A Hybridizable Discontinuous Galerkin Method for Time-Modulated Drude–Lorentz Media

For model 1, differentiating the material energy and substituting (?) gives (\mathbf{E},\mathbf{J})-\mathcal L_1+\mathcal W_1. For model 2, its material derivative gives (\mathbf{E},s\mathbf{V})-\mathcal L_2 plus the differentiated weights, whereas (?) equals -(\mathbf{E},s\mathbf{V}+(\partial_t s)\mathbf{Q}). For model 3 the electromagnetic contribution is -(\mathbf{E},s\mathbf{V}), with no (\partial_t s)\mathbf{Q} term because \mathbf{P} is independent. For model 4, the two oscillator coupling terms -(b/\epsilon_0)\mathbf{P}\cdot \mathbf{V} and (b/\epsilon_0)\mathbf{P}\cdot \mathbf{V} cancel. This proves all four identities.

Choose \mathbf{v}=\mathbf{E}_h, \mathbf{w}=\mathbf{H}_h, and \widehat{\mathbf{v}}=\widehat{\mathbf{E}}_h in (?). The element curl integration identity gives the combined boundary term

where the conservativity equation (?), namely \left\langle\mathbf{n}\times\widehat{\mathbf{H}}_h,\widehat{\mathbf{v}}\right\rangle_{\partial\mathcal T_h}=0 for all \widehat{\mathbf{v}}\in M_h^0, was used to subtract the trace from the second pairing. Hence

The material cancellation is the same as in Proposition 2.2. The element-wise coefficient assumption makes every required weighted test admissible. State transfer gives the event identities. Finally, \mathcal W_{i,h}\le C_i\mathcal E_{i,h} and \mathcal L_{i,h},\mathcal D_h\ge0 imply the bound by interval-wise integration and event multiplication.

Each material equation is a linear combination of electric/material states with scalar coefficients constant on K. Applying \Pi_E therefore gives exactly the discrete material equation. No common projection of \mathbf{E} and \mathbf{H} is needed for this step.

Mass projection defects vanish against the corresponding volume tests. Furthermore,

for m=k or m=k+1. Thus (\mathbf{e}_H^I,\nabla\times \mathbf{v})_K=(\mathbf{e}_E^I,\nabla\times \mathbf{w})_K=0. The tangential trace of \mathbf{w} has degree at most k\le m, so \langle \mathbf{n}\times\mathbf{e}_{E_T}^I,\mathbf{w}\rangle_{\partial K}=0 by facet projection orthogonality. The projected magnetic numerical flux differs from \mathbf{n}\times \mathbf{H} by exactly R_K. Subtracting the discrete equations from these projected equations proves (4.2)–(4.2). Interior exact magnetic fluxes cancel against single-valued hybrid tests.

Test (4.2) with \mathbf{e}_E^h and (4.2) with \mathbf{e}_H^h. In the boundary cancellation the nonzero conservativity residual (4.2), tested with \widehat{\mathbf{e}}_{E_T}^h, contributes +\langle R,\widehat{\mathbf{e}}_{E_T}^h\rangle to the right-hand side. Thus the boundary forcing is precisely -\langle R,\mathbf{e}_{E,T}^h-\widehat{\mathbf{e}}_{E_T}^h\rangle. Material energy cancellation is exact by Lemma 4.2. Weighted Cauchy–Schwarz bounds this forcing by F_h\mathcal D_h(\mathbf{e}_i^h)^{1/2}, and Young’s inequality gives (4.3).

Insert each degree and stabilization choice into (?). In variant B the magnetic contribution gains a factor h_K from \tau_K^{-1}, while the electric contribution loses a factor h_K but starts with the higher-degree trace estimate. Both powers become h_K^{2k+2}.

On smooth intervals multiply (4.3) by

The weighted energy has a nonpositive jump at each event. Integrating gives

Since G_i(T)^{-1}\le w_i\le1, the stated estimate follows (with an absolute constant accounting for the sum of the supremum and dissipation).

Combine (4.4) and Lemma 4.5. The physical quadratic energy is uniformly equivalent to the indicated L^2 state norm for models 1, 2, and 4. Add the projection approximation: it is O(h^{k+1}) for \mathbf{H} and O(h^{k+2}) for the degree-(k+1) electric/material states. The energy error is O(h^{k+1}), so it limits the common rate.

For model 3 use the reduced physical energy. Its independent projected polarization satisfies

including continuity at all events. Thus \sup_t\left\|\mathbf{e}_P^h(t)\right\|\le s^*T\sup_t\left\|\mathbf{e}_V^h(t)\right\|. Add the projection error for \mathbf{P} and use \mathbf{D}=\epsilon_0 \mathbf{E}+\mathbf{P}. This proves both the full-state rate and the dissipation bound.

Pair each discrete equation with Z_n in the frozen energy inner product. The semidiscrete cancellation (?) gives dissipation and material loss. The identity

proves (5.1). Applied to the homogeneous step with zero incoming state, it makes the outgoing state zero. The finite-dimensional square system is therefore invertible. To pass between frozen metrics, compare the unchanged state in successive \mathsf G_n^*; on a smooth slab the comparison is bounded by \exp(\int C_i), and at an event by \rho_{i,j}. The smooth comparison intervals have disjoint interiors within each slab, so their total exponent is bounded by the slab integral in (?); a comparison crossing an event is split into two smooth pieces and its event factor. State transfer itself is the identity. This proves (5.1). For model 3, subtract the polarization equation from the displacement equation to obtain a closed reduced system, apply the same calculation to its coercive energy, and then sum \mathbf{P}_h^n-\mathbf{P}_h^{n-1}=\Delta t_n s(t_n^*)\mathbf{V}_h^n for backward Euler or \Delta t_n s(t_n^*)\overline{\mathbf{V}}_h^n for midpoint.

Set e_i^{h,n}=\Pi_iY_i(t_n)-Y_{i,h}^n and \widehat{\mathbf{e}}_{E_T}^{h,n}=\Pi_M \mathbf{E}_T(t_n)-\widehat{\mathbf{E}}_h^n. Projection commutes with backward differences because the spatial operators are fixed. Lemma 4.2 therefore gives the same spatial residual R^n, plus the volume time defects g_{i,n} in all differential state equations. No discrete inverse estimate enters this argument.

Testing these equations in the frozen physical energy and using the polarization identity gives

The facet term is bounded by \tfrac12\Delta t_n(\mathcal D_h(e^n)+(F_h^n)^2). Keep the time-defect term linear in the error norm:

For each step, let r_n compare the energy of the unchanged preceding error in the current frozen metric with its preceding endpoint energy. Include a zero-length comparison step at each event, with r_n=\rho_{i,j} and unchanged continuous error. Set R_0=1, R_n=\prod_{\ell=1}^n\max\{1,r_\ell\}, and w_n=R_n^{-1}. The smooth-slab comparison and event identities give 1\le R_n\le G_i(T). Also w_n\mathcal E_i^n(e_i^{h,n-1})\le w_{n-1}\mathcal E_i^{n-1}(e_i^{h,n-1}), with the analogous inequality at an event. Dropping nonnegative dissipation and increment terms, summing through index m, and multiplying by two gives

Let U_m=\max_{0\le n\le m}\sqrt{w_n}\left\|e_i^{h,n}\right\|_{\mathsf G_i^n}, and apply the preceding inequality at an index realizing this maximum. Writing

we obtain U_m^2\le A_m^2+2U_mB_m, hence U_m\le A_m+2B_m. Consequently,

The projected initial error vanishes. By (4.4), the spatial term is at most C\sqrt T h^{k+1}\mathcal S; by (?), the time term is at most CT\Delta t_{\max}\mathcal T_i. Add the nodal projection error and use uniform energy equivalence to obtain (5.2). No discrete Gronwall estimate is needed.

Subtracting the backward Euler polarization equation from its displacement equation gives, exactly,

in the HDG weak form. Thus the reduced variables form a closed system with the coercive energy (?); the preceding projected-exact-solution argument applies to that system. Its electric equation has no \partial_t s term, because \mathbf{P} is an independent state. Finally the full polarization error satisfies

with zero initial error and unchanged event states. Summing and applying (?) gives

Add the projection error and reconstruct \mathbf{D}=\epsilon_0 \mathbf{E}+\mathbf{P}.

For an event-free step put a=t_{n-1/2} and let \bar Y_{i,h}(t_n)=\tfrac12(Y_{i,h}(t_n)+Y_{i,h}(t_{n-1})). The exact semidiscrete state has the midpoint defect

Since \partial_tY_{i,h}(a)=A_{i,h}(a)Y_{i,h}(a), centered Taylor estimates give

Indeed the centered difference of Y_{i,h} differs from \partial_tY_{i,h}(a) by O(\Delta t_n^2\partial_t^3Y_{i,h}), while \bar Y_{i,h}(t_n)-Y_{i,h}(a)=O(\Delta t_n^2\partial_t^2Y_{i,h}) in the graph norm of A_{i,h}(a). The exact and discrete equations evaluate the same coefficients at a; their time variation is thus included in these temporal and graph-norm regularity quantities, while the varying energy weight is handled by the metric comparisons below.

Set e^n=Y_{i,h}(t_n)-Y_{i,h}^n. Subtract the two midpoint equations, test with \bar e^n=(e^n+e^{n-1})/2 in the frozen energy, and use (?):

Let r_n compare consecutive frozen energy metrics, including a zero-length comparison at every event, and set w_n=\prod_{\ell\le n}\max\{1,r_\ell\}^{-1}. As in the backward Euler energy estimate above, G_i(T)^{-1}\le w_n\le1. Multiplying (?) by w_n, summing, and setting U_m=\max_{n\le m}\sqrt{w_n}\left\|e^n\right\|_{\mathsf G_n^*} yields

Here the incoming half of \bar e^n is bounded in the current metric by the preceding weighted energy. Thus \max_n\left\|e^n\right\|_{\mathsf G_n^*}\le C G_i(T)^{1/2}T\Delta t^2\mathcal T_{i,h}^{\rm mid}. Add the semidiscrete spatial estimate (4.6). For model 3 the same energy argument applies to the reduced state; summing the polarization midpoint error equation bounds \mathbf P, and \mathbf D=\epsilon_0\mathbf E+\mathbf P then follows.

Projection of the continuous forced equations produces exactly the discrete load. Subtraction cancels the source in the spatial error equation and leaves the same temporal defects. For midpoint, the source at the slab midpoint also cancels when the exact semidiscrete equation is evaluated there. Model 3’s polarization difference has the same cancellation. The homogeneous energy identity becomes a forced energy inequality through Cauchy–Schwarz on the source work.

Variation of constants for the difference of the two continuous states gives an integral supported only on the W_j. On W_j its forcing is \pm(A_{j-1}-A_j)Y; the propagator bound and the interval length give (6.1).

Differentiating (?) gives S'(\theta)=K(\theta). On a constant slab a midpoint step differs from its matrix exponential by O(\Delta t_n^3); summing these defects gives O(\Delta t^2). Taylor expansion in \delta then yields the stated estimates.

Write the scalar amplitudes in the \mathbf{u} direction as \mathbf{D}=d\mathbf{u}, \mathbf{P}=p\mathbf{u}, \mathbf{J}=j\mathbf{u}, and \mathbf{E}=e\mathbf{u}. The invariant subsystem in y=(d,p,j)^T is

Before the switch the scalar electric amplitude is e(t)=\tfrac12(1+\cos(\sqrt2 t)), so e(\theta)>0. Hence

The exponential e^{(T-\theta)A_+} is invertible, so v=K(\theta)y_0\ne0. Thus

Their norms are \Delta t_r\left\|v\right\|/3+O(\Delta t_r^2), which proves both upper and lower first-order bounds. Since N_r/3=2^r+1/3, the crossing-step midpoint lies after the physical switch. Sampling therefore treats that whole step as post-switch, exactly as switching at its earlier node \widetilde\theta_r. The fitted estimate follows from (6.3). Finally all element fields and facet traces are constant-compatible, their spatial curls vanish, and \mathbf{E}_{h,T}=\widehat{\mathbf{E}}_h. Hence the HDG dissipation is zero and the HDG equations reduce exactly to (Proof).

Bounded modal generators give the uniform continuous-state estimate by Proposition 6.1. The constitutive law gives

The first term is O(|\delta|). The second vanishes off the interval swept by the switch and has height approaching the constitutive jump on that interval. There,

where continuity and piecewise bounded derivatives of \mathbf{Q} give a uniform remainder. Taking the essential supremum gives (6.5); integrating the squared norm over the swept interval and adding the O(\delta^2) contribution outside gives (6.5). The argument for \mathbf{P} uses its constitutive reconstruction.