is to use the evolution equations applied to initial
815: data off the constraint surface to produce solutions
816: of the constraints as an alternative to relaxing the constraints
817: themselves \footnote{L. Lehner, private communication}.
818:
819:
820:
821: In some other approaches \cite{ls}, a norm for the main variables, say
822: $N(t)=\int _{S_t} \sum_i u_i^2$, is minimized with respect to
823: constraint violating perturbations (around a given, known
824: background). I could have here chosen to dynamically minimize this
825: quantity. One potential problem
826: with this is that it is not clear how much minimization makes the
827: solution closer to the ``exact'' one. For example, in the spherically
828: symmetric example here considered the time derivative of the norm
829: for the main variables has the form
830: $$
831: \dot{N} = \tilde{I^{(1)}} + \mu \tilde{I^{(2)}}
832: $$
833: Since $\mu$ is completely free in this model,
834: one is able to make $\dot{N}$, for some chosen but arbitrary
835: resolution, as negative as one wants. What happens
836: then is that all the field variables decay to
837: zero (numerical experiments that I have done do confirm this).
838: Clearly this is not what one wants, since the ``exact'' solution
839: is not identically zero. On the other hand, one could also attempt to keep
840: $N$ close to its initial, truncation value. However, this would be a
841: good idea only if the solution is stationary, since otherwise there
842: is no reason for the exact $N(t)$ to be close to $N(0)$ for all
843: times. Thus I have here considered a norm associated
844: with the constraints, since they are analytically zero, regardless of
845: the solution.
846:
847:
848: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
849: \section{Acknowledgments}
850: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
851:
852: I would like to thank Oscar Bruno, Gioel Calabrese, Luis Lehner, David
853: Neilsen, Jorge Pullin, Oscar Reula, Olivier Sarbach, Ed Seidel and
854: Jonathan Thornburg for very helpful discussions, comments and
855: suggestions. This work was supported in part
856: by NSF grant PHY9800973, the Horace Hearne Jr. Institute for
857: Theoretical Physics, and Fundaci\'on Antorchas.
858:
859: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
860:
861: \bibitem{boundaries} G. Calabrese and O. Sarbach, gr-qc/0303040; B. Szilagyi and J.
862: Winicour, gr-qc/0205044; B. Szilagyi, B. Schmidt, and J. Winicour,
863: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 65}, 064015 (2002);
864: G. Calabrese, J. Pullin, O. Reula, O. Sarbach, and M. Tiglio,
865: gr-qc/0209017, to appear in Communications in Mathematical Physics; G. Calabrese,
866: L. Lehner, and M. Tiglio, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 65}, 104031 (2002);
867: J. M. Stewart, Class. Quantum Grav. {\bf 15}, 2865 (1998).
868:
869: \bibitem{exc} G. Calabrese, L. Lehner, D. Neilsen, J. Pullin,
870: O. Reula, O. Sarbach, and M. Tiglio gr-qc/0302072; ``Summation by
871: parts and dissipation for black hole excision'', in preparation.
872:
873: \bibitem{fiske} D. Fiske, gr-qc/0304024.
874:
875: \bibitem{hyp} H. Friedrich and A. Rendall, in {\it Einstein's
876: Field Equations and their Physical Implications, Lecture Notes in
877: Physics}, edited by B. G. Schmidt (Springer Verlag, Berlin, 2000),
878: p. 127-223; O. Reula, Living Rev. Rel. {\bf 1}, 3 (1998).
879:
880: \bibitem{stability} T. Baumgarte and S. Shapiro, Phys. Rept. {\bf
881: 376}, 41 (2003); L. Lehner, Class. Quant. Grav. {\bf 18}, R25 (2001).
882:
883: \bibitem{st} O. Sarbach and M. Tiglio; Phys. Rev. D {\bf 66}, 064023
884: (2002).
885:
886: \bibitem{area} B. Kelly, P. Laguna, K. Lockitch, J. Pullin,
887: E. Schnetter, D. Shoemaker, and M. Tiglio, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 64},
888: 084013 (2001); L. Lehner, M. Huq, M. Anderson, E. Bonning,
889: D. Schaefer, R. Matzner, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 62}, 044037 (2000);
890: D. Garfinkle and C. Gundlach, Class. Quant. Grav. {\bf 16}, 4111 (1999).
891:
892:
893: \bibitem{lambda} O. Brodbeck, S. Frittelli, P. Hubner, and O. Reula,
894: J. Math. Phys. {\bf 40}, 909 (1999); S. Detweiler, Phys. Rev. D {\bf
895: 35}, 1095 (1987).
896:
897: \bibitem{ls} L. Lindblom and M. Scheel, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 66}, 084014 (2002).
898:
899: \end{thebibliography}
900:
901:
902:
903: \end{document}
904: