--- name: numerical-stability description: > Analyze numerical stability for time-dependent PDE simulations — check CFL and Fourier criteria, perform von Neumann stability analysis, detect stiffness, evaluate matrix conditioning, and recommend explicit vs implicit time-stepping schemes. Use when selecting time steps, diagnosing numerical blow-up or solver divergence, checking convergence criteria, or evaluating scheme stability for advection, diffusion, or reaction problems, even if the user doesn't explicitly mention "stability" or "CFL." allowed-tools: Read, Bash, Write, Grep, Glob metadata: author: HeshamFS version: "1.2.2" security_tier: high security_reviewed: true tested_with: - claude-code last_evaluated: "2026-06-24" eval_cases: 4 last_reviewed: "2026-06-23" standards: - "Courant-Friedrichs-Lewy (CFL) condition (Courant, Friedrichs, Lewy 1928)" - "von Neumann (Fourier) stability analysis; amplification factor and Fourier limit Fo ≤ 1/(2d)" - "Dahlquist A-stability / L-stability theory for time integrators" - "BDF (Gear) and Radau IIA / Rosenbrock methods for stiff systems" - "IEEE 754 double precision (conditioning thresholds, κ ≈ 1/eps)" --- # Numerical Stability ## Goal Provide a repeatable checklist and script-driven checks to keep time-dependent simulations stable and defensible. ## Requirements - Python 3.10+ - NumPy (for matrix_condition.py and von_neumann_analyzer.py) - See `scripts/requirements.txt` for dependencies ## Inputs to Gather | Input | Description | Example | |-------|-------------|---------| | Grid spacing `dx` | Spatial discretization | `0.01 m` | | Time step `dt` | Temporal discretization | `1e-4 s` | | Velocity `v` | Advection speed | `1.0 m/s` | | Diffusivity `D` | Thermal/mass diffusivity | `1e-5 m²/s` | | Reaction rate `k` | First-order rate constant | `100 s⁻¹` | | Dimensions | 1D, 2D, or 3D | `2` | | Scheme type | Explicit or implicit | `explicit` | ## Decision Guidance ### Choosing Explicit vs Implicit ``` Is the problem stiff (fast + slow dynamics)? ├── YES → Use implicit or IMEX scheme │ └── Check conditioning with matrix_condition.py └── NO → Is CFL/Fourier satisfied with reasonable dt? ├── YES → Use explicit scheme (cheaper per step) └── NO → Consider implicit or reduce dx ``` ### Stability Limit Quick Reference | Physics | Number | Explicit Limit (1D) | Formula | |---------|--------|---------------------|---------| | Advection | CFL | C ≤ 1 | `C = v·dt/dx` | | Diffusion | Fourier | Fo ≤ 0.5 | `Fo = D·dt/dx²` | | Reaction | Reaction | R ≤ 1 | `R = k·dt` | **Multi-dimensional correction**: For d dimensions, diffusion limit is `Fo ≤ 1/(2d)`. ## Script Outputs (JSON Fields) | Script | Key Outputs | |--------|-------------| | `scripts/cfl_checker.py` | `metrics.cfl`, `metrics.fourier`, `recommended_dt`, `stable` | | `scripts/von_neumann_analyzer.py` | `results.max_amplification`, `results.stable` | | `scripts/matrix_condition.py` | `results.condition_number`, `results.is_symmetric` | | `scripts/stiffness_detector.py` | `results.stiffness_ratio`, `results.real_part_stiffness_ratio`, `results.imag_dominated`, `results.stiff`, `results.recommendation`, `results.warning` | ## Workflow 1. **Identify dominant physics** (advection vs diffusion vs reaction) 2. **Run CFL checker** with `scripts/cfl_checker.py` 3. **Compare to limits** and adjust `dt` if needed 4. **Check stiffness** with `scripts/stiffness_detector.py` if multiple scales 5. **Analyze custom schemes** with `scripts/von_neumann_analyzer.py` 6. **Check conditioning** with `scripts/matrix_condition.py` for implicit solves 7. **Document** the stability verdict and recommended time step ## Conversational Workflow Example **User**: My phase-field simulation is blowing up after 100 steps. I'm using explicit Euler with dx=0.01, dt=1e-4, and diffusivity D=1.0. **Agent workflow**: 1. Check stability criteria: ```bash python3 scripts/cfl_checker.py --dx 0.01 --dt 1e-4 --diffusivity 1.0 --dimensions 2 --json ``` 2. Interpret results: - Fourier number: `Fo = 1.0 × 1e-4 / (0.01)² = 1.0` - 2D limit: `Fo ≤ 0.25` - **Violation**: Fo = 1.0 > 0.25, unstable! 3. Recommend fix: - Reduce dt to `2.5e-5` (the tool's `recommended_dt`, giving Fo = 0.25) - Or increase dx, or switch to implicit ## Pre-Simulation Stability Checklist - [ ] Identify dominant physics and nondimensional groups - [ ] Compute CFL/Fourier/Reaction numbers with `cfl_checker.py` - [ ] If explicit and limit violated, reduce `dt` or change scheme - [ ] If stiffness ratio > 1000, select implicit/stiff integrator - [ ] For custom schemes, verify amplification factor ≤ 1 - [ ] Document stability reasoning with inputs and outputs ## CLI Examples ```bash # Check CFL/Fourier for 2D diffusion-advection python3 scripts/cfl_checker.py --dx 0.1 --dt 0.01 --velocity 1.0 --diffusivity 0.1 --dimensions 2 --json # Von Neumann analysis for custom 3-point stencil python3 scripts/von_neumann_analyzer.py --coeffs 0.2,0.6,0.2 --dx 1.0 --nk 128 --json # Detect stiffness from eigenvalue estimates python3 scripts/stiffness_detector.py --eigs=-1,-1000 --json # Check matrix conditioning for implicit system python3 scripts/matrix_condition.py --matrix A.npy --norm 2 --json ``` ## Error Handling | Error | Cause | Resolution | |-------|-------|------------| | `dx and dt must be positive` | Zero or negative values | Provide valid positive numbers | | `No stability criteria applied` | Missing velocity/diffusivity | Provide at least one physics parameter | | `Matrix not found: ` | Invalid path | Check matrix file exists | | `Could not compute eigenvalues` | Singular or ill-formed matrix | Check matrix validity | ## Interpretation Guidance | Scenario | Meaning | Action | |----------|---------|--------| | `stable: true` | All checked criteria satisfied | Proceed with simulation | | `stable: false` | At least one limit violated | Reduce dt or change scheme | | `stable: null` | No criteria could be applied | Provide more physics inputs | | Stiffness ratio > 1000 | Problem is stiff | Use implicit integrator | | Condition number > 10⁸ | Poorly-conditioned (`status: poorly-conditioned`) | Preconditioning likely needed | | Condition number > 10¹⁰ | Ill-conditioned (`status: ill-conditioned`) | Use scaling/preconditioning | > Conditioning thresholds assume IEEE double precision: solving loses roughly `log10(κ)` significant digits, and a matrix becomes numerically singular near `κ ≈ 1/eps ≈ 4.5e15`. The `> 10⁸` / `> 10¹⁰` cutoffs (matching `matrix_condition.py` `status`) leave ample margin; well-conditioned-for-double FEM matrices (κ up to ~10⁶–10⁷) report `status: ok`. ## Verification checklist Do not declare a scheme/time step "stable" until each applicable item below is satisfied with a recorded value from the scripts, not a mental estimate. - [ ] Ran `cfl_checker.py --json` and recorded `metrics.cfl`, `metrics.fourier`, and/or `metrics.reaction` against the reported `limits.*` (explicit defaults: CFL ≤ 1, Fo ≤ 1/(2d), R ≤ 1), with `stable: true` and the intended criteria present in `criteria_applied`. - [ ] Confirmed `criteria_applied` is non-empty and `stable` is not `null` — i.e. at least one physics parameter (`--velocity`/`--diffusivity`/`--reaction-rate`) was actually supplied so a real check ran, not a silent no-op. - [ ] Used the smallest grid spacing across all directions for `--dx` (anisotropic grids: smallest `dx`/`dy`/`dz`) and re-ran `cfl_checker.py` after any mesh refinement, since `Fo ∝ dt/dx²` makes the limit highly sensitive to `dx`. - [ ] If the chosen `dt` is below the limit, recorded the tool's `recommended_dt` (and the `--safety` factor used) so the margin to the stability boundary is explicit and reproducible. - [ ] For any custom/non-standard update stencil, ran `von_neumann_analyzer.py --json` and confirmed `results.max_amplification ≤ 1` (`stable: true`); noted `k_at_max` and resolved any even-length-stencil `warning`. - [ ] For multi-scale systems, ran `stiffness_detector.py --json` and recorded `real_part_stiffness_ratio`, `imag_dominated`, and `stiff`; only chose BDF/Radau when `stiff: true` on the real-part ratio (not on magnitude alone) and there is no `warning`. - [ ] For implicit solves, ran `matrix_condition.py --json` and recorded `condition_number` and `status`; treated `poorly-conditioned` (>1e8) / `ill-conditioned` (>1e10) as a flag to scale/precondition before trusting the solve. ## Common pitfalls & rationalizations | Tempting shortcut | Why it's wrong / what to do | |-------------------|-----------------------------| | "Implicit scheme, so any `dt` is fine." | Unconditional *stability* is not *accuracy*. `cfl_checker.py` reports `stable: true` with relaxed (infinite) limits for `--scheme implicit` and even adds a note to "check accuracy" — a large `dt` still ruins temporal error. Size `dt` for accuracy, not just stability. | | "It ran 100 steps without crashing, so the setup is stable." | Late-time blow-up from round-off, conservation loss, or marginal `Fo` is common. Completion ≠ correctness — record `metrics.fourier`/`metrics.cfl` vs `limits.*` and confirm `stable: true` before trusting the run. | | "The 1D Fourier limit is 0.5, so `Fo ≤ 0.5` is safe." | The explicit diffusion limit is `Fo ≤ 1/(2d)` — 0.25 in 2D, 0.167 in 3D. Pass the real `--dimensions`; `cfl_checker.py` tightens `diffusion_limit` automatically, and using 0.5 in 2D/3D is an instability. | | "Stiffness ratio is huge, so use BDF/Radau." | The magnitude `stiffness_ratio` is misleading for oscillatory/advective/Hamiltonian spectra. Check `imag_dominated` and `real_part_stiffness_ratio`: if `imag_dominated: true` the detector returns `stiff: false` with a `warning` — prefer symplectic/leapfrog or a CFL-sized A-stable scheme, not implicit stiff solvers. | | "I tightened `dt`, so the old mesh's `dt` still works after refining `dx`." | `Fo ∝ dt/dx²`: halving `dx` quadruples `Fo`. Reusing a pre-refinement `dt` reintroduces a violation. Recompute with `cfl_checker.py` after every mesh change. | | "The matrix solved, so its conditioning is fine." | A solve can return numbers while silently losing ~`log10(κ)` digits. Record `condition_number`/`status` from `matrix_condition.py`; `poorly-conditioned`/`ill-conditioned` means scale or precondition before trusting the result. | ## Security ### Input Validation - `dx`, `dt`, and `safety` are validated as finite positive numbers before any computation; `velocity`, `diffusivity`, and `reaction_rate`, when supplied, are validated as finite - `--dimensions` is restricted to `{1, 2, 3}` (cfl_checker.py raises and exits 2 otherwise) - Comma-separated eigenvalue lists (`--eigs`) are capped at 10,000 entries and validated as finite numbers - Stencil coefficient lists (`--coeffs`) are capped at 10,000 entries and validated as finite floats ### File Access - `matrix_condition.py` reads a single matrix file (`.npy` or text) specified by `--matrix`; no directory traversal beyond the given path - Matrix/Jacobian files are rejected if they exceed 500 MB before parsing (matrix_condition.py, stiffness_detector.py) - `np.load()` is called with `allow_pickle=False` to prevent arbitrary code execution via crafted `.npy` files (matrix_condition.py, stiffness_detector.py) - Scripts write only to stdout (JSON output); no files are created unless the agent explicitly uses the Write tool ### Tool Restrictions - **Read**: Used to inspect script source, references, and user configuration files - **Bash**: Used to execute the four Python analysis scripts (`cfl_checker.py`, `von_neumann_analyzer.py`, `matrix_condition.py`, `stiffness_detector.py`) with explicit argument lists - **Write**: Used to save analysis results or generated reports; writes are scoped to the user's working directory - **Grep/Glob**: Used to locate relevant files and search references ### Safety Measures - No `eval()`, `exec()`, or dynamic code generation - All subprocess calls use explicit argument lists (no `shell=True`) - Matrix dimension limit (100,000 per side) in matrix_condition.py prevents memory exhaustion - JSON output mode (`--json`) produces structured, parseable results without shell-interpretable content ## Limitations - **Explicit schemes only** for CFL/Fourier checks (implicit is unconditionally stable) - **Von Neumann analysis** assumes linear, constant-coefficient, periodic BCs - **Stiffness detection** requires eigenvalue estimates from user. The `stiff` verdict is based on scale separation among genuinely decaying modes (`Re(λ) < 0`); the magnitude ratio is still reported as `stiffness_ratio`. Imaginary-axis-dominated spectra (oscillatory/advection/Hamiltonian) are flagged via `imag_dominated` and a `warning`, and are NOT classified as stiff — for those, prefer symplectic/leapfrog or an A-stable scheme sized by the CFL limit, not BDF/Radau. ## References - `references/stability_criteria.md` - Decision thresholds and formulas - `references/common_pitfalls.md` - Frequent failure modes and fixes - `references/scheme_catalog.md` - Stability properties of common schemes ## Version History - **v1.2.2** (2026-06-24): Added a "Verification checklist" (7 evidence-based items tied to the four scripts' JSON outputs) and a "Common pitfalls & rationalizations" table (6 rows) to make stability verdicts reproducible and guard against false-confidence shortcuts - **v1.2.0** (2026-06-23): Corrected the phase-field worked example (genuinely unstable Fo=1.0 with D=1.0); fixed eval case 1 Fourier value; reconciled conditioning thresholds and error-message docs with the scripts; real-part-based stiffness classification with imaginary-dominated detection; enforced documented input/file-size/dimension safeguards - **v1.1.0** (2024-12-24): Enhanced documentation, decision guidance, examples - **v1.0.0**: Initial release with 4 stability analysis scripts