Research paperValidated integration of differential equations with state-dependent delay
Introduction
Functional differential equations (FDE) have been studied for over 200 years, with substantial developments since the 1950s. Broadly, a FDE of retarded type is a differential equation where is a functional acting on a function space, and denotes a history function that “windows” the solution until some time in the past. When this function space consists of the continuous functions on a compact interval, and is at least Lipschitz continuous, there is a well-developed theory popularized by the works of Diekmann, van Gills, Lunel and Walther [1], Hale & Lunel [2] and Krasovskii [3], among others. The situation is far less clear-cut for systems with so-called state-dependent delay, where the functional cannot be understood as Lipschitz continuous on the typical space of continuous functions. In such cases, there remain several open problems concerning the regularity of the semiflow and so-called solution manifolds and invariant manifolds [4]. For some general background on state-dependent delay, the reader may refer to [5].
Consider the differential equation with state-dependent delay (DE-SDD), written in the form We assume and are for some . More generally, one could instead allow and to only be defined on an open domain . In this paper, we present a method to approximate solutions of initial-value problems for DE-SDD and obtain rigorous, computable, tight bounds for the error. This is in contrast to a more traditional truncation error analysis, where error bounds are coarse and sometimes unquantifiable, as they may require access to some portion of the exact solution to compute; for example, see [6]. Here, the error bounds we obtain are explicit and machine-implementable.
Eq. (1) includes a few typical sub-classes of non-constant delays:
- •
Time-varying delays: for .
- •
Discrete state-dependent delays: for .
An assumption of causality might be physically reasonable (i.e ), but in many applications causality must be verified at the level of a particular solution a posteriori. A classical example of an equation with time-varying delay is the pantograph equation [7], for . As for discrete state-dependent delay problems, these continue to see application in cell biology [8], [9], electrodynamics [10], [11] and other fields. In the present work, we will concentrate on the case of discrete state-dependent delays: that is, formally, for some function . However, results will be stated with as much generality as possible.
In many applications, the delay is an implicit function of the state and is not given explicitly. Examples include the two-body problem in electrodynamics and position control models, among others, and we refer the reader to the chapter [5] for several detailed examples. In many such situations, however, it is possible to determine other differential equations that are satisfied by the delay variables. This generally leads to a state-dependent delay differential equation of the form (1), perhaps of higher dimension and with more than one delay. We consider here the case of a single delay, although the ideas developed in this paper could be extended to the case of multiple delays.
Recently, there has been a surge of interest in computer-assisted proofs in delay differential equations. Examples include analysis of slowly oscillating periodic solutions of Wright’s equation [12] and ultimately, the proofs of Wright’s conjecture [13], Jones’ conjecture [14]. There is also the analysis of periodic orbits and bifurcations in the time-delay Duffing equation [15]. Several works have addressed general approaches for validated computation of periodic orbits [16], [17], integration [16], [18] and parameterization of unstable manifolds [19]. Insofar as validated integration is concerned, the Taylor methods [16] and Chebyshev spectral methods [18] seem to be the most recent. They are appropriate for fixed, constant delays. Our objective with the present work is to develop rigorous numerics for an implicit method of steps, using polynomial interpolation.
State-dependent delay equations (SDDE) are very different from those with constant delays. Superficially, the biggest change is that they are always nonlinear. More deeply, the semiflow of a state-dependent delay equation is generally only on its associated solution manifold. For these and related notions, the reader may consult [20], [21].
There is a large body of literature on numerical methods for SDDE, and we will make no effort to describe this here. We will, however, mention some recent work on the development of a posteriori validation approaches to invariant objects of SDDE. There is the work periodic orbits in state-dependent delayed perturbations of ordinary differential equations of Yang, Gimeno and de la Llave [22] as well as the dissertation of Yang [23] on similar topics. Parameterization of quasi-periodic solutions under a small state-dependent delay and exponential dichotomy assumption was considered by He and de la Llave [24].
Recall the method of steps for delay differential equations. Without loss of generality, assume a constant unit delay and the task of solving the initial-value problem The method of steps exploits the fact that for , we have . The task of solving the IVP above is equivalent to solving a sequence of ODE initial-value problems. Denote and consider the sequence of IVPs for : We have whenever , so the solution of the delay IVP can be densely written as Here, is the indicator function on the set and by an abuse of notation we define for so that the above is well-defined.
The Chebyshev spectral approach of [18] makes explicit use of the method of steps by representing the functions at each step as Chebyshev series. The power of this spectral method comes from the excellent approximation properties of the Chebyshev polynomials and the Banach algebra associated to the sequence space used in the proofs. Polynomial nonlinearities in translate to cosine convolutions in the sequence space, and the representation of the derivative operator is diagonally dominant. To compare, the Taylor method of [16] represents solutions as piecewise-Taylor expansions, using a bootstrapping procedure to get high-order derivatives of the solution needed to step the procedure forward iteratively, and the step size is not necessarily equal to the delay.
Our initial goal was to develop a fully spectral integrator based on Chebyshev expansion. In moving from the constant delay case to the non-constant or state-dependent case, there are a some technical problems that must be either resolved or circumvented. Chiefly, self-compositions – for example, – are highly nonlinear, and are difficult to characterize at the level of a sequence algebra. The obstructions were so severe that we abandoned the approach. In the next section, we will overview these obstructions in more detail.
Let denote a Chebyshev series, uniformly convergent on and such that . Let denote another Chebyshev series, and let us consider the composition . We might ask: how do we compute the coefficients given the coefficients and , and how are the decay of these sets of coefficients related?
Write the Chebyshev polynomials in the form . Then we have where denotes the -fold cosine convolution of with itself: and It follows that the operation is equivalent at the level of the Chebyshev series coefficients to the map , where
The previous derivation has a fairly direct consequence to numerical computations. If the coefficients are finitely-supported with for , then a self-composition will have support for . Hence, rigorously evaluating a numerical defect can be expensive even for a low-order approximation, and the amount of information that is lost by taking a finite-mode projection gets quadratically worse for higher-order approximation.
Far more problematic from the point of view of rigorous Chebyshev (or Fourier) spectral methods: if one prescribes geometric decay of the coefficients – for example, for some – it is generally false that . To see this, consider . The poles of are at and it is therefore analytic on the Bernstein ellipse for any , with the associated Chebyshev series expansion being uniformly convergent there. Let denote the Chebyshev coefficients of . Then for . However, consider the self-composition and the associated Chebyshev coefficients . has six poles, all imaginary, but for the present discussion it suffices to list only the two smallest ones: . Let be such that is inside the Bernstein ellipse . Then for , but has a pole on the in the interior or . In particular, . See Fig. 1.
For the purposes of solving an initial-value problem associated to a DE-SDD like (1), the self-composition barrier is not initially present. Indeed, the implicit method of steps introduced in Section 2.1 transforms an initial-value problem for a DD-SDD into a boundary-value problem for an ordinary differential equation. This ordinary differential equation depends on the initial condition. Its solution will then solve the initial-value problem on an interval of finite length. However, to solve the initial-value problem on a longer interval, the computed solution must be fed forward as the initial condition for a new initial-value problem. Viewing this process more globally, the feedforward structure is “lower triangular” but non-trivially coupled. Solving the initial-value problem on a suitably long time interval (such that two implicit steps occur; see later Section 2.1) is equivalent, after suitable transformations, to a fixed-point problem of the form where for is a function that is related to the vector field but, importantly, features a compositional term. Specifically, contains a term of the form for some constant . At the level of a fixed-point problem, the pair of integral equations above define (almost; see Section 2.2) a map on that contains a self-composition, due to the presence of . Therefore, moving to a purely spectral approach would still require understanding a composition formula such as (2). At present, this seems out of reach. For these reasons, we will avoid the use of purely spectral methods.
This is done in Section 2. Specifically, the first Section 2.1 is more computational, while Section 2.2 is more theoretically-minded, exploring how to translate the implicit method of steps to a zero-finding problem. In Section 3 we review some necessary background on interpolation and introduce the rigorous numerics framework for the zero-finding problem of the previous section. Section 4 contains the theoretical background for rigorous multiple integration steps, as well as extensive details concerning practical implementation. Several examples concerning a scalar state-dependent delay equation appear in 5.
Given a function for Banach spaces and , we denote the partial Fréchet derivative of with respect to variables in . For an interval , we denote by its interior. If is closed we denote . denotes the set of real intervals, and we define for any .
Section snippets
Solving DE-SDD
In this section we present the implicit method of steps and an associated zero-finding problem.
Interpolation and rigorous numerics for a single implicit step
With Lemma 4 in mind, our focus shifts to proving the existence of a zero of the map in (18). A secondary goal is to rigorously check the inclusion . To accomplish this, we will represent approximate solutions using piecewise polynomial interpolants of a given order and design a Newton-like operator for (18) that can be expected to contract in some closed ball around a candidate interpolant and approximate terminal integration time .
Multiple implicit steps
The bound of Section 3.4, needed to obtain computer-assisted proofs of solutions of DE-SDD, is not directly implementable. Also, we have not explained how exactly the error from one proof should be propagated forward rigorously, if one is proving a long solution using multiple integration steps. The latter step ends up being less than trivial, and there are several non-equivalent ways it can be done depending on how the numerical data from each step is stored and how this interacts with the
Example
This section concerns an application of our validated integrator to the following initial-value problem: with all being non-negative. In particular, we will require positive so as not to trivialize the state-dependent delay. A similar equation with two delays was studied in [31], where Hopf bifurcations and periodic orbits were analyzed using delay expansions and normal forms. In particular, (68) is a restricted version of that equation. We have
Discussion
We have extended the classical method of steps from differential equations with constant delay to the state-dependent delay case, resulting in the implicit method of steps. The result is a ODE boundary-value problem. Solving this boundary-value problem in a rigorous way requires a mechanism to resolve the out-of-bounds evaluation problem, and we generally accomplish this by way of a Taylor extension mechanism. We then develop computer-assisted proofs to validate a numerically-computed solution
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Kevin E.M. Church: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data curation, Writing – Original Draft, Writing – Review & Editing, Visualization, Project administration.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
References (34)
- et al.
Chapter 5 functional differential equations with state-dependent delays: theory and applications
(2006) - et al.
Computer solutions of state-dependent delay differential equations
Comput Math Appl
(1994) Numerical investigation of the pantograph equation
Appl Numer Math
(1997)- et al.
A continuous semiflow on a space of Lipschitz functions for a differential equation with state-dependent delay from cell biology
J Differential Equations
(2021) - et al.
A proof of Wright’s conjecture
J Differential Equations
(2018) A proof of Jones’ conjecture
J Differential Equations
(2019)The solution manifold and C1-smoothness for differential equations with state-dependent delay
J Differential Equations
(2003)- et al.
Construction of quasi-periodic solutions of state-dependent delay differential equations by the parameterization method II: Analytic case
J Differential Equations
(2016) - et al.
Covering relations for multidimensional dynamical systems
J Differential Equations
(2004) - et al.