1: \documentclass[12pt,a4paper]{article}
2: \usepackage{url}
3: \usepackage[colour,hyperref]{ajr}
4:
5: \usepackage{defns}
6: \newcommand{\ibc}{\textsc{ibc}}
7: \newcommand{\spde}{\textsc{spde}}
8: \newcommand{\sgn}{\mbox{sgn}\,}
9: \newcommand{\E}[1]{{\cal H}_{#1}}
10:
11: \title{A step towards holistic discretisation of stochastic partial
12: differential equations}
13:
14: \author{A. J. Roberts\thanks{Department of Mathematics \& Computing,
15: University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Queensland 4352,
16: Australia. \protect\url{mailto:aroberts@usq.edu.au}}}
17:
18: \begin{document}
19:
20: \maketitle
21:
22: \begin{abstract}
23: The long term aim is to use modern dynamical systems theory to derive
24: discretisations of noisy, dissipative partial differential equations.
25: As a first step we here consider a small domain and apply stochastic
26: centre manifold techniques to derive a model. The approach
27: automatically parametrises subgrid scale processes induced by spatially
28: distributed stochastic noise. It is important to discretise stochastic
29: partial differential equations carefully, as we do here, because of the
30: sometimes subtle effects of noise processes. In particular we see how
31: stochastic resonance effectively extracts new noise processes for the
32: model which in this example helps stabilise the zero solution.
33: \end{abstract}
34:
35: \tableofcontents
36:
37: \section{Introduction}
38:
39: \begin{figure}
40: \centering
41: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{umesh}
42: \caption{numerical solution over time $0<t<3$ of the
43: \spde~(\ref{eq:oburgnm}) on the domain $0<x<\pi$ with stochastic
44: forcing~(\ref{eq:onoise}) truncated to the first seven spatial
45: modes. Parameters: $\gamma=0$ so $u\propto\sin x$ is linearly
46: neutral although nonlinearly stable; $\sigma=1$ for large forcing;
47: numerically $\Delta x=\pi/16$ and $\Delta t=0.01$\,.}
48: \label{fig:umesh}
49: \end{figure}
50: The ultimate aim is to accurately and efficiently model numerically the
51: evolution of stochastic partial differential equations (\spde{}s). An
52: example solution field~$u(x,t)$, see Figure~\ref{fig:umesh}, shows the
53: intricate spatio-temporal dynamics typically generated in a \spde.
54: Numerical methods to integrate stochastic \emph{ordinary} differential
55: equations are known to be delicate and subtle~\cite[e.g.]{Kloeden92}.
56: We surely need to take considerable care for \spde{}s as
57: well~\cite[e.g.]{Grecksch96, Werner97}.
58:
59: An issue is that the stochastic forcing generates high wavenumber,
60: steep variations, in structures seen in Figure~\ref{fig:umesh}. Stable
61: implicit integration in time generally damps far too fast such decaying
62: modes, yet through stochastic resonance an accurate resolution of the
63: life-time of these modes may be important on the large scale dynamics.
64: For example, stochastic resonance causes a high wavenumber noise to
65: restabilise the trivial solution field~$u=0$ in the simulations
66: summarised in Figure~\ref{fig:mmodel2}. Thus we should resolve
67: reasonably subgrid structures so that numerical discretisation with
68: large space-time grids achieve efficiency, without sacrificing the
69: subtle interactions that take place between the subgrid scale
70: structures.
71: \begin{figure}[tbp]
72: \centering
73: \includegraphics{mmodel2}
74: \caption{numerical solution of the \sde\ model~(\ref{eq:oomod})
75: with small, $\sigma=0.5$, and large, $\sigma=2$, noise. The
76: amplitude~$a$ of the $\sin x$ mode decays for large noise, but not
77: for small. Parameters: $\gamma=-0.03$ to promote
78: linear growth of~$a$, and $\Delta t=0.1$\,.}
79: \label{fig:mmodel2}
80: \end{figure}
81:
82: The methods of centre manifold theory are used here to begin to develop
83: good methods for the discretisation of \spde{}s. There is supporting
84: centre manifold theory by Boxler~\cite{Boxler89, Boxler91, Berglund03}
85: for the modelling of \sde{}s; the centre manifold approach appears a
86: better foundation than heuristic arguments for
87: \sde{}s~\cite[e.g.]{Majda02}. Further, a centre manifold approach
88: seems to improve the discretisation of deterministic partial
89: differential equations~\cite{Roberts98a, Roberts00a, Mackenzie00a,
90: Roberts01a, Roberts01b, Mackenzie03}. The first step, taken here, is
91: to demonstrate the effective modelling of subgrid scale stochastic
92: structures.
93:
94:
95:
96:
97:
98: \newpage%??
99: \section{Directly seek a one element model}
100:
101: The simplest case, and that developed here, is the modelling of a
102: \spde{} on just one finite size element. Consider the stochastically
103: forced nonlinear partial differential equation
104: \begin{equation}
105: \D tu=-u\D xu+\DD x u +(1-\gamma)u +\sigma\phi( x ,t)
106: \quad\mbox{such that}\quad u=0\mbox{ at } x =0,\pi\,,
107: \label{eq:oburgnm}
108: \end{equation}
109: which involves advection~$uu_x$, diffusion~$u_{xx}$,
110: reaction~$(1-\gamma)u$, and noise~$\phi$. In general, the forcing
111: by~$\phi(x ,t)$, of strength~$\sigma$, is assumed to be white noise
112: that is delta correlated in both space and time as used in
113: Figure~\ref{fig:umesh}; however, here we consider only the case
114: \begin{equation}
115: \phi=\phi_2(t)\sin 2x \,,
116: \label{eq:onoise}
117: \end{equation}
118: where the $\phi_2(t)$ is a white noise that is delta correlated in
119: time. Note that the mode $u\propto\sin x$, when $\gamma=0$\,, is
120: linearly neutral and will form the basis of the model we seek. Thus
121: this example of noise forcing the orthogonal $\sin2x$ mode is expected
122: to be representative of the case of subgrid stochastic forcing and
123: consequent resolution of higher wavenumber modes. Many simple
124: numerical methods, such as Galerkin projection (remembering that the
125: domain here represents just one finite element), would completely
126: obliterate such ``high wavenumber'' modes and hence completely miss
127: subtle but important subgrid effects.
128: \begin{figure}[tbp]
129: \centering
130: \includegraphics{u1sin2}
131: \caption{numerical solution of the \spde~(\ref{eq:oburgnm}) with
132: relatively weak noise limited to just $\phi=\phi_2(t)\sin 2x$
133: showing convergence to a nonlinearly stabilised $\sin x$ mode that
134: is perturbed by the noise. Parameters: $\sigma=0.5$ is small,
135: $\gamma=-0.03$ to generate linear growth of the $\sin x$ mode,
136: $\Delta t=0.05$ and $\Delta x=\pi/8$\,.}
137: \label{fig:u1sin2}
138: \end{figure}
139: An example numerical solution, Figure~\ref{fig:u1sin2}, displays that
140: relatively weak noise only perturbs the deterministic dynamics.
141: However, when the noise is large enough, then stochastic resonance
142: restabilises the zero solution and the $\sin x$ mode decays as seen in
143: Figure~\ref{fig:u1sin2s}. The success of our approach is seen by it
144: modelling this induced restabilisation.
145: \begin{figure}[tbp]
146: \centering
147: \includegraphics{u1sin2s}
148: \caption{numerical solution of the \spde~(\ref{eq:oburgnm}) with
149: strong noise limited to just $\phi=\phi_2(t)\sin 2x$ showing the
150: $\sin x$ mode decays. Parameters: $\sigma=2$, $\gamma=-0.03$ to
151: promote linear growth of the $\sin x$ mode, $\Delta t=0.05$ and
152: $\Delta x=\pi/8$\,.}
153: \label{fig:u1sin2s}
154: \end{figure}
155:
156: For much of the analysis the requirement of white, delta correlated
157: noise is irrelevant. Where it is relevant, we interpret the stochastic
158: differential equations in the Stratonovich sense so that the rules of
159: traditional calculus apply.
160:
161: The centre manifold approach identifies that the long term dynamics of
162: a \spde\ such as~(\ref{eq:oburgnm}) is parametrised by the
163: amplitude~$a(t)$ of the neutral mode~$\sin x$\,. Arnold
164: et~al.~\cite{Arnold95} investigated stochastic Hopf bifurcations this
165: way, and the approach is equivalent to the slaving principle for
166: \sde{}s by Schoner and Haken~\cite{Schoner86}. Computer
167: algebra~\cite{Roberts96a} determines the solution field
168: \begin{eqnarray}
169: u&=&a\sin x -\rat16a^2\sin2x
170: \nonumber\\&&{}
171: +\sigma\E2(1-\gamma\E2)\phi_2\sin2x
172: -\rat32\sigma a\E3\E2(1-\gamma\E2)\phi_2\sin3x
173: \nonumber\\&&{}
174: +\rat13\sigma a^2\E4(1+9\E3)\E2\phi_2\sin4x
175: +\Ord{a^3+\gamma^2,\sigma^2}\,,
176: \end{eqnarray}
177: in which the operator~$\E{m}$ denotes convolution with
178: $\exp[-(m^2-1)t]$\,. See in this formula the resolution of the subgrid
179: structure arising through the interaction of the noise and the
180: nonlinearity.
181:
182: The model is the corresponding evolution equation for the amplitude:
183: \begin{eqnarray}
184: \dot a&=& -\gamma a -\rat1{12}a^3
185: +\sigma a\rat12\E2(1-\gamma\E2)\phi_2
186: \nonumber\\&&{}
187: +\sigma a^3(\rat1{64} +\rat1{12}\E2 -\rat34\E2\E3 +\rat18\E3)\E2\phi_2
188: +\Ord{a^4+\gamma^2,\sigma^2}\,.
189: \label{eq:onaive}
190: \end{eqnarray}
191: This is an unduly messy model as it involves many convolutions over the
192: rapid time scales we would like to ``step over.'' Straightforward
193: analyses of forced systems often terminate at this point because of
194: the tremendously involved form of the repeated convolutions that
195: occur in higher order terms, especially higher order in the noise
196: amplitude~$\sigma$. However, some thought leads us to the drastic
197: simplifications discussed next.
198:
199:
200: \newpage%??
201: \section{Use a normal form instead}
202:
203: Here we simplify the model by removing the convolutions from the
204: evolution equation~(\ref{eq:onaive}). This step was originally
205: developed for \sde{}s by Coullet et~al.~\cite{Coullet85} and Sri
206: Namachchivaya \& Lin~\cite{Srinamachchivaya91}. In computer algebra
207: this is done in the equation for the updates to the field and the
208: evolution:
209: \begin{displaymath}
210: \D t{u'}-\DD x{u'}-u'+{\dot a}'\sin x =\mbox{residual}.
211: \end{displaymath}
212: When the residual of the \spde~(\ref{eq:oburgnm}) contains a component
213: of the form $\E{m}\Phi\sin x $\,, where $\Phi$ denotes some noise
214: process, which previously we put into ${\dot a}'$ to
215: form~(\ref{eq:onaive}), we instead recognise that
216: \begin{equation}
217: \frac{d}{dt}\E{m}\Phi =-(m^2-1)\E{m}\Phi+\Phi
218: \quad\mbox{thus}\quad
219: \E{m}\Phi=\frac{1}{m^2-1}\left[ -\frac{d}{dt}\E{m}\Phi +\Phi
220: \right]\,,
221: \label{eq:em}
222: \end{equation}
223: and so the contribution in the residual is split into: a part
224: that is integrated into the update~$u'$ for the subgrid field; and a
225: part without the convolution for the update~${\dot a}'$ for the
226: evolution. Note that if the residual component has many convolutions,
227: then this separation is applied recursively.
228:
229: Computer algebra then deduces the normal form model
230: \begin{equation}
231: \dot a=-\gamma a -\rat1{12}a^3
232: +\sigma a (\rat16-\rat1{18}\gamma)\phi_2
233: -\sigma^2a\rat1{44}(\E2\phi_2-3\E3\E2\phi_2)\phi_2
234: +\Ord{a^4+\gamma^2,\sigma^3}\,,
235: \label{eq:oomod}
236: \end{equation}
237: for the amplitude~$a$ of the $\sin x$ mode, and now to quadratic terms
238: in the noise. See that $a=0$ is always a fixed point of this \sde.
239: Numerical solutions of this model~(\ref{eq:oomod}), see
240: Figure~\ref{fig:mmodel2}, confirm that for the linearly unstable
241: (deterministically) parameter~$\gamma=-0.03$ large amounts of noise
242: restabilise the zero solution.
243:
244:
245: \section{Stochastic resonance affects deterministic terms}
246:
247: The noise~$\phi_2(t)$ so far could have been any distributed forcing at
248: all, random or deterministic. The analysis and the results are
249: generally valid. We proceed to address the specific modelling
250: when we restrict the noise~$\phi_2(t)$ to be stochastic white noise in
251: the Stratonovich sense.
252:
253: Previously, the model was a strong model in that~(\ref{eq:oomod}) could
254: faithfully track given realisations of the original \spde; however, now
255: we derive the weak model~(\ref{eq:oomodl}) which maintains fidelity to
256: solutions of the original \spde, but we cannot know which
257: realisation.
258:
259: The relevant feature of the large time
260: model~(\ref{eq:oomod}) is the inescapable and undesirable appearance in
261: the model of fast time convolutions in the quadratic noise term, namely
262: $\E2\phi_2 =e^{-3t}\star \phi_2$ and $\E3\E2\phi_2 = e^{-8t}\star
263: e^{-3t}\star \phi_2$. These are undesirable because they require
264: resolution of the fast time response of the system to these fast time
265: dynamics in order to maintain fidelity with the original
266: \spde~(\ref{eq:oburgnm}). However, maintaining fidelity with the full
267: details of a white noise source is a pyrrhic victory when all we are
268: interested in is the long term dynamics. Instead we should only be
269: interested in those parts of the quadratic noise factors,
270: $\phi_2\E2\phi_2$ and $\phi_2\E3\E2\phi_2$, that \emph{over long time
271: scales} are firstly correlated with the other processes that appear and
272: secondly independent of the other processes: these not only introduce
273: factors in \emph{new independent} noises into the model but also
274: introduces a deterministic drift due to stochastic
275: resonance~\cite[e.g.]{Chao95, Drolet97}.
276:
277: The argument by Chao \& Roberts~\cite[\S4.1]{Chao95} asserts that we
278: are interested in the long term statistics of the two quadratic noise
279: processes $y_1$~and~$y_2$ evolving according to
280: \begin{equation}
281: \dot y_1=z_1\phi_2\,,\quad
282: \dot y_2=z_2\phi_2\,,\quad
283: \dot z_1=-\beta_1 z_1 +\phi_2\,,\quad
284: \dot z_2=-\beta_2 z_2 +z_1\,,
285: \label{eq:bin}
286: \end{equation}
287: where here the decay rates $\beta_1=3$ and $\beta_2=8$ so that the
288: convolutions of the noise~$\phi_2$ are represented by the variables
289: $z_1=\E2\phi_2$ and $z_2=\E3\E2\phi_2$\,. From the Fokker-Planck
290: equation for~(\ref{eq:bin}) we have determined that large time solutions
291: have a probability distribution
292: \begin{displaymath}
293: \mbox{\textsc{pdf}} \propto p(y_1,y_2,t) \exp\left[
294: -(\beta_1+\beta_2)z_1^2 +2\beta_2(\beta_1+\beta_2)z_1z_2
295: -\beta_2(\beta_1+\beta_2)^2z_2^2 \right]\,,
296: \end{displaymath}
297: where the relatively slowly varying~$p$ evolves according to the
298: approximate equation
299: \begin{equation}
300: \D tp=-\half\D{y_1}p +D:\grad\grad p +\Ord{\grad^3p}
301: \label{eq:oofpl}
302: \end{equation}
303: where the diffusion matrix
304: \begin{displaymath}
305: D=\left[
306: \begin{array}{cc}
307: \frac{1}{4\beta_1} & \frac{1}{4\beta_1(\beta_1+\beta_2)} \\
308: \frac{1}{4\beta_1(\beta_1+\beta_2)} &
309: \frac{1}{4\beta_1\beta_2(\beta_1+\beta_2)}
310: \end{array}
311: \right]\,.
312: \end{displaymath}
313: Interpret~(\ref{eq:oofpl}) as a Fokker-Planck equation and see it
314: corresponds to the \sde{}s
315: \begin{equation}
316: \dot y_1=\half+\frac{\psi_1(t)}{\sqrt{2\beta_1}}
317: \quad\mbox{and}\quad
318: \dot y_2=\frac{1}{\beta_1+\beta_2}\left(
319: \frac{\psi_1(t)}{\sqrt{2\beta_1}}
320: +\frac{\psi_2(t)}{\sqrt{2\beta_2}} \right)\,,
321: \label{eq:oosnn}
322: \end{equation}
323: where $\psi_i(t)$ are new noises independent of $\phi_2$ \emph{over
324: long time scales}. Thus on long time scales, and substituting for
325: the decay rates~$\beta_i$, we should replace the
326: quadratic noises by the following:
327: \begin{equation}
328: \phi_2\E2\phi_2=\half+\frac{\psi_1(t)}{\sqrt6}
329: \quad\mbox{and}\quad
330: \phi_2\E3\E2\phi_2= \frac{\psi_1(t)}{11\sqrt6}
331: +\frac{\psi_2(t)}{44} \,.
332: \end{equation}
333: Thus the normal form model~(\ref{eq:oomod}) is transformed to
334: \begin{displaymath}
335: \dot a=-\left(\gamma+\rat{\sigma^2}{88}\right) a -\rat1{12}a^3
336: +\sigma a (\rat16-\rat1{18}\gamma)\phi_2
337: -\sigma^2a(\rat2{121\sqrt6}\psi_1-\rat1{1936}\psi_2) \,.
338: \end{displaymath}
339: Combining the new noises into one effective new noise the model is
340: a little more simply written
341: \begin{equation}
342: \dot a =-\left(\gamma+\rat{\sigma^2}{88}\right) a -\rat1{12}a^3
343: +\sigma a (\rat16-\rat1{18}\gamma)\phi_2
344: +\sigma^2 a\rat{\sqrt{515}}{1936\sqrt3}\psi \,,
345: \label{eq:oomodl}
346: \end{equation}
347: for some white noise~$\psi(t)$ independent of~$\phi_2$ over long times.
348: Although the nonlinearity induced stochastic resonance generates the
349: effectively new multiplicative noise, $\propto\sigma^2a\psi$\,, its
350: most significant effect is the enhancement of the stability of the
351: equilibrium~$a=0$ through the $\sigma^2a/88$ term. The equilibrium is
352: stable for parameters $\gamma>-\sigma^2/88$ which neatly explains the
353: differences in the stability seen in Figure~\ref{fig:mmodel2} because,
354: compared to $\gamma=-0.030$, the thresholds for stability are
355: $-0.003$~and~$-0.045$ for small and large noise respectively.
356:
357: \begin{figure}[tbp]
358: \centering
359: \includegraphics{mmodelll}
360: \caption{simulations of the long time model~(\ref{eq:oomodl}) for
361: small, $\sigma=0.5$, and large, $\sigma=2$, noise over long times.
362: Parameters: $\Delta t=1$, $\gamma=-0.03$\,. }
363: \label{fig:mmodelll}
364: \end{figure}
365:
366: \section{Conclusion}
367:
368: A big virtue of the model~(\ref{eq:oomodl}) is that we may accurately
369: take large time steps as all the fast dynamics have been eliminated.
370: Shown in Figure~\ref{fig:mmodelll} are simulations over a long time for
371: small and large noise again demonstrating the stochastic resonance
372: induced stabilisation of the equilibrium~$a=0$. These simulations are
373: done for an order of magnitude longer times with a time step that is
374: ten times larger than that we could use previously.
375:
376: This approach to numerical modelling is viable and effective for
377: stochastic partial differential equations. Much more development and
378: theoretical support is needed.
379:
380:
381:
382: \bibliographystyle{plain}
383: \bibliography{ajr,bib,new}
384:
385: \end{document}
386:
387: