A New Diffusive Representation for Fractional Derivatives, Part II: Convergence Analysis of the Numerical Scheme

Kai Diethelm

arXiv: 2203.16454v1 · PDF · 28 February 2022
Categories: math.NA, cs.NA
Journal: Mathematics 10, 2022, Article No. 1245
DOI: 10.3390/math10081245
Licence: CC BY 4.0 The site shows the text.

Abstract

Recently, we have proposed a new diffusive representation for fractional derivatives and, based on this representation, suggested an algorithm for their numerical computation. From the construction of the algorithm, it is immediately evident that the method is fast and memory efficient. Moreover, the method’s design is such that good convergence properties may be expected. This paper here starts a systematic investigation of these convergence properties.

Items 9

Remark

Remark 1

H68T

In the decomposition (?) of the total error, it is clear from eq. (?) that the component R^{\mathrm Q}_{\alpha, K}(y; t_n)—as indicated by the notation—depends only on the function y whose fractional derivative we want to compute, the order \alpha of this derivative, the number K of nodes of the Gauss-Laguerre quadrature formula that we use, and the point t_n. Thus there is an indirect dependency on the exact solution of the initial value problem (?) at the point t = t_n but not on the numerical solution of this problem. Hence, for the analysis of R^{\mathrm Q}_{\alpha, K}(y; t_n), it does not matter by which numerical method and with which grid we solve this initial value problem.

The component R^{\mathrm{ODE}}_{\alpha, K, n}(y), on the other hand, does not only depend on the ODE solver and its grid but also on the number K of quadrature nodes and on the location of these nodes because these quantities appear as parameters in the differential equation and thus have an influence on the ODE solver’s error.

Lemma

Lemma 1

DCLK

If y \in C^{\lceil \alpha \rceil} [a, a+T] then, for all p > 0,

R^{\mathrm Q}_{\alpha, K}(y; t_n) = O(K^{-p})

as K \to \infty.

Proof (Proof of Lemma 1) of Lemma 1

We begin by noting that \phi_{\mathrm D} (\cdot, t) \in C^\infty(\mathbb R) (this is an immediate consequence of the representation (Proof); see also [Di2022, Theorem 1(d)]). Therefore, it follows from eq. (?) that \hat \phi(\cdot, t) \in C^\infty[0, \infty). Moreover, the identity (?) combined with Lemma 2 tells us that, for arbitrary r \in \mathbb N, the function \kappa_r defined by

\kappa_r(w) = \mathrm e^{-w} w^{r/2} \frac{\partial^r \hat \phi}{\partial w^r}(w,t)

is continuous on [0, \infty) and satisfies

|\kappa_r(w)| = O(w^{r/2} \mathrm e^{-w})

for w \to \infty. Therefore, \kappa_r \in L_1[0, \infty), so we may invoke [MaMo1994, Theorem 1] with any r \in \mathbb N, and the claim of Lemma 1 follows.

Uses Proof, Lemma 2

Lemma

Lemma 2

947R

If y \in C^{\lceil \alpha \rceil} [a, a+T] then, for all r \in \mathbb N_0 and all t \in [a, a+T],

\frac{\partial^r \phi_{\mathrm D}}{\partial w^r} (w, t) = O(\mathrm e^{w (q_{\mathrm D} - 1)} ) \mbox{ for } w \to \infty

and

\frac{\partial^r \phi_{\mathrm D}}{\partial w^r} (w, t) = O(\mathrm e^{w q_{\mathrm D}}) \mbox{ for } w \to -\infty.

Used by Proof

Proof of Lemma 2

The claims for r = 0 have already been shown in [Di2022, Theorem 1(e)]. We thus only discuss the cases r = 1, 2, \ldots here. To this end, we first recall from [Di2022, Theorem 1] that

\phi_{\mathrm D}(w, t) = (-1)^{\lfloor \alpha \rfloor} \frac{\sin \alpha \pi}{\pi} \mathrm e^{wq_{\mathrm D}} \int_a^t y^{(\lceil \alpha \rceil)}(\tau) \exp\left(-(t-\tau) \mathrm e^w\right) \mathrm d\tau

holds for any fixed t \in [a, a+T]. This implies, in particular, that \phi_{\mathrm D}(w, a) = 0 for all w, and so the claims clearly hold in the case t = a.

For t > a, an application of Leibniz’ rule to (Proof) shows that

\begin{aligned} \frac{\partial^r \phi_{\mathrm D}}{\partial w^r} (w, t) &= (-1)^{\lfloor \alpha \rfloor} \frac{\sin \alpha \pi}{\pi} \\ & \phantom{{}={}} \quad \times \sum_{s=0}^r \binom{r}{s} q_{\mathrm D}^{r-s} e^{wq_{\mathrm D}} \int_a^t y^{(\lceil \alpha \rceil)}(\tau) \frac{\partial^s}{\partial w^s} \exp\left(-(t-\tau) \mathrm e^w\right) \mathrm d\tau \end{aligned}

which, upon setting

c = \frac{|\sin \alpha \pi|}{\pi} \| y^{(\lceil \alpha \rceil)} \|_{L_\infty[a, a+T]} < \infty,

implies for all w \in \mathbb R that

\begin{aligned} \left| \frac{\partial^r \phi_{\mathrm D}}{\partial w^r} (w, t) \right| & \le c \sum_{s=0}^r \binom{r}{s} q_{\mathrm D}^{r-s} e^{wq_{\mathrm D}} \int_a^t \frac{\partial^s}{\partial w^s} \exp\left(-(t-\tau) \mathrm e^w\right) \mathrm d\tau \\ & = c \sum_{s=0}^r \binom{r}{s} q_{\mathrm D}^{r-s} e^{wq_{\mathrm D}} \frac{\partial^s}{\partial w^s} \int_a^t \exp\left(-(t-\tau) \mathrm e^w\right) \mathrm d\tau \\ & = c \sum_{s=0}^r \binom{r}{s} q_{\mathrm D}^{r-s} e^{wq_{\mathrm D}} \frac{\partial^s}{\partial w^s} \left[ \mathrm e^{-w} \left( 1 - \exp \left( - (t-a) \mathrm e^w \right) \right) \right]. \end{aligned}

For the last factor in each summand, we can again use Leibniz’ rule and find

\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{\frac{\partial^s}{\partial w^s} \left[ \mathrm e^{-w} \left( 1 - \exp \left( - (t-a) \mathrm e^w \right) \right) \right] } \\ & = & \sum_{\sigma=1}^s \binom{s}{\sigma} (-1)^{s-\sigma} \mathrm e^{-w} \frac{\partial^\sigma}{\partial w^\sigma} \exp \left( - (t-a) \mathrm e^w \right) \\ & & {} + (-1)^s \mathrm e^{-w} \left( 1 - \exp \left( - (t-a) \mathrm e^w \right) \right) \\ & = & \sum_{\sigma=1}^s \binom{s}{\sigma} (-1)^{s-\sigma} J_\sigma(w) + (-1)^s J_0(w) \end{aligned}

with

J_0(w) = \mathrm e^{-w} \left( 1 - \exp \left( - (t-a) \mathrm e^w \right) \right)

and

J_\sigma(w) = \mathrm e^{-w} \frac{\partial^\sigma}{\partial w^\sigma} \exp \left( - (t-a) \mathrm e^w \right) \quad (s = 1, 2, 3, \ldots).

It is then immediately clear that

|J_0(w)| \le \mathrm e^{-w} \mbox{ for all } w,

\lim_{w \to \infty} \mathrm e^w |J_0(w)| \le 1

and, by de l’Hospital’s rule,

\lim_{w \to -\infty} J_0(w) = t - a.

Moreover, a straightforward mathematical induction yields for \sigma = 1, 2, 3, \ldots that there exist polynomials \pi_{\sigma-1} of degree \sigma-1 (whose coefficients may depend on t-a but whose precise form is not relevant for our purposes) such that

J_\sigma(w) =\exp(-(t-a) \mathrm e^w) \pi_{\sigma-1}(\mathrm e^w).

Denoting the polynomials \pi_{\sigma-1} by \pi_{\sigma-1}(z) = \sum_{\rho = 0}^{\sigma-1} \psi_\rho z^\rho, we conclude

J_\sigma(w) = \exp(-(t-a) \mathrm e^w) \sum_{\rho = 0}^{\sigma-1} \psi_\rho \mathrm e^{\rho w} = \sum_{\rho = 0}^{\sigma-1} \psi_\rho \exp ( \rho w - (t-a) \mathrm e^w ) .

Thus,

\lim_{w \to -\infty} |J_\sigma(w)| \le \lim_{w \to -\infty} \sum_{\rho = 0}^{\sigma-1} | \psi_\rho | \exp ( \rho w - (t-a) \mathrm e^w ) = |\psi_0|

and

\lim_{w \to \infty} \mathrm e^w |J_\sigma(w)| \le \lim_{w \to \infty} \sum_{\rho = 0}^{\sigma-1} | \psi_\rho | \exp ( (\rho + 1) w - (t-a) \mathrm e^w ) = 0

because (since we only need to deal with those values of t for which t > a) the argument of each of the exponential functions is less than -2 w for sufficiently large w. Plugging (Proof) and (Proof) into (Proof), we then derive

\frac{\partial^s}{\partial w^s} \left[ \mathrm e^{-w} \left( 1 - \exp \left( - (t-a) \mathrm e^w \right) \right) \right] = O(\mathrm e^{-w}) \mbox{ for } w \to \infty,

and inserting (Proof) and (Proof) into (Proof), we find

\frac{\partial^s}{\partial w^s} \left[ \mathrm e^{-w} \left( 1 - \exp \left( - (t-a) \mathrm e^w \right) \right) \right] = O(1) \mbox{ for } w \to - \infty.

The two claims of the Lemma then follow upon combining these two relations with eq. (Proof).

Remark

Remark 2

U3WK

A careful inspection of this proof reveals that the implied constants in the O-terms of the two claims can be chosen independently of the value of t \in [a, a+T], so the estimates of Lemma 2 hold uniformly for all t \in [a, a+T].

Lemma

Lemma 3

7AL1

Assume that the grid \{ t_n : n = 0, 1, \ldots, N \} is uniform, i.e. that t_n = a + n h with h = T/N. If y \in C^{\lceil \alpha \rceil+1} [a, a+T] and the differential equations are solved by the backward Euler method, then

| R^{\mathrm{ODE}}_{\alpha, K, n}(y) | \le C(K) t_n h \le C(K) T h

with

\begin{aligned} C(K) &= \frac{|\sin \alpha \pi |} {2 \pi} \mathrm e^{x_{K,K}^{\mathrm{GLa}} q_{\mathrm D} / (1 - q_{\mathrm D})} \\ & \qquad \times \left( \left\| y^{(\lceil \alpha \rceil +1)}(t) \right\|_{L_\infty[a, a+T]} + 2 \mathrm e^{x_{K,K}^{\mathrm{GLa}} / (1 - q_{\mathrm D})} \left\| y^{(\lceil \alpha \rceil)}(t) \right\|_{L_\infty[a, a+T]} \right). \end{aligned}

Proof of Lemma 3

According to eqs. (?) and (?), we need to solve the differential equation in eq. (?) for w \in W_- \cup W_+ where

W_- = \{ -x_{k,K}^{\mathrm{GLa}} / q_{\mathrm D} : k = 1, 2, \ldots, K \}

and

W_+ = \{ x_{k,K}^{\mathrm{GLa}} / (1 - q_{\mathrm D}) : k = 1, 2, \ldots, K \}.

Let us introduce the notation

f(t, z) = - \mathrm e^w z + (-1)^{\lfloor \alpha \rfloor} \frac{\sin \alpha \pi}{\pi} \mathrm e^{wq_{\mathrm D}} y^{(\lceil \alpha \rceil)}(t),

so that the differential equation in question takes the form

\frac{\partial \phi_{\mathrm D}}{\partial t} (w, t) = f(t, \phi_{\mathrm D}(w, t)).

For any w \in W_+ \cup W_-, we have - \mathrm e^w \le -\exp(-x_{K,K}^{\mathrm{GLa}}/q_{\mathrm D}) and so, for all z_1, z_2 \in \mathbb R, we can see that

(f(t, z_1) - f(t, z_2)) (z_1 - z_2) = - \mathrm e^w (z_1 - z_2)^2 \le - \exp(-x_{K,K}^{\mathrm{GLa}}/q_{\mathrm D}) \cdot (z_1 - z_2)^2.

Therefore, in the terminology of [Plato, Definition 8.58], the initial value problem satisfies an upper Lipschitz condition with constant - \exp(-x_{K,K}^{\mathrm{GLa}}/q_{\mathrm D}) < 0, and hence the initial value problem is dissipative.

This property allows us to estimate the local truncation error of the backward Euler method in the following essentially standard way: By our smoothness assumption on the function y, a Taylor expansion shows that the local truncation error in the n-th step has the form

\delta_n = h ( f(t_n, \phi_{\mathrm D}(w, t_n)) - f(t_n, \phi_{\mathrm D, n}(w)) ) + \frac 1 2 h^2 \frac{\mathrm d}{\mathrm d t} f(t, \phi_{\mathrm D}(w, t))_{|_{t = \xi}}

where \phi_{\mathrm D, n}(w) is the approximation for \phi_{\mathrm D}(w, t_n) (so that \delta_n = \phi_{\mathrm D}(w, t_n) - \phi_{\mathrm D, n}(w)) and \xi \in [t_{n-1}, t_n]. Hence,

\begin{aligned} \left( \delta_n - \frac 1 2 h^2 \frac{\mathrm d}{\mathrm d t} f(t, \phi_{\mathrm D}(w, t))_{|_{t = \xi}} \right) \delta_n & = & h ( f(t_n, \phi_{\mathrm D}(w, t_n)) - f(t_n, \phi_{\mathrm D, n}(w)) ) \delta_n \\ & \le & - h \exp(-x_{K,K}^{\mathrm{GLa}}/q_{\mathrm D}) \delta_n^2 \end{aligned}

in view of eq. (Proof). A rearrangement of terms then yields

\delta_n^2 ( 1 + h \exp(-x_{K,K}^{\mathrm{GLa}}/q_{\mathrm D}) ) \le \frac 1 2 h^2 \frac{\mathrm d}{\mathrm d t} f(t, \phi_{\mathrm D}(w, t))_{|_{t = \xi}} \cdot \delta_n.

Evidently, the left-hand side of this inequality is nonnegative, and so the right-hand side must be nonnegative too. Hence, we may replace both sides of the inequality by their respective absolute values without changing anything. Having done that, we may divide both sides by | \delta_n| to obtain

|\delta_n| ( 1 + h \exp(-x_{K,K}^{\mathrm{GLa}}/q_{\mathrm D}) ) \le \frac 1 2 h^2 \left | \frac{\mathrm d}{\mathrm d t} f(t, \phi_{\mathrm D}(w, t))_{|_{t = \xi}} \right |.

In view of the chain rule, the concrete structure of the function f and the differential equation under consideration, we have

\begin{aligned} \left | \frac{\mathrm d}{\mathrm d t} f(t, \phi_{\mathrm D}(w, t)) \right| & \le \left| \frac{\partial f}{\partial t}(t, \phi_{\mathrm D}(w, t)) \right| + \left| \frac{\partial f}{\partial z}(t, \phi_{\mathrm D}(w, t)) \cdot \frac{\partial \phi_{\mathrm D}}{\partial t}(w,t) \right| \\ & \le \frac{|\sin \alpha \pi |} \pi \mathrm e^{w q_{\mathrm D}} \left| y^{(\lceil \alpha \rceil +1)}(t) \right| + \mathrm e^w | f(t, \phi_{\mathrm D}(w, t)) | . \end{aligned}

Using the explicit representation of \phi_{\mathrm D} given in eq. (Proof), it can be shown that the last expression in this inequality satisfies

| f(t, \phi_{\mathrm D}(w, t)) | \le 2 \mathrm e^{w q_{\mathrm D}} \frac{|\sin \alpha \pi |} \pi \left| y^{(\lceil \alpha \rceil)}(t) \right|.

Thus, we can continue the estimation of eq. (Proof) as

\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{|\delta_n| ( 1 + h \exp(-x_{K,K}^{\mathrm{GLa}}/q_{\mathrm D}) )} \\ & \le & \frac 1 2 h^2 \frac{|\sin \alpha \pi |} \pi \mathrm e^{w q_{\mathrm D}} \left( \left\| y^{(\lceil \alpha \rceil +1)}(t) \right\|_{L_\infty[a, a+T]} + 2 \mathrm e^w \left\| y^{(\lceil \alpha \rceil)}(t) \right\|_{L_\infty[a, a+T]} \right) \\ & \le & \frac 1 2 h^2 \frac{|\sin \alpha \pi |} \pi \mathrm e^{x_{K,K}^{\mathrm{GLa}} q_{\mathrm D} / (1 - q_{\mathrm D})} \\ & & \quad \times \left( \left\| y^{(\lceil \alpha \rceil +1)}(t) \right\|_{L_\infty[a, a+T]} + 2 \mathrm e^{x_{K,K}^{\mathrm{GLa}} / (1 - q_{\mathrm D})} \left\| y^{(\lceil \alpha \rceil)}(t) \right\|_{L_\infty[a, a+T]} \right). \end{aligned}

Since the second factor on the left-hand side is greater than 1, we deduce

\begin{aligned} |\delta_n| & \le \frac 1 2 h^2 \frac{|\sin \alpha \pi |} \pi \mathrm e^{x_{K,K}^{\mathrm{GLa}} q_{\mathrm D} / (1 - q_{\mathrm D})} \\ & \qquad \times \left( \left\| y^{(\lceil \alpha \rceil +1)}(t) \right\|_{L_\infty[a, a+T]} + 2 \mathrm e^{x_{K,K}^{\mathrm{GLa}} / (1 - q_{\mathrm D})} \left\| y^{(\lceil \alpha \rceil)}(t) \right\|_{L_\infty[a, a+T]} \right). \end{aligned}

for all admissible values of the parameters.

This estimate, together with the dissipativity of the differential equation, allows us to derive our claim from [Plato, Theorem 8.68].

Uses Proof

Theorem

Theorem 1

FLT8

If y \in C^{\lceil \alpha \rceil+1} [a, a+T], if the grid \{ t_n : n = 0, 1, \ldots, N \} is uniform and if the differential equations are solved by the backward Euler method then, for all p > 0,

\max_{n = 1, 2, \ldots, N} |R_{\alpha, K, n}(y)| = O(K^{-p}) + O\left( h \cdot \exp \left( \frac{1 + q_{\mathrm D}}{1 - q_{\mathrm D}} (4K+2) \right) \right)

as K \to \infty and/or N \to \infty, where h = T / N.

Source and licence

The text on this page is from arXiv:2203.16454v1 by Kai Diethelm, under the licence CC BY 4.0. The corpus made these changes: it read the items out of the LaTeX source, it expanded the macros of the paper, it put each proof after its statement, and it converted the text to HTML. The formulas are the TeX of the paper, and KaTeX renders them. A formula or a reference can look different from the PDF. The page is published under CC BY 4.0.

The record of each item is in analysis/objects/2203/2203.16454.jsonl.