1: \documentclass[11pt]{article}
2: \usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,latexsym,epsfig,subfigure,multirow,longtable}
3: \setlength{\topmargin}{-0.6in}
4: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0.in}
5: \setlength{\textwidth}{6.5in}
6: \setlength{\textheight}{9.0in}
7:
8: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.52}
9:
10: \begin{document}
11:
12: \title{On the validity of ``A proof that the discrete singular convolution
13: (DSC)/Lagrange-distributed approximation function (LDAF) method is inferior
14: to high order finite differences''}
15:
16: \author{ G.~W.~Wei$^{1,2}$\footnote{
17: Corresponding author. Tel: (517)3534689, Fax: (517)4321562,
18: Email: wei@math.msu.edu} ~
19: and Shan~Zhao$^1$
20: \\
21: %\address{
22: \small \tt
23: $^1$Department of Mathematics,\\ \small \tt
24: Michigan State University,
25: East Lansing, MI 48824,
26: USA\\ \small \tt
27: $^2$Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering,\\ \small \tt
28: Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA \\ \small \tt
29: }
30: %\date{\empty}
31:
32: \maketitle
33: \begin{abstract}
34: A few families of counterexamples are provided
35: to ``A proof that the discrete singular convolution
36: (DSC)/Lagrange-distributed approximation function (LDAF) method is inferior
37: to high order finite differences'', Journal of Computational Physics, {\bf214}, 538-549 (2006).
38: \end{abstract}
39:
40:
41:
42: %\vspace*{1cm}
43:
44: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
45: %%% Start of Introduction %%%
46: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
47:
48: \section{Introduction}
49: Recently, Boyd published a paper entitled ``A proof that the discrete singular convolution
50: (DSC)/Lagrange-distributed approximating function (LDAF) method is inferior to high order finite
51: differences'' \cite{boyd06}, which will be referred to as ``Proof'' throughout the present work.
52: The sole purpose of the present paper is to analyze the validity of many of the statement and claims in
53: ``Proof''. To this end, we provide a wide variety of counterexamples. It is pointed out that we have no
54: intention to claim the superiority of the DSC algorithm. In the rest of the Introduction,
55: we shall set the scope of our discussions.
56:
57: For the DSC algorithm, only a special DSC kernel will be discussed. ``Proof''
58: makes very general claims about the DSC algorithm. Unfortunately, it ignores the fact that
59: the DSC algorithm can be realized by many different kernels that might behave very differently
60: from each other \cite{weijcp99}. What is discussed in ``Proof'' is a special DSC kernel,
61: the regularized Shannon kernel (RSK). We therefore limit our discussion to the DSC-RSK method
62: exclusively in the present work.
63:
64:
65: One of ``Proof'''s central claims is about spectrally-weighted differences. ``Proof'' states
66: that ``Although we shall not perform detailed comparisons between DSC and spectrally-weighted
67: differences, the good performance of DSC for high $k$ and small $a$ is an accident. It seems
68: likely that for $f(x)$ which are known to have spectra concentrated between $K = \pi/2$ and
69: $K = \pi$, one could obtain higher accuracy from spectrally-weighted differences than from DSC''.
70: It is seen that ``Proof'' does not provide any detailed comparisons between the DSC and
71: spectrally-weighted differences. Therefore, ``Proof'' has to present its claim about the
72: superiority of the spectrally-weighted differences over the DSC as a shaky
73: speculation: ``It seems likely that ...''. Unfortunately, this unfounded superiority was
74: a part of ``Proof'''s main claims. Although there was no proof to begin with, ``Proof'' still
75: concludes that ``DSC/LDAF methods are {\it never} the best way to approximate
76: derivatives on a stencil of a given width'' in its abstract and ``the DSC/LDAF method is
77: {\it never} the method of choice for approximating derivatives'' in its summary.
78: In this work, we will analyze the validity of this claim in detail. Since ``Proof'''s
79: claim about spectrally-weighted differences is {\it very general}, logically, it is
80: {\it sufficient} for us to discredit this general claim by considering a special case.
81: To this end, we choose Boyd's sech function based spectrally-weighted difference (Sech)
82: \cite{Boyd94}, for which a construction procedure was emphasized and outlined in ``Proof''.
83: It is pointed out that our results in this work carry no implication on the performance of any
84: other spectrally-weighted differences.
85:
86:
87: The other part of ``Proof'''s central claims is about the standard high order
88: finite difference (FD) scheme. ``Proof'' classifies functions into two classes, namely, those
89: with small (Fourier) wavenumbers and those with large (Fourier) wavenumbers, and then
90: argues that the standard high order finite difference (FD) scheme is more accurate than the DSC
91: in differentiating functions with considerable amplitude in small wavenumbers, while spectrally-weighted
92: differences, e.g., the Sech method, are superior for functions with (solely) large wavenumbers.
93: ``Proof'' claims that ``Consequently, DSC/LDAF methods are {\it never} the best way to approximate
94: derivatives on a stencil of given width''.
95:
96: It should be pointed out that no part of ``Proof'''s claims is based on rigorous error analysis.
97: Error analysis for the DSC-RSK method was given earlier by Qian \cite{Qian}, and was not mentioned
98: in ``Proof''. Although error expressions for both the FD and DSC-RSK methods are presented,
99: these expressions are not compared and do not directly support ``Proof'''s claims. Instead,
100: ``Proof'''s claim about the superiority of the FD method over the DSC-RSK method is based on numerical experiments
101: with a limited set of parameters, and on some informal arguments. In this work, we present a counterexample in
102: differentiating $e^{ikx}$ with a small wavenmuber $k$, see Fig. \ref{fig.dtest}. In differentiating
103: a function with exponentially decaying amplitudes in wavenumbers $k$, the DSC-RSK method is more accurate than
104: the FD method over all the stencils examined, and is up to six orders more accurate than the FD method and the
105: Sech method at some large stencils, see Fig. \ref{fig.ftest2}. For problems with
106: considerable amplitudes in a wide range of wavenumbers as shown in Fig. \ref{fig.Helmsolu} (b), the
107: DSC-RSK method outperforms the FD method up to a factor of $10^{10}$, see Table \ref{table.Helm2}. In differentiating
108: $e^{ikx}$ with a relatively large wavenmuber, errors in Boyd's spectrally weighted difference, the Sech method,
109: are up to $10^8$ times larger than those of the DSC-RSK method, see Fig. \ref{fig.dtest} (b).
110: In a variety of other counterexamples, the DSC-RSK method outperforms the FD and Sech methods up to factors of multiple
111: orders of magnitude for these problems.
112:
113:
114: Apart from the Sech and FD methods, ``Proof'' places great emphasis about a few other generalized finite
115: differences, namely,
116: Boyd's finite difference (Boyd's FD) \cite{Boyd94},
117: Boyd's Euler-accelerated sinc algorithm (Euler) \cite{Boyd91,Boyd94}, and
118: Boyd's modified Euler-accelerated sinc algorithm (MEuler) \cite{Boyd91,Boyd94}.
119: Some detailed expressions and/or numerical procedures have been given in ``Proof'' for
120: these methods. Moreover, some of ``Proof'''s claims involve these methods.
121: Therefore, we will perform detailed comparisons of these methods with the
122: DSC-RSK method as well. These comparisons will enhance our understanding of high order methods,
123: as well as the validity of ``Proof'''s claims.
124:
125:
126: This paper will focus on the DSC algorithm and directly dismiss ``Proof'''s claim about LDAF.
127: In its title and abstract, ``Proof'' refers o LDAF as ``Lagrange-distributed approximating
128: function'', while in its introduction, ``Proof'' refers to LDAF as ``linear distributed approximating
129: functional''. The term ``linear distributed approximating functional'' was attributed to
130: Hoffman et al. \cite{Hoffman}. Unfortunately, ``linear distributed approximating functional (LDAF)''
131: simply does not exist \cite{Hoffman}. The paper by Hoffman et al. \cite{Hoffman} concerned
132: the so called ``distributed
133: approximating functional'' (DAF). Apart from this confusion, no single expression,
134: no detailed analysis, nor even any correct literature reference was given to LDAF throughout ``Proof''.
135: Thus, we have no clear idea what ``Proof'' has really proved regarding LDAF. For these reasons,
136: we have to ignore ``Proof'''s claim about LDAF in the rest of this paper.
137:
138:
139: The organization of this paper is the follows. In Section \ref{analysis},
140: we analyze ``Proof'''s major claims in detail, while the
141: analysis of ``Proof'''s other claims will be given in Section \ref{further}.
142: Relevant methods and algorithms are briefly described in Section \ref{methods}.
143: Section \ref{results} is devoted to numerical results and
144: discussions. Finally some concluding remarks are given.
145:
146:
147: \section{Analysis of ``Proof'''s central claims}\label{analysis}
148:
149: For convenience, we quote the abstract of ``Proof'', which contains all major claims.
150:
151: \begin{itemize}
152:
153: \item {\sc [``Proof''- Abstract]}
154: ``Finite differences approximate the $m$th derivative of a function u(x) by a series
155: $\sum_{j=-M}^M d_j^{(m)}u(x_j)$, where the $x_j$ are the grid points. The closely-related
156: discrete singular convolution (DSC) and Lagrange-distributed approximating function (LDAF)
157: methods, treated here as a single algorithm, approximate derivatives in the same way as
158: finite differences but with different numerical weights that depend upon a free parameter $a$.
159: By means of Fourier analysis and error theorems, we show that the DSC is worse than the standard
160: finite differences in differentiating $\exp^{(ikx)}$ for all $k$ when $a\geq a_{\rm FD}$ where
161: $a_{\rm FD}=1/\sqrt{M+1}$ with $M$ as the stencil width is the value of the DSC parameter that makes
162: its weights most closely resemble those of finite differences. For $a < a_{\rm FD}$, the DSC errors
163: are less than finite differences for $k$ near the aliasing limit, but much, much worse for smaller $k$.
164: Except for the very unusual case of low-pass filtered functions, that is, functions with negligible
165: amplitude in small wavenumbers $k$, the DSC/LDAF is less accurate than finite differences for all
166: stencil widths $M$. So-called ``spectrally-weighted'' or ``frequency-optimized'' differences are superior
167: for this special case. Consequently, DSC/LDAF methods are {\it never} the best way to approximate
168: derivatives on a stencil of a given width.''
169:
170: {\sc [Analysis]}
171: First, we note that Fourier analysis is the sole technique used in ``Proof''.
172: It is improper to draw conclusions regarding the
173: performance of a numerical method for solving partial differential equations solely from
174: its performance in differentiating $e^{ikx}$. We will elaborate on these points in Section \ref{further}.
175:
176:
177: Second, ``Proof'' claims that ``we show that the DSC is worse than the standard
178: finite differences in differentiating $\exp^{(ikx)}$ for all $k$ when $a\geq a_{\rm FD}$ where
179: $a_{\rm FD}=1/\sqrt{M+1}$ with $M$ as the stencil width is the value of the DSC parameter that makes
180: its weights most closely resemble those of finite differences''.
181: There is clearly no need to refute such a claim.
182: Because $a$ is a free parameter, no practitioner would impose the
183: condition $a\geq a_{\rm FD}$, but instead, an optimal choice for this parameter is sought and typically
184: this is a value $a < a_{\rm FD}$
185:
186: Third, although here ``Proof'' avoids specifying what is meant by ``small $k$'' and what is the remainder,
187: it does give two intervals $|K|<\frac{\pi}{2}$ and $|K|>\frac{\pi}{2}$ in Section 6, where
188: $K=kh$, and $h$ is the grid spacing. In Fig. \ref{fig.dtest} (a), counterexamples are given to show that the
189: DSC method outperforms the FD method at a small wavenumber, $K=\frac{9}{20}\pi$, over a wide range of stencils.
190:
191:
192: Fourth, ``Proof'' claims that ``For $a < a_{\rm FD}$, the DSC errors
193: are less than finite differences for $k$ near the aliasing limit, but much, much worse for smaller $k$.
194: Except for the very unusual case of low-pass filtered functions, that is, functions with negligible
195: amplitude in small wavenumbers $k$, the DSC/LDAF is less accurate than finite differences for all
196: stencil widths $M$''. This claim offers great details about the use of parameter $a$,
197: the behavior with regarding to wavenumbers $k$, the prescription of amplitude, and the behavior with respect to stencil
198: widths. One might expect to find some verification of these statements in ``Proof''.
199: Unfortunately, no verification is given. Indeed none is possible for for such a general statement.
200: We have designed problems involving a wide
201: range of wavenumbers, in particular, including cases whose amplitudes in small wavenumbers $k$ are either
202: exponentially larger, or at least as large as those in large wavenumbers $k$, see Figs. \ref{fig.ftest1}(b),
203: \ref{fig.BVPsolu3} (b), \ref{fig.Helmsolu} (b) and \ref{fig.hyperb2} (a). Our results for these four problems
204: are given in Fig. \ref{fig.ftest2}, Fig. \ref{fig.bvp3}, Table \ref{table.Helm2}, and Fig. \ref{fig.hyperb2} (b),
205: respectively. The DSC-RSK method outperforms the FD method up to $10^6$, $10^{5}$, $10^{10}$ and $10^{6}$ times, respectively
206: for these four problems. In all four examples, the DSC outperforms the FD method over all stencil
207: widths examined. We note that ``Proof'' restricted its analysis to only differentiating functions,
208: while our last three counterexamples concern the solution of boundary value, eigenvalue and
209: unsteady hyperbolic problems.
210:
211: Fifth, for large wavenumbers, while admitting the superiority of the DSC-RSK method over the standard FD scheme,
212: ``Proof'' insists that spectrally weighted differences are superior to the DSC-RSK scheme.
213: To counter this, we just need to analyze a special case --- the Sech scheme.
214: In Fig. \ref{fig.dtest} (b), we show that for differentiating $e^{ikx}$ at $K=\frac{3}{5}\pi$,
215: which is a function with no amplitude in small wavenumbers $k$, the DSC-RSK method is up to $10^8$ times
216: more accurate than Boyd's Sech method. Another example that involves solely large wavenumbers is given in
217: Fig. \ref{fig.BVPsolu2}. Errors in the Sech scheme are up to a factor of $10^{5}$ times larger than
218: those of the DSC-RSK method, see Fig. \ref{fig.bvp2}. In fact, in this case, the DSC-RSK method outperforms the
219: Sech scheme over all stencil widths examined.
220:
221: In fact,
222: a large number of counterexamples exist. In Section \ref{results}, we show that up to a factor of $10^{6}$
223: (see Tables \ref{table.Helm1} and \ref{table.Helm2}, Figs. \ref{fig.hyperb1} (b) and
224: \ref{fig.hyperb2} (b)), the DSC-RSK method outperforms the FD method and Boyd's four methods in various
225: problems examined.
226:
227:
228: \end{itemize}
229:
230:
231:
232:
233:
234: \section{Methods and algorithms}\label{methods}
235:
236: To avoid any confusion, this section presents a brief description of the numerical
237: methods that are studied in this work. These methods were chosen as the subject
238: of detailed discussions in ``Proof'' \cite{boyd06}, and can be expressed
239: in the following form
240: \begin{equation}\label{center}
241: \frac{d^n}{d x^n} u(x) \approx
242: \sum_{j=-M}^{M} \delta_{j}^{(n)} u(x+x_j),
243: \end{equation}
244: where $(2M+1)$ is the stencil width, $x_j=jh$ with $h$ being the spacing, and
245: $\delta_{j}^{(n)}$ is the differencing kernel for $n$th order derivative
246: approximation. Note that Eq. (\ref{center}) gives an interpolation approximation
247: when $n=0$, while in general, the differentiation point $x$ may not be on-grid,
248: i.e., $x \ne x_j$ for $j=-M,\ldots,M$.
249:
250:
251: Sum-accelerated pseudospectral methods are based on the Sinc kernel
252: \begin{equation}\label{sinc}
253: d^{\rm (1),~sinc}_{j} = \left\{
254: \begin{array}{ll}
255: (-1)^{j+1}/hj, & j=1,2,\ldots \\
256: 0, & j=0,
257: \end{array} \right. \quad \quad
258: d^{\rm (2),~sinc}_{j} = \left\{
259: \begin{array}{ll}
260: 2(-1)^j/h^2j^2, & j=1,2,\ldots \\
261: -\pi^2/3h^2, & j=0.
262: \end{array} \right.
263: \end{equation}
264: Various accelerations have been proposed by Boyd for on-grid (i.e., differentiation
265: only at $x=0$) derivative approximation \cite{Boyd91,Boyd94}
266: \begin{equation}
267: \frac{d^n}{d x^n} u(0) \approx
268: \sum_{j=-M}^{M} w_{Mj} d^{\rm (n),~sinc}_{j} u(x_j), \quad n=1,2,
269: \end{equation}
270: where $w_{Mj}$, $j=-M,\ldots,M$, are the acceleration weights.
271:
272:
273: Notation of various higher order approaches is given as the follows.
274: \begin{itemize}
275: \item FD: the standard finite difference method.
276: The FD weights are calculated via Fornberg's code \cite{Fornberg}.
277:
278:
279: \item Boyd's FD: the finite difference method
280: generated by applying sum acceleration, with a certain set of
281: acceleration weights, to the standard sinc pseudospectral method
282: \cite{Boyd94}. The acceleration weights are given as
283: \begin{equation}
284: w_{Mj}=\left\{
285: \begin{array}{ll}
286: \frac{(M!)^2}{(M-j)! (M+j)!}, & j=1,2,\ldots,M, \\
287: \frac{6}{\pi} \sum_{k=1}^{M} \frac{1}{k^2}, & j=0.
288: \end{array} \right.
289: \end{equation}
290: The factorial involved in sum-accelerated differences is calculated
291: by calling the ``dgamma'' function of the SPECFUN package
292: \cite{Cody}.
293:
294: \item Euler: the Euler-accelerated sinc algorithm
295: \cite{Boyd91,Boyd94}.
296: The acceleration weights are given as
297: \begin{eqnarray}
298: w_{Mj} & = & \sum_{k=j}^M \mu_{Mk} \label{Euler} \nonumber \\
299: \mu_{Mk} & = & \frac{M!}{2^n k! (M-k)!}, \quad k=0,1,\ldots, M.
300: \end{eqnarray}
301:
302: \item MEuler: the modified Euler-accelerated sinc algorithm
303: \cite{Boyd91,Boyd94}.
304: The acceleration weights are the same as those of Euler scheme,
305: except that $w_{M0}$ is modified so as to balance the contribution of all the other
306: weights in the second order derivative approximation.
307: \begin{equation}
308: w_{M0}^{\rm (mod)} = \frac{12}{\pi^2} \sum_{j=1}^{M}
309: \frac{(-1)^{j+1} w_{Mj}}{j^2}.
310: \end{equation}
311:
312:
313: \item Sech: the spectrally weighted least squares differences with
314: the sech weights \cite{Boyd94}.
315: A difference scheme is said to be ``spectrally-weighted'' if
316: the kernel $\delta_{j}^{(n)}$ of Eq. (\ref{center}) is chosen to minimize
317: \begin{equation}
318: \int_{-\pi}^{\pi} \omega(K) \left| K^n -
319: \sum_{j=-M}^M \delta_{j}^{(n)} \exp( i j K) \right|^2 dK,
320: \end{equation}
321: where $K$ is the scaled wavenumber, $K=kh$.
322: To calculate the weights, one first lets
323: \begin{equation}
324: \phi_j(K)=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
325: \sin (jK), & n~\textrm{odd}, \\
326: \cos (jK), & n~\textrm{even}.
327: \end{array} \right.
328: \end{equation}
329: Define the matrix and vector elements
330: \begin{equation}
331: G_{ij}= \int_{-\pi}^{\pi} \phi_i(K) \phi_j(K) \omega(K) dK, \quad
332: \chi_i = \int_{-\pi}^{\pi} \phi_i(K) K^n \omega(K) dK.
333: \end{equation}
334: In the present study, these integrals are calculated up to double precision
335: limit by using Gaussian quadrature with 512 nodes. The approximation
336: accuracy is confirmed by benchmarking with the extended Simpson's rule
337: with a very large number of nodes.
338: The differentiation kernel is finally obtained by solving the linear system
339: \begin{equation}
340: \vec{\vec{G}} \vec{\delta} = \vec{\chi}.
341: \end{equation}
342: Following Boyd's suggestion \cite{Boyd94},
343: this least squares algebraic system is solved by using
344: the standard singular value decomposition (SVD) solver \cite{Press}.
345:
346:
347: If the Fourier spectrum of the function under study is known, one can
348: simply choose the least squares weight function $\omega(K)$ as the Fourier spectrum,
349: to attain an ideal approximation. However, such an information is usually
350: unavailable in advance. Thus, the best one can do is making use of some empirical
351: spectrum information to optimize $\omega(K)$.
352: For example, for a smooth function whose spectrum decays exponentially with $K$ for
353: sufficiently large $|K|$, Boyd introduced the sech weights \cite{Boyd94}
354: \begin{equation}
355: \omega (K) = \textrm{sech} (K \pi / 2 D),
356: \end{equation}
357: where $D$ is an adjustable constant.
358:
359: \item Sinc: the truncated Sinc pseudospectral method, i.e.,
360: the difference kernel $\delta_{j}^{(n)}$ of Eq. (\ref{center}) is chosen as
361: $d^{\rm (n),~sinc}_{j}$ given in Eq. (\ref{sinc}).
362:
363: \item DSC-RSK: the regularized Shannon kernel (RSK) of the discrete singular
364: convolution (DSC) algorithm \cite{weijcp99}.
365: Although many other DSC kernels can be similarly employed,
366: regularized Shannon kernel (RSK) \cite{weijcp99} is employed in
367: the present study,
368: \begin{equation}
369: \delta(x-x_k) = \frac{\sin \frac{\pi}{h}
370: (x-x_k)}{\frac{\pi}{h} (x-x_k)} e^{-\frac{(x-x_k)^2}
371: {2 \sigma^2}}, \quad k=-M,\ldots,M,
372: \end{equation}
373: where the parameter $\sigma$ determines the
374: width of the Gaussian envelop and often varies in association
375: with the grid spacing, i.e., $\sigma = r h$, where $r$ is a
376: parameter depends on the stencil parameter $M$. For given
377: $M$, there is wide range of near optimal $r$ values to be selected.
378: In the DSC algorithm, for derivative approximation, one first analytically
379: differentiates the kernel
380: \begin{eqnarray}
381: \delta^{(1)}(x-x_k) & = & \Big\{ \frac{\cos
382: \frac{\pi}{h}(x-x_{k})}{(x-x_{k})} - \frac{\sin
383: \frac{\pi}{h}(x-x_{k})}{\frac{\pi}{h}(x-x_{k})^{2}}
384: \nonumber\\ & &
385: - \frac{\sin \frac{\pi}{h}(x-x_{k})}{\frac{\pi}
386: {h}\sigma^{2}} \Big\}
387: \exp \Big( -\frac{(x-x_{k})^{2}}{2\sigma^{2}} \Big),
388: \end{eqnarray}
389: \begin{eqnarray}
390: \delta^{(2)}(x-x_k) & = &
391: \Big\{ -\frac{\frac{\pi}{h} \sin \frac{\pi}{h}
392: (x-x_{k})}{(x-x_{k})} -2 \frac{\cos \frac{\pi}{h}(x-x_{k})}
393: {(x-x_{k})^{2}} - 2\frac{\cos \frac{\pi}{h}(x-x_{k})}
394: {\sigma^{2}} \nonumber\\ & &
395: +2\frac{\sin \frac{\pi}{h}(x-x_{k})}{\frac{\pi}{h}
396: (x-x_{k})^{3}}
397: + \frac{\sin \frac{\pi}{h}(x-x_{k})} {\frac{\pi}{h}(x-x_{k})
398: \sigma^{2}} \nonumber\\ & &
399: +\frac{\sin \frac{\pi}{h}(x-x_{k})}{\frac{\pi}{h}\sigma^{4}}
400: (x-x_{k}) \Big\}
401: \exp \Big( -\frac{(x-x_{k})^{2}}{2\sigma^{2}} \Big).
402: \end{eqnarray}
403: If $x=x_{k}$, one takes the limit
404: \begin{equation}
405: \delta^{(1)}(0) =0, \quad \textrm{and} \quad
406: \delta^{(2)}(0) = -\frac{1}{3}
407: \frac{3 + \frac{\pi^{2}}{h^{2}} \sigma^{2}}{\sigma^{2}}.
408: \end{equation}
409: Then we generate the difference coefficients of Eq. (\ref{center}) by evaluating at
410: the point of differentiation $ \delta^{(n)}_j=\delta^{(n)}(x-x_j)|_x$.
411: It is noted that only when one differentiates at $x=0$, the DSC first derivative
412: coefficients may be rewritten in terms of the sum-acceleration difference
413: by taking
414: \begin{equation}
415: w_{Mk}=\exp( - a^2 k^2),
416: \end{equation}
417: where $a^2=\frac{1}{2 r^2}$.
418: However, the second order and higher order DSC-RSK method derivative coefficients
419: cannot be cast into such a form.
420:
421:
422: \end{itemize}
423:
424:
425:
426: \section{Results and discussions}\label{results}
427:
428: To examine ``Proof'''s claims in detail, we first present a comparison of the FD, Boyd's
429: FD, Euler, MEuler, Sech and DSC-RSK methods for differentiating $e^{(ikx)}$ in Section \ref{deriva}.
430: It is noted that $e^{(ikx)}$ involves only a single wavenumber, and might not be practical in
431: applications. However, the subject was chosen by ``Proof''. In fact, most
432: problems studied in this work involve a wide range of wavenumbers.
433: As discussed earlier, the performance of a
434: numerical method in differentiating $e^{(ikx)}$ does not always directly translate
435: into its performance in differentiating other functions, and has less to do with
436: its performance in solving a differential equation. Since the ultimate test
437: of numerical methods is their behavior in solving differential equations, it is
438: therefore important to examine the above mentioned methods for
439: boundary value, initial value, eigenvalue and nonlinear problems.
440: It is noted that a boundary value problem studied here was in fact previously
441: designed by Boyd for comparing the performances of the FD, Euler, and Sech methods \cite{Boyd94}.
442:
443: Both the Sech and DSC-RSK methods have an adjustable parameter. For the Sech method,
444: the parameter $D$ depends on the spectral property of the solution.
445: Thus, for a fixed problem, it is independent of the half band-width $M$,
446: while the parameter $r$ of the RSK depends on $M$. In the following
447: studies, the numerically-tested optimal $r$ and $D$ will be chosen,
448: and will be reported. In boundary value problems,
449: exact values outside the computational domain are used to impose boundary conditions.
450:
451:
452: \subsection{Differentiating $e^{ikx}$} \label{deriva}
453:
454: \begin{figure*}[!tb]
455: \begin{center}
456: (a) \psfig{figure=dtest1.eps,width=0.45\linewidth,height=6.5cm}
457: (b) \psfig{figure=dtest2.eps,width=0.45\linewidth,height=6.5cm} \\
458: \end{center}
459: \caption{Error analysis in differentiating $\exp(ikx)$.
460: (a) $kh=\frac{9}{20}\pi$; (b) $kh=\frac{3}{5}\pi$.}
461: \label{fig.dtest}
462: \end{figure*}
463:
464:
465: We first consider the approximation of differentiating $u(x)=\exp(ikx)$.
466: It is claimed in ``Proof'' that the DSC is more accurate than the FD only when
467: $kh>\frac{\pi}{2}$. A counterexample can be easily constructed at $kh=\frac{9}{20}\pi $
468: by considering a grid of 201 evenly spaced points in the interval of $x\in [0,2 \pi]$
469: and setting $k=45$. A near optimal DSC-RSK parameter $r$ is used in our computation for
470: each $M$: $(M,r)=(1,1.2)$, (5,1.9), (10,2.7), (15,3.2),
471: (20,3.6), (25,4.0), (30,4.3), (35,4.7), (40,5.1), (45,5.5), and (50,5.9).
472: $L_{\infty}$ errors are depicted in Fig. \ref{fig.dtest} (a).
473: The numerical results clearly indicate that the DSC-RSK errors
474: are smaller than those of the FD method for a wavenumber less than $\frac{\pi}{2h}$, albeit
475: the FD method is usually more accurate when $k$ is much smaller. This gives rise to our
476: first counterexample of ``Proof''.
477:
478: Ironically, these results were partially implied in Fig. 2 of ``Proof'', plotted with $M=33$.
479: However, the results presented here indicate that the DSC-RSK method outperforms the finite difference
480: for many small $M$ values, ranging from 1 to 35.
481:
482:
483: We next consider a problem with a medium-high wavenumber,
484: $kh=\frac{3}{5} \pi$, by increasing $k$ to 60 in the last case.
485: This wavenumber is still far away from the aliasing limit.
486: A near optimal Sech parameter, $D=0.17$ is used for all $M$ from 1 to 50,
487: while $r$ for the DSC-RSK method is chosen as: $(M,r)=(1,2.3)$, (5,2.4), (10,3.1), (15,3.7),
488: (20,4.2), (25,4.7), (30,5.1), (35,5.5), (40,5.8), (45,6.2), and (50,6.5).
489: $L_{\infty}$ errors are depicted in Fig. \ref{fig.dtest} (b).
490: The errors of the FD and Boyd's FD methods are identical.
491: The Sech method has a better performance only for $1<M<15$. Its accuracy
492: does not improve as $M$ is increased beyond $M=15$. Therefore, if $L_\infty$
493: error is required to be less than $10^{-4}$ for this problem, the Sech method cannot
494: make it, whereas all other methods have a chance. The DSC-RSK method
495: clearly outperforms the FD method up to 1000 times, and Boyd's spectrally-weighted
496: finite difference (Sech) method up to $10^8$ times at some large stencils.
497: This gives to another counterexample to ``Proof''.
498:
499:
500:
501:
502: \subsection{Differentiating a function having exponentially decaying amplitudes in wavenumbers $k$}\label{expon}
503:
504:
505: \begin{figure*}[!tb]
506: \begin{center}
507: (a) \psfig{figure=ftest1.eps,width=0.45\linewidth,height=6.5cm}
508: (b) \psfig{figure=ftest2.eps,width=0.45\linewidth,height=6.5cm} \\
509: \end{center}
510: \caption{
511: (a) The function with exponentially decaying amplitudes in wavenumbers;
512: (b) Its Fourier frequency response.}
513: \label{fig.ftest1}
514: \end{figure*}
515:
516: \begin{figure*}[!tb]
517: \begin{center}
518: \psfig{figure=ftest3.eps,width=0.6\linewidth}
519: \end{center}
520: \caption{Error analysis in differentiating the function having exponentially decaying amplitudes in
521: wavenumbers.
522: }
523: \label{fig.ftest2}
524: \end{figure*}
525:
526: Although high frequency problems are common in science and engineering, some
527: physical problems have their spectral distribution centered in the low frequency
528: part, i.e., their amplitudes in large wavenumbers decay exponentially. Therefore,
529: we consider the approximation of differentiating such a function, which
530: can be constructed as a weighted summation of Fourier basis functions $\exp(ikx)$
531: \begin{displaymath}
532: u(x)=\sum_{k=0}^{k_{\rm max}} \exp(-k \sigma) \exp( i k x), \quad x \in [0,2 \pi].
533: \end{displaymath}
534: Here, we choose $\sigma=0.1$ and $k_{\rm max}=80$. We carry out the differentiation on a grid of 201 evenly
535: spaced points. A near optimal Sech parameter, $D=0.17$ is used for all $M$ from 1 to 80,
536: while $r$ for the DSC-RSK method is chosen as: $(M,r)=(1,0.9)$, (5,1.8), (10,2.9), (15,3.8),
537: (20,4.6), (25,5.3), (30,5.9), (35,6.5), (40,7.1), (45,7.6), (50,8.1), (55,8.1),
538: (60,9.0), (65,9.4), (70,9.8), (75,10.3), and (80,10.6).
539:
540:
541: ``Proof'' claims that ``Except for the very unusual case of low-pass filtered functions,
542: that is, functions with negligible amplitude in small wavenumbers $k$, the DSC/LDAF is
543: less accurate than the FD for all stencil widths $M$''. In the present problem,
544: amplitudes in wavenumbers decay exponentially. Fig. \ref{fig.ftest1}
545: gives the function and its Fourier frequency response. Fig. \ref{fig.ftest2} depicts
546: the error analysis of various numerical methods. Contrary to ``Proof'''s claim, the DSC-RSK
547: method is more accurate than finite differences for all stencil widths $M$
548: considered. The Sech method performs better only when $1<M<15$, and becomes the worst for
549: large $M$ values. The DSC-RSK method clearly outperforms the FD method up to $10^6$ times, and the Sech
550: method up to $10^8$ times at some large stencils.
551:
552:
553:
554:
555:
556: \subsection{ Boyd's boundary value problem }\label{boyds}
557:
558: \begin{figure*}[!tb]
559: \begin{center}
560: \psfig{figure=bvp1.eps,width=0.6\linewidth}
561: \end{center}
562: \caption{Error analysis of Boyd's boundary value problem.}
563: \label{fig.bvp1}
564: \end{figure*}
565: %
566: Boyd employed a boundary value problem \cite{Boyd94} to demonstrate the superior
567: performance of his spectrally-weighted difference, the Sech method, over the FD scheme
568: \begin{eqnarray}
569: u_{xx} - u & = & f, \nonumber \\
570: f & = & \left\{ -2 \mbox{sech}^3(x)-\frac{\pi^2}{4 h^2}\mbox{sech} (x) \right\}
571: \cos (\frac{\pi x}{2 h})+\frac{\pi}{h}\mbox{sech} (x)\mbox{tanh} (x)
572: \sin (\frac{\pi x}{2 h}), \nonumber \\
573: u & = & \mbox{sech} (x) \cos (\frac{\pi x}{2 h}),
574: \end{eqnarray}
575: where $h$ is the spacing. A grid of 201 evenly spaced points is used spanning the
576: interval $x\in [-30,30]$, which gives $h=0.3$. The analytical solution outside
577: the computational domain was employed to impose boundary conditions.
578: Boyd examined the behavior of numerical methods by varying the stencil width $2M+1$
579: from $M=1$ to 20, while the results for the Sech method was only given from $M=1$ to 8.
580: A near optimal Sech parameter, $D=0.25$ was used for all $M$ (see \cite{Boyd94}).
581: In this work, we shall solve the problem
582: also extending
583: the upper limit of the stencil parameter from $M=20$ to 30. A near optimal DSC-RSK parameter
584: $r$ is used in our computations for each $M$: $(M,r)=(1,2.3)$, (2,1.4), (3,1.7), (4,2.2),
585: (5,2.4), (6,2.5), (7,2.6), (8,2.9), (9,3.1), (10,3.3), (11,3.5), (12,3.7), (13,4.0),
586: (14,4.1), (15,4.3), (16,4.5), (17,4.7), (18,4.9), (19,5.1),
587: (20,5.4), (21,5.4), (22,5.4), (23,5.4), (24,5.4), (25,5.4),
588: (26,5.4), (27,5.4), (28,5.4), (29,5.4), and (30,5.4).
589:
590:
591: \begin{figure*}[!tb]
592: \begin{center}
593: (a) \psfig{figure=solu1.eps,width=0.45\linewidth,height=6.5cm}
594: (b) \psfig{figure=solu1f.eps,width=0.45\linewidth,height=6.5cm} \\
595: \end{center}
596: \caption{(a) Solution of Boyd's boundary value problem;
597: (b) Its Fourier frequency response.
598: }
599: \label{fig.BVPsolu}
600: \end{figure*}
601:
602:
603: $L_{\infty}$ errors are depicted in Fig. \ref{fig.bvp1}. We note that the behaviors of FD,
604: Euler, and Sech methods are identical to those in Fig. 4 of Ref. \cite{Boyd94}.
605: Indeed, for $M<13$ the Sech method performs better than the FD and DSC-RSK schemes. However, for
606: a large stencil width, the DSC-RSK method clearly outperforms all other methods, including the FD
607: and Sech methods. Therefore, Boyd's boundary value problem is a counterexample of his claims in ``Proof''.
608:
609:
610: The flat and comparatively large errors of all six different methods for $M\geq20$
611: are suspicious, indicating that the errors are limited by the original design of the problem.
612: To investigate further, we analyzed the Fourier frequency response of the exact solution
613: as shown in Fig. \ref{fig.BVPsolu} (b). Indeed, the magnitude of the Fourier frequency response
614: has a large truncation at $|\pi|$, which gives rise to inherent aliasing errors. Therefore, this
615: problem is not appropriate for demonstrating the full potential of different numerical methods.
616:
617:
618: \subsection{Boundary value problem with a confined distribution of wavenumbers}\label{bound1}
619:
620:
621: \begin{figure*}[!tb]
622: \begin{center}
623: (a) \psfig{figure=solu2.eps,width=0.45\linewidth,height=6.5cm}
624: (b) \psfig{figure=solu2f.eps,width=0.45\linewidth,height=6.5cm} \\
625: \end{center}
626: \caption{
627: (a) The solution of a boundary value problem with a confined distribution of wavenumbers;
628: (b) Its Fourier frequency response.}
629: \label{fig.BVPsolu2}
630: \end{figure*}
631:
632: Since the above boundary value problem, taken from \cite{Boyd94},
633: cannot reveal the true accuracy
634: of numerical methods, let us consider a modification
635: \begin{eqnarray}
636: u_{xx} - u & = & f, \quad x \in [-3,3], \nonumber \\
637: u & = & \exp(-\frac{x^2}{2 a^2}) \cos(b \pi x), \\
638: f & = & \frac{2 b \pi x}{a^2}\exp(-\frac{x^2}{2 a^2}) \sin(b \pi x)
639: +\left(\frac{x^2}{a^4}-\frac{1}{a^2}-(b\pi)^2-1 \right)
640: \exp(-\frac{x^2}{2 a^2}) \cos(b \pi x). \nonumber
641: \end{eqnarray}
642: By choosing $a=0.3$ and $b=80$, the solution is oscillatory and its frequency
643: response shows a peak around $\pm 2.5$, see Fig. \ref{fig.BVPsolu2}.
644: Note that the frequency magnitude is as small as $10^{-14}$ near $\pm \pi$. Therefore,
645: in contrast to the previous boundary value problem, the present problem has negligible
646: inherent aliasing error. Due to the frequency distribution in the large wavenumber
647: region, this case favors numerical methods that perform well for large wavenumbers.
648: We employ a grid of $N=601$ points in the interval $x\in [-3,3]$.
649: In the Sech method, the nearly optimized $D=0.18$ is used. Other $D$ could be slightly
650: better but the amount of improvement would be not significant enough to alter the conclusion of our
651: analysis. For the DSC-RSK method, near optimal $r$ values are chosen as
652: $(M,r)=(1,2.7)$, (5,3.9), (10,4.5), (15,6.0), (20,6.4), (25,7.1), (30,7.6), (35,8.1), (40,8.6),
653: (45,9.2), (50,9.6), (55,10.1), (60,10.5), (65,11.0), (70,11.3), (75,11.8), and (80,12.3).
654:
655:
656:
657:
658:
659:
660:
661: \begin{figure*}[!tb]
662: \begin{center}
663: \psfig{figure=bvp2.eps,width=0.6\linewidth}
664: \end{center}
665: \caption{Error analysis for the boundary value problem with confined wavenumber distribution.}
666: \label{fig.bvp2}
667: \end{figure*}
668:
669:
670:
671:
672: Since this is a problem involving large wavenumbers, according to ``Proof'', the
673: spectrally-weighted differences are designed for handling this kind of problems,
674: and will outperform the DSC-RSK method.
675: Fig. \ref{fig.bvp2} illustrates the $L_{\infty}$ errors for six different
676: numerical methods for this case.
677: It is interesting to note that Boyd's FD method yields the same results as the standard
678: FD method for all $M$ considered. The MEuler method is slightly more accurate than the Euler method when $M$ is relatively
679: small, while when $M > 10$, their results are identical.
680: The Sech method is more accurate than these four differencing methods over a wide range of $M$
681: for this high frequency problem.
682: However, it is clear from Fig. \ref{fig.bvp2} that the DSC-RSK method is the most accurate method for all
683: $M$ values.
684: In particular, when $M=80$, the DSC-RSK method is about five orders more accurate than any other numerical method
685: considered.
686: In fact, at large $M$, the accuracy of the DSC-RSK method, $L_{\infty}=10^{-11}$, is limited
687: by the iterative algebraic solver, the standard preconditioned biconjugate gradient (PBCG)
688: method \cite{Press}.
689:
690:
691: \subsection{Boundary value problem with a wide range of wavenumbers }\label{bound2}
692:
693: It is important to study problems with a wide range of wavenumbers.
694: Let us consider a boundary value problem
695: \begin{eqnarray}
696: u_{xx} - u & = & f, \quad x \in [-3,3], \nonumber \\
697: u & = & \sum_{b=1}^{8} \exp(-\frac{x^2}{2 a^2}) \cos(10 b \pi x), \\
698: f & = & \sum_{b=1}^{8} \frac{20 b \pi x}{a^2}
699: \exp(-\frac{x^2}{2 a^2}) \sin(10b \pi x)
700: +\sum_{b=1}^{8} \left(\frac{x^2}{a^4}-\frac{1}{a^2}-(10b\pi)^2-1 \right)
701: \exp(-\frac{x^2}{2 a^2}) \cos(10b \pi x), \nonumber
702: \end{eqnarray}
703: where $a=0.3$.
704: The solution and its frequency response are depicted in
705: Fig. \ref{fig.BVPsolu3}. It is seen that the frequency response has a wide range of
706: wavenumbers. We have arranged the amplitudes in small wavenumbers to be as
707: large as those in large wavenumbers (see Figs. \ref{fig.BVPsolu3} (b)).
708:
709:
710:
711:
712: \begin{figure*}[!tb]
713: \begin{center}
714: (a) \psfig{figure=solu3.eps,width=0.45\linewidth,height=6.5cm}
715: (b) \psfig{figure=solu3f.eps,width=0.45\linewidth,height=6.5cm} \\
716: \end{center}
717: \caption{(a) The solution of a boundary value problem with a wide range of wavenumbers;
718: (b) Its Fourier frequency response.
719: }
720: \label{fig.BVPsolu3}
721: \end{figure*}
722:
723:
724: We still solve the problem with $N=601$. For the Sech method, it is not
725: easy to find the optimal parameter $D$ for this problem due to a wide range
726: of involved wavenumbers. A near optimized
727: value, $D=0.18$, is employed. For the DSC-RSK method, near optimal parameters
728: are as follows:
729: $(M,r)=(1,1.1)$, (5,2.6), (10,3.1), (15,4.6), (20,5.3), (25,6.1), (30,6.8), (35,7.5), (40,8.1),
730: (45,8.5), (50,9.0), (55,9.5), (60,10.0), (65,10.4), (70,10.8), (75,11.4), and (80,11.8).
731:
732:
733:
734: \begin{figure*}[!tb]
735: \begin{center}
736: \psfig{figure=bvp3.eps,width=0.6\linewidth}
737: \end{center}
738: \caption{Error analysis for the boundary value problem with a wide range of wavenumbers
739: }
740: \label{fig.bvp3}
741: \end{figure*}
742:
743:
744: The $L_{\infty}$ errors are given in Fig. \ref{fig.bvp3} for different $M$.
745: The MEuler method is more accurate than the Euler method for small $M$, while when
746: $M > 15$, their results are identical.
747: %
748: For a small $M$, such as up to $80$ in this example, Boyd's
749: FD method yields the same results as the FD method. However, when
750: $M>80$, Boyd's FD method is less accurate, probably because for large $M$,
751: calculating the weights of Boyd's FD method produces numerical errors.
752: %
753: The results of the Sech method are similar to those in the last case.
754: In particular, the Sech method is more accurate than the FD, Boyd's FD, Euler and
755: MEuler methods when $M < 70$, while
756: when $M$ is sufficient large, the accuracy of the Sech method is worse than the others.
757: It is noted that the Sech method performs slightly better than the
758: DSC-RSK method from $M < 25$, due to large amount of the small wavenumber components.
759: However, for a large $M$, the DSC-RSK method is much more accurate.
760:
761:
762: ``Proof'' claims that ``For $a < a_{\rm FD}$, the DSC errors
763: are less than finite differences for $k$ near the aliasing limit, but much, much worse for smaller $k$.
764: Except for the very unusual case of low-pass filtered functions, that is, functions with negligible
765: amplitude in small wavenumbers $k$, the DSC/LDAF is less accurate than finite differences for all
766: stencil widths $M$''.
767: The present example satisfies all of ``Proof'''s descriptions, except for the
768: conclusion: the DSC-RSK method is more accurate than the FD method for all stencil widths examined.
769: When $M=80$, the DSC-RSK method outperforms the FD scheme and all other methods by more than
770: 100,000 times.
771: If high accuracy is desirable for this problem, the DSC-RSK scheme is the method of choice
772: among the six methods.
773:
774:
775: \subsection{Helmholtz equation with a constant source term}\label{const}
776:
777:
778: We next consider the Helmholtz equation with high wavenumbers $k$
779: \begin{eqnarray}
780: -u_{xx}(x)- k^2 u(x) & = & 1, \quad x \in [0,1]
781: \nonumber\\
782: \label{Helmholtz} u(0) & = & 0, \\
783: u_x(1)-i k u(1) & = & 0, \nonumber \\
784: u(x) & = & \frac{1}{k^2} \left[(1-\cos(kx)-\sin (k) \sin (kx)) + i
785: (\cos(k)-1)\sin(kx)\right]. \nonumber
786: \end{eqnarray}
787: This problem has its origin from electromagnetics and is notoriously
788: challenging when $k$ is large for a given number of grid points
789: (see \cite{Babuska,Babuska2,Deraemaeker,Ihlenburg1,Ihlenburg2}).
790: High wavenumbers are common in electrically-large systems.
791: As ``Proof'' claims that spectrally-weighted differences are superior to the DSC for
792: differentiating functions with large wavenumbers, we employ the Sech method.
793: We shall explore the capability of each high order
794: method for resolving high frequency problems with a small mesh density close to
795: the Nyquist limit. A method that can achieve a spatial resolution near the Nyquist limit,
796: 2 points per wavelength (PPW), without invoking much alias errors, is more efficient
797: for solving large scale problems. The DSC-RSK method was applied to this problem in our previous
798: study \cite{BaWeZh04}. The objective of the present work is to examine ``Proof'''s claim and
799: to explore different numerical methods.
800:
801:
802: We first consider the case of $k=500 \pi$.
803: The Fourier frequency response of the solution is depicted in Fig. \ref{fig.Helmsolu}.
804: We use a grid of $N=526$ points in the domain so that the grid density is about
805: 2.1 PPW, which is very close to the Nyquist sampling limit. Therefore,
806: the setting of problem is extremely difficult for numerical methods that do not work
807: well for high wavenumbers. The $H^1$-seminorm will be used to measure the error \cite{BaWeZh04}
808: \begin{equation}
809: e_1 :=\frac{|u-u_h|_1}{|u|_1},
810: \end{equation}
811: where $u_h$ is the numerical approximation to the solution $u$, and
812: $|u|_1=||\frac{d u}{d x}||$.
813: Note that for this problem, large stencils are required to deliver reasonable results.
814: We solve the problem with a variety of $M$ values ranging from
815: $M=50$ to 500. Since the values of $M$ are quite large, the total execution time for generating
816: the first and second derivative weights is also reported for each method for a comparison.
817: In the Sech method, a near optimized parameter $D=0.28$ is used for all $M$.
818: In the DSC-RSK method, we choose $(M,r)=(50,9.0)$, (100,27.9), (150,35.1), (200,38.1),
819: (250,42.3), (300,46.9), (350,49.6), (400,53.5), (450,56.0), and (500,60.0).
820:
821:
822: \begin{figure*}[!tb]
823: \begin{center}
824: (a) \psfig{figure=helmf1.eps,width=0.45\linewidth,height=6.5cm}
825: (b) \psfig{figure=helmf2.eps,width=0.45\linewidth,height=6.5cm} \\
826: \end{center}
827: \caption{Fourier frequency response of the solution to the Helmholtz equation with high wavenumbers.
828: (a) With a constant source;
829: (b) With a multiple frequency source.
830: }
831: \label{fig.Helmsolu}
832: \end{figure*}
833:
834:
835: Since the numerical errors vary over 160 orders, it is inconvenient
836: to put them in a figure. We therefore present them in Table \ref{table.Helm1}.
837: It is seen from the table that for the present problem with PPW=2.1, the FD method
838: does not improve much when $M$ is increased from 50 to 500. Its errors are
839: intolerably large for all $M$ values. Therefore, the FD method is not efficient
840: for this highly oscillatory problem.
841:
842: \begin{table}[!tb]
843: \caption{Numerical results and CPU times in seconds
844: for solving the Helmholtz equation with a constant source term.
845: Here NaN and --- stand for ``not a number'' and ``not available'', respectively.
846: }
847: \label{table.Helm1}
848: \begin{center}
849: \begin{tabular}{lllllll}
850: \hline
851: \hline
852: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{FD} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Boyd's FD} &
853: \multicolumn{2}{c}{Sech} \\
854: \hline
855: $M$ & Error & CPU & Error & CPU & Error & CPU \\
856: \hline
857: 50 & $9.98(-1)$ & $8.63(-4)$ & $9.98(-1)$ & $4.49(-4)$ & $5.71(-2)$ & 3.983\\
858: 100 & $2.32(+0)$ & $3.13(-3)$ & NaN & $3.41(-4)$ & $5.24(-1)$ & 15.69\\
859: 150 & $1.17(+0)$ & $7.02(-3)$ & --- & --- & $8.88(-2)$ & 35.25\\
860: 200 & $1.36(+0)$ & $1.38(-2)$ & --- & --- & $3.98(-2)$ & 62.77\\
861: 250 & $4.27(+0)$ & $2.03(-2)$ & --- & --- & $4.85(-2)$ & 98.26\\
862: 300 & $6.57(-1)$ & $2.84(-2)$ & --- & --- & --- & --- \\
863: 350 & $5.09(-1)$ & $3.88(-2)$ & --- & --- & --- & --- \\
864: 400 & $4.10(-1)$ & $4.91(-2)$ & --- & --- & --- & --- \\
865: 450 & $3.23(-1)$ & $6.17(-2)$ & --- & --- & --- & --- \\
866: 500 & $2.49(-1)$ & $7.58(-2)$ & --- & --- & --- & --- \\
867: \hline
868: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Euler} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{MEuler} &
869: \multicolumn{2}{c}{RSK}\\
870: \hline
871: $M$ & Error & CPU & Error & CPU & Error & CPU \\
872: \hline
873: 50 & $2.72(-1)$ & $4.77(-4)$ & $2.72(-1)$ & $4.72(-4)$ & $1.16(+0)$ & $3.06(-4)$ \\
874: 100 & $2.94(+1)$ & $4.01(-4)$ & $2.94(+1)$ & $4.08(-4)$ & $1.12(-2)$ & $2.31(-4)$ \\
875: 150 & $3.02(-1)$ & $5.95(-4)$ & $3.02(-1)$ & $6.16(-4)$ & $7.52(-5)$ & $3.39(-4)$ \\
876: 200 & $5.16(+58)$ & $5.83(-4)$ & $5.16(+58)$ & $7.30(-4)$ & $2.27(-8)$ & $4.20(-4)$ \\
877: 250 & $5.81(+73)$ & $6.86(-4)$ & $5.81(+73)$ & $7.02(-4)$ & $7.34(-10)$ & $5.55(-4)$ \\
878: 300 & $6.55(+88)$ & $2.67(-2)$ & $6.55(+88)$ & $2.67(-2)$ & $7.08(-10)$ & $6.57(-4)$ \\
879: 350 & $7.37(+103)$ & $2.04(-2)$ & $7.37(+103)$ & $2.08(-2)$ & $3.45(-11)$ & $7.15(-4)$ \\
880: 400 & $8.30(+118)$ & $2.56(-2)$ & $8.30(+118)$ & $2.65(-2)$ & $2.83(-13)$ & $8.09(-4)$ \\
881: 450 & $9.35(+133)$ & $2.74(-2)$ & $9.35(+133)$ & $2.82(-2)$ & $1.50(-13)$ & $9.05(-4)$ \\
882: 500 & $1.05(+149)$ & $3.64(-2)$ & $1.05(+149)$ & $3.64(-2)$ & $1.77(-13)$ & $9.97(-4)$ \\
883: \hline
884: \hline
885: \end{tabular}
886: \end{center}
887: \end{table}
888:
889:
890:
891:
892: When $M = 50$, Boyd's FD scheme yields the same results as the standard FD method. However, when $M = 100$,
893: although the weights are generated in 0.0003 second, the rest of the computation lasts a
894: very long time without delivering any reasonable result. It gets worse for $M > 100$.
895: This seems to suggest that Boyd's FD method is unstable for large $M$.
896:
897: Although the Sech method was proposed to deal with high wavenumbers, it does not work the way
898: as promised for very high wavenumber problems. One major problem with the
899: Sech method is that it requires excessive CPU time for generating the weights.
900: Since the Gram matrix is poorly conditioned, the SVD solver is
901: often used, which is CPU demanding. Thus, the Sech method seems to be
902: impractical for high frequency problems.
903: Moreover, the SVD solver \cite{Press} fails to converge when $M \ge 300$ for the Sech method,
904: probably because the matrix is seriously ill-conditioned for large $M$.
905: Except for $M=50$, the Sech method was less accurate than the DSC-RSK method for this challenging problem.
906: At $M=250$, the DSC-RSK method is about $10^{8}$ times more accurate than the Sech method. If
907: the minimal accuracy requirement is $10^{-3}$, no other methods except for the DSC-RSK method
908: can be used for this problem.
909:
910: The Euler and MEuler methods produce identical results. Their errors reach $10^{149}$
911: at $M=500$, indicating the instability in computing the factorial. Nevertheless,
912: the same sets of weights seem to work better in the next problem with a wide range of
913: high wavenumbers. Therefore, these two methods are not stable for being used in
914: high wavenumber problems from the Helmholtz equation.
915:
916:
917: Out of six approaches, the DSC-RSK method is the only method that is able to deliver extremely
918: accurate solutions at grid density of 2.1 PPW for this problem. It also requires the smallest CPU
919: time for the generation of the weights.
920:
921:
922: \subsection{Helmholtz equation with a multiple frequency source term}\label{helm}
923:
924: Here we compare the FD and DSC methods
925: when there is significant amplitude in a wide range of wavenumbers.
926: To this end, we consider the Helmholtz equation with a multiple frequency source term
927: \begin{eqnarray}
928: u_{xx}(x) + k^2 u(x) & = & f(x), \quad x \in [0,\pi]
929: \nonumber\\
930: \label{Helmholtz2}
931: u(0) & = & u(\pi) = \frac{k}{2}+1, \\
932: f(x) & = & \sum_{j=0}^{k/2-1} (k^2- 4 j^2) \cos (2 j x), \nonumber \\
933: u(x) & = & \sum_{j=0}^{k/2} \cos (2 j x). \nonumber
934: \end{eqnarray}
935: By considering $N=526$ and $k=500$, the grid density of this
936: problem is also PPW=2.1. The Fourier frequency response of the solution is
937: depicted in Fig. \ref{fig.Helmsolu} (b).
938: This is a problem that involves almost all available spectrum of the discrete
939: Fourier domain. It is a good example to illustrate ``Proof'''s claim.
940:
941:
942: Since this problem requires a large stencil,
943: we examine the performance of different methods over a range of large $M$ values,
944: from $M=50$ to 500.
945: For the Sech method, the near optimized $D=0.28$ is used for all $M$.
946: For the DSC-RSK method, we choose $(M,r)=(50,9.0)$, (100,27.9), (150,35.1), (200,38.1),
947: (250,42.3), (300,46.9), (350,49.6), (400,53.5), (450,56.0), and (500,60.0)
948:
949: $L_{\infty}$ errors are listed in Table \ref{table.Helm2}.
950: Execution time for generating the first and second derivative weights
951: is also reported for each approach. These results are similar to those in
952: the previous example. The Euler and MEuler methods show a great deal of improvement
953: from their last performance. However, their results are still up to 12 orders
954: less accurate than those of the DSC-RSK method at certain $M$ values.
955:
956: For this multiple frequency problem, it is noted that the accuracy of the FD method does
957: not improve much as the $M$ is increased from 50 to 400. It fails to converge
958: when $M>400$, indicating the possible instability in the FD method for this class of
959: multiple frequency problems. The DSC-RSK method outperform the FD method by up to
960: 10 orders of magnitude. Out of six methods studied, the DSC-RSK method is the only one
961: that is able to deliver high accuracy for this multiple frequency problem.
962:
963:
964:
965:
966: \begin{table}[!tb]
967: \caption{Numerical results and CPU times in second
968: for solving the Helmholtz equation with a multiple frequency source term.
969: Here NaN and --- stand for ``not a number'' and ``not available'', respectively.
970: }
971: \label{table.Helm2}
972: \begin{center}
973: \begin{tabular}{lllllll}
974: \hline
975: \hline
976: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{FD} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Boyd's FD} &
977: \multicolumn{2}{c}{Sech} \\
978: \hline
979: $M$ & Error & CPU & Error & CPU & Error & CPU \\
980: \hline
981: 50 & $5.06(+0)$ & $8.92(-4)$ & $5.06(+0)$ & $4.88(-4)$ & $1.78(-1)$ & 3.998\\
982: 100 & $5.48(+0)$ & $3.12(-3)$ & NaN & $3.45(-4)$ & $1.51(-1)$ & 15.73\\
983: 150 & $2.37(+0)$ & $7.02(-3)$ & --- & --- & $4.76(-2)$ & 35.38\\
984: 200 & $4.06(+0)$ & $1.23(-2)$ & --- & --- & $2.07(-2)$ & 62.98\\
985: 250 & $1.14(+0)$ & $1.91(-2)$ & --- & --- & $2.75(-2)$ & 98.56\\
986: 300 & $6.60(-1)$ & $2.75(-2)$ & --- & --- & --- & --- \\
987: 350 & $4.27(-1)$ & $3.83(-2)$ & --- & --- & --- & --- \\
988: 400 & $2.87(-1)$ & $4.89(-2)$ & --- & --- & --- & --- \\
989: 450 & NaN & $7.20(-2)$ & --- & --- & --- & --- \\
990: 500 & NaN & $1.78(-1)$ & --- & --- & --- & --- \\
991: \hline
992: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Euler} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{MEuler} &
993: \multicolumn{2}{c}{RSK}\\
994: \hline
995: $M$ & Error & CPU & Error & CPU & Error & CPU \\
996: \hline
997: 50 & $3.56(-1)$ & $4.78(-4)$ & $3.56(-1)$ & $5.00(-4)$ & $4.63(+0)$ & $3.76(-4)$ \\
998: 100 & $4.74(-1)$ & $4.01(-4)$ & $4.74(-1)$ & $3.92(-4)$ & $4.76(-3)$ & $2.06(-4)$ \\
999: 150 & $1.80(-1)$ & $5.93(-4)$ & $1.80(-1)$ & $5.95(-4)$ & $7.79(-5)$ & $3.34(-4)$ \\
1000: 200 & $4.61(+1)$ & $5.81(-4)$ & $4.61(+1)$ & $5.78(-4)$ & $2.52(-7)$ & $4.22(-4)$ \\
1001: 250 & $4.61(+1)$ & $6.86(-4)$ & $4.61(+1)$ & $6.83(-4)$ & $1.17(-8)$ & $5.14(-4)$ \\
1002: 300 & $4.61(+1)$ & $2.67(-2)$ & $4.61(+1)$ & $2.68(-2)$ & $5.36(-10)$ & $6.14(-4)$ \\
1003: 350 & $4.61(+1)$ & $2.04(-2)$ & $4.61(+1)$ & $2.05(-2)$ & $1.87(-11)$ & $7.13(-4)$ \\
1004: 400 & $4.61(+1)$ & $2.59(-2)$ & $4.61(+1)$ & $2.63(-2)$ & $7.32(-12)$ & $8.51(-4)$ \\
1005: 450 & $4.61(+1)$ & $2.73(-2)$ & $4.61(+1)$ & $2.83(-2)$ & $7.31(-12)$ & $9.11(-4)$ \\
1006: 500 & $4.61(+1)$ & $3.64(-2)$ & $4.61(+1)$ & $3.67(-2)$ & $7.39(-12)$ & $1.01(-3)$ \\
1007: \hline
1008: \hline
1009: \end{tabular}
1010: \end{center}
1011: \end{table}
1012:
1013: ~
1014:
1015: \subsection{Unsteady hyperbolic equation with a few wavenumbers}\label{few}
1016:
1017: We consider the time-dependent equation
1018:
1019:
1020: \begin{eqnarray}\label{hyperbolic}
1021: u_{t} & = & - t^2 u_x, \quad x \in [-1,1]
1022: \nonumber\\
1023: u(0,x) & = & \sin^4 (k \pi x), \\
1024: u(t,x) & = & \sin^4 (k \pi (x-t^3/3)), \nonumber
1025: \end{eqnarray}
1026: with periodical boundary condition.
1027: Fourier frequency response of $u(0,x)$ is given in Fig. \ref{fig.hyperb1} (a).
1028:
1029:
1030: \begin{figure*}[!tb]
1031: \begin{center}
1032: (a) \psfig{figure=solu4f1.eps,width=0.45\linewidth,height=6.5cm}
1033: (b) \psfig{figure=rk41.eps,width=0.45\linewidth,height=6.5cm} \\
1034: \end{center}
1035: \caption{ The unsteady hyperbolic equation with a few wavenumbers.
1036: (a) Fourier frequency response of $u(0,x)$;
1037: (b) Numerical errors.
1038: }
1039: \label{fig.hyperb1}
1040: \end{figure*}
1041:
1042:
1043: We use the classical fourth order Runge-Kutta (RK4) scheme for the time discretization.
1044: To compare the spatial discretization errors of various higher order approaches, a
1045: sufficiently small time increment $\Delta t$ has to be used. Here, we choose
1046: $N=101$, $k=10$, $t=1$, and $\Delta t = 5 \times 10^{-5}$.
1047: It was numerically tested that a smaller $\Delta t$ would not yield significantly
1048: more accurate results. In the Sech method, a near optimal parameter $D=0.36$ is used.
1049: In the DSC-RSK method, we choose $(M,r)=(1,1.9)$, (5,2.4), (10,4.1), (15,5.3), (20,5.9),
1050: (25,6.7), (30,7.2), (35,7.8), (40,8.2), (45,8.8), (50,9.2), (55,9.7),
1051: (60,10.0), (65,10.5), (70,10.8), (75,11.4), and (80,11.5).
1052:
1053:
1054:
1055: The $L_{\infty}$ errors are depicted in Fig. \ref{fig.hyperb1}(b).
1056: Boyd's FD method yields the same results as the FD method.
1057: It is clear that for this highly oscillatory solution, the DSC-RSK method is
1058: the best for all $M$ values examined, including small stencils, like $M=1$, 5 and 10.
1059: When $M > 75$, the DSC-RSK error does not decay any more, because the accuracy
1060: limit of the RK4 temporal integration is reached. The accuracies of other
1061: approaches are far away from the limit. It is seen that the DSC-RSK method is over
1062: $10^{6}$ times more accurate than all other approaches examined for some large $M$.
1063:
1064:
1065: \subsection{Unsteady hyperbolic equation with a wave comb}\label{comb}
1066:
1067:
1068: We next consider Eq. (\ref{hyperbolic}) with a wide-band frequency solution
1069: \begin{equation}
1070: u(t,x)= \sum_{j=1}^{k/2} \sin (2 j \pi (x-t^3/3)).
1071: \end{equation}
1072: Fig. \ref{fig.hyperb2} (a) depicts the Fourier frequency response, which
1073: has a wide range of wavenumbers. To examine ``Proof'''s claim about the FD method,
1074: we have chosen the amplitude in small wavenumbers to be as large as those in large
1075: wavenumbers.
1076:
1077:
1078:
1079: \begin{figure*}[!tb]
1080: \begin{center}
1081: a) \psfig{figure=solu4f2.eps,width=0.45\linewidth,height=6.5cm}
1082: b) \psfig{figure=rk42.eps,width=0.45\linewidth,height=6.5cm} \\
1083: \end{center}
1084: \caption{ The unsteady hyperbolic equation with a wave comb.
1085: (a) Fourier frequency response;
1086: (b) Numerical errors.
1087: }
1088: \label{fig.hyperb2}
1089: \end{figure*}
1090:
1091:
1092: Here we choose $N=101$, $k=40$, and $\Delta t = 5 \times 10^{-5}$ in our computation.
1093: The free parameters $D$ and $r$ remain the same as in the last case.
1094: The results at $t=1$ are shown in Fig. \ref{fig.hyperb2} (b). Although none of the methods
1095: performs as well as in the previous case, the Sech method has the most dramatical accuracy
1096: reduction. Its error has increased 1000 times, indicating its sensitivity to the frequency
1097: distribution.
1098:
1099:
1100: The DSC-RSK method keeps its edge over all other methods examined --- it is up to a million
1101: times more accurate than the FD and Sech methods at large stencils. In fact, it outperforms
1102: the FD method over all stencil widths examined.
1103:
1104:
1105:
1106: \subsection{Two dimensional Navier-Stokes equation}\label{nav}
1107:
1108: We next consider the two dimensional (2D) Navier-Stokes equation
1109: in its primitive variable, describing an incompressible fluid flow
1110: \begin{eqnarray}
1111: \frac{\partial {\bf u}}{\partial t} + {\bf u} \cdot \nabla {\bf u}
1112: & = & -\nabla p + \frac{1}{\mbox{Re}} \nabla^2 {\bf u}, \\
1113: \nabla \cdot {\bf u} & = & 0,
1114: \end{eqnarray}
1115: where ${\bf u}=(u,v)$ is the velocity vector, $p$ is the pressure
1116: and Re is the Reynolds number.
1117: In a 2D square domain $[0, 2\pi] \times [0, 2\pi]$ with periodic
1118: boundary conditions, the initial values are taken as
1119: \begin{eqnarray}
1120: u(0,x,y) & = & - \cos(kx) \sin(ky), \\
1121: v(0,x,y) & = & \sin(kx) \cos(ky). \nonumber
1122: \end{eqnarray}
1123: The analytical solution is
1124: \begin{eqnarray}
1125: u(t,x,y) & = & - \cos(kx) \sin(ky) \exp ( -2k^2 t/ \mbox{Re}), \nonumber \\
1126: v(t,x,y) & = & \sin(kx) \cos(ky)\exp ( -2k^2 t/ \mbox{Re}), \\
1127: p(t,x,y) & = & -\frac{1}{4} [ \cos(2kx) + \cos(2ky)]\exp ( -4k^2 t/ \mbox{Re}).\nonumber
1128: \end{eqnarray}
1129:
1130:
1131: The present study has two interesting points in comparing with the previous studies,
1132: i.e., it is multi-dimensional and it involves nonlinearity.
1133: We adopt the Adams-Bashforth-Crank-Nicolson (ABCN) scheme for the time
1134: discretization and treatment of pressure
1135: \begin{eqnarray}
1136: \frac{1}{2\mbox{Re}} \nabla^2 {\bf u}^{n+1} - \frac{1}{\Delta t} {\bf u}^{n+1}
1137: & = & \nabla p^{n+1/2} + {\bf S}^{n} \\
1138: \nabla^2 p^{n+1/2} + \nabla \cdot {\bf S}^{n} & = & 0, \nonumber
1139: \end{eqnarray}
1140: where the source vector ${\bf S}^{n}$ is given by
1141: \begin{equation}
1142: {\bf S}^{n}=-\frac{{\bf u}^{n}}{\Delta t} +
1143: \frac{3({\bf u}^{n} \cdot \nabla) {\bf u}^{n}-({\bf u}^{n-1} \cdot \nabla){\bf u}^{n-1}}{2}
1144: - \frac{1}{2\mbox{Re}} \nabla^2 {\bf u}^{n}.
1145: \end{equation}
1146:
1147:
1148: \begin{figure*}[!tb]
1149: \begin{center}
1150: \psfig{figure=ns.eps,width=0.6\linewidth}
1151: \end{center}
1152: \caption{Numerical errors of the Navier-Stokes equation.}
1153: \label{fig.ns}
1154: \end{figure*}
1155:
1156:
1157:
1158: We consider a high frequency problem with $k=10$ and $\mbox{Re}=100$.
1159: By using 51 nodes along each direction, the grid density for solving the Poisson equation of the
1160: pressure is PPW=2.5, while that for the velocity field is PPW=5.
1161: In order to compare spatial discretization errors,
1162: a sufficiently small time increment, $\Delta t=1.0 \times 10^{-5}$, is used.
1163: For the Sech method, a near optimal $D=0.18$ is used. For the DSC-RSK method, we
1164: choose $(M,r)=(1,0.8)$, (5,1.7), (10,4.6), (15,5.4), (20,6.1),
1165: (25,6.8), (30,7.3), (35,7.9), (40,8.3), (45,8.8), and (50,9.3).
1166: The $L_{\infty}$ errors in $u$ after 1000 time steps are depicted in Fig. \ref{fig.ns}.
1167: It is clear that the DSC-RSK method is more accurate than other approaches for this high
1168: frequency problem when $M > 25$. At $M=50$, the DSC-RSK method is over
1169: a thousand times more accurate than the Sech and FD methods.
1170:
1171:
1172: \subsection{Quantum eigenvalue problem}\label{quantum}
1173:
1174: Finally, we consider a quantum eigenvalue problem
1175: \begin{equation}\label{harmonic}
1176: \left[ -\frac{1}{2} \frac{d^2}{d x^2} + V(x) \right]
1177: \Phi_n = E_n \Phi_n,
1178: \end{equation}
1179: with harmonic oscillator potential $V(x)=x^2/2$. The eigenfunctions
1180: $\Phi_n$ are the standard Hermite function series. The eigenvalues
1181: are $E_n=n+\frac{1}{2}$, where $n=0,1,2,\cdots$.
1182:
1183: \setlongtables
1184: \begin{longtable}{llllllll}
1185: \caption{Numerical errors in the quantum eigenvalue analysis with $M=50$ and $N=51$.}
1186: \label{table.ho50} \\
1187: \hline
1188: \hline
1189: Mode & Sinc & DSC-RSK & FD & Boyd's FD & Euler & MEuler & Sech \\
1190: \hline
1191: 0 & $1.40(-14)$ & $9.10(-15)$ & $1.38(-13)$ & $7.17(-13)$ & $2.67(-15)$ & $2.67(-15)$ & $3.46(-14)$ \\
1192: 1 & $1.48(-14)$ & $3.85(-15)$ & $3.75(-14)$ & $2.23(-13)$ & $4.00(-15)$ & $4.00(-15)$ & $2.75(-14)$ \\
1193: 2 & $5.33(-15)$ & $5.33(-16)$ & $2.56(-14)$ & $1.18(-13)$ & $5.51(-15)$ & $5.51(-15)$ & $3.30(-14)$ \\
1194: 3 & $3.04(-15)$ & $1.27(-16)$ & $1.28(-14)$ & $7.74(-14)$ & $7.99(-15)$ & $7.99(-15)$ & $4.15(-14)$ \\
1195: 4 & $5.92(-16)$ & $5.92(-16)$ & $1.12(-14)$ & $5.51(-14)$ & $7.11(-15)$ & $7.11(-15)$ & $5.01(-14)$ \\
1196: 5 & $9.69(-16)$ & $4.84(-16)$ & $8.07(-15)$ & $4.00(-14)$ & $6.94(-15)$ & $6.94(-15)$ & $1.26(-14)$ \\
1197: 6 & $2.73(-16)$ & $1.64(-15)$ & $4.24(-15)$ & $3.07(-14)$ & $7.52(-15)$ & $7.52(-15)$ & $9.34(-13)$ \\
1198: 7 & $1.18(-15)$ & $4.74(-16)$ & $6.99(-15)$ & $2.21(-14)$ & $5.45(-15)$ & $5.45(-15)$ & $1.04(-11)$ \\
1199: 8 & $8.36(-16)$ & $2.09(-16)$ & $1.94(-14)$ & $4.60(-15)$ & $2.09(-15)$ & $2.09(-15)$ & $9.17(-11)$ \\
1200: 9 & $7.48(-16)$ & $0.00$ & $1.01(-13)$ & $8.23(-14)$ & $2.43(-15)$ & $2.43(-15)$ & $7.03(-10)$ \\
1201: 10 & $5.07(-16)$ & $0.00$ & $5.60(-13)$ & $5.45(-13)$ & $1.51(-13)$ & $1.51(-13)$ & $4.76(-9)$ \\
1202: 11 & $4.63(-16)$ & $1.54(-16)$ & $2.87(-12)$ & $2.86(-12)$ & $7.81(-13)$ & $7.81(-13)$ & $2.86(-8)$ \\
1203: 12 & $7.11(-16)$ & $4.26(-16)$ & $1.35(-11)$ & $1.35(-11)$ & $1.58(-12)$ & $1.58(-12)$ & $1.53(-7)$ \\
1204: 13 & $1.32(-16)$ & $2.63(-16)$ & $5.83(-11)$ & $5.83(-11)$ & $2.09(-12)$ & $2.09(-12)$ & $7.37(-7)$ \\
1205: 14 & $3.68(-16)$ & $1.22(-16)$ & $2.33(-10)$ & $2.33(-10)$ & $2.31(-11)$ & $2.31(-11)$ & $3.18(-6)$ \\
1206: 15 & $1.38(-15)$ & $1.15(-15)$ & $8.68(-10)$ & $8.68(-10)$ & $6.40(-11)$ & $6.40(-11)$ & $1.23(-5)$ \\
1207: 16 & $6.46(-16)$ & $1.29(-15)$ & $3.01(-9)$ & $3.01(-9)$ & $3.65(-11)$ & $3.65(-11)$ & $4.31(-5)$ \\
1208: 17 & $7.31(-14)$ & $7.31(-14)$ & $9.79(-9)$ & $9.79(-9)$ & $3.23(-10)$ & $3.23(-10)$ & $1.35(-4)$ \\
1209: 18 & $5.57(-14)$ & $6.32(-14)$ & $2.99(-8)$ & $2.99(-8)$ & $1.19(-9)$ & $1.19(-9)$ & $3.78(-4)$ \\
1210: 19 & $2.87(-12)$ & $2.88(-12)$ & $8.61(-8)$ & $8.61(-8)$ & $1.54(-9)$ & $1.54(-9)$ & $9.48(-4)$ \\
1211: 20 & $1.78(-12)$ & $1.98(-12)$ & $2.34(-7)$ & $2.34(-7)$ & $1.96(-9)$ & $1.96(-9)$ & $2.12(-3)$ \\
1212: 21 & $8.66(-11)$ & $8.70(-11)$ & $6.04(-7)$ & $6.04(-7)$ & $1.24(-8)$ & $1.24(-8)$ & $4.26(-3)$ \\
1213: 22 & $4.42(-11)$ & $5.04(-11)$ & $1.48(-6)$ & $1.48(-6)$ & $2.17(-8)$ & $2.17(-8)$ & $7.71(-3)$ \\
1214: 23 & $1.99(-9)$ & $1.99(-9)$ & $3.45(-6)$ & $3.45(-6)$ & $3.79(-9)$ & $3.79(-9)$ & $1.27(-2)$ \\
1215: 24 & $7.87(-10)$ & $9.00(-10)$ & $7.67(-6)$ & $7.67(-6)$ & $7.55(-8)$ & $7.55(-8)$ & $1.94(-2)$ \\
1216: 25 & $3.57(-8)$ & $3.59(-8)$ & $1.63(-5)$ & $1.63(-5)$ & $1.40(-7)$ & $1.40(-7)$ & $2.78(-2)$ \\
1217: 26 & $1.12(-8)$ & $1.33(-8)$ & $3.33(-5)$ & $3.33(-5)$ & $1.23(-7)$ & $1.23(-7)$ & $3.77(-2)$ \\
1218: 27 & $4.93(-7)$ & $4.94(-7)$ & $6.44(-5)$ & $6.44(-5)$ & $7.59(-7)$ & $7.59(-7)$ & $4.90(-2)$ \\
1219: 28 & $1.05(-7)$ & $1.29(-7)$ & $1.23(-4)$ & $1.23(-4)$ & $1.08(-6)$ & $1.08(-6)$ & $6.16(-2)$ \\
1220: 29 & $5.34(-6)$ & $5.36(-6)$ & $2.15(-4)$ & $2.15(-4)$ & $6.43(-6)$ & $6.43(-6)$ & $7.52(-2)$ \\
1221: 30 & $7.32(-7)$ & $1.01(-6)$ & $4.04(-4)$ & $4.04(-4)$ & $2.05(-8)$ & $2.05(-8)$ & $8.98(-2)$ \\
1222: 31 & $4.40(-5)$ & $4.41(-5)$ & $6.01(-4)$ & $6.01(-4)$ & $4.02(-5)$ & $4.02(-5)$ & $1.05(-1)$ \\
1223: 32 & $7.74(-7)$ & $2.83(-6)$ & $1.24(-3)$ & $1.24(-3)$ & $2.88(-6)$ & $2.88(-6)$ & $1.21(-1)$ \\
1224: 33 & $2.81(-4)$ & $2.82(-4)$ & $1.33(-3)$ & $1.33(-3)$ & $2.81(-4)$ & $2.81(-4)$ & $1.38(-1)$ \\
1225: 34 & $2.87(-5)$ & $1.35(-5)$ & $3.86(-3)$ & $3.86(-3)$ & $2.54(-5)$ & $2.54(-5)$ & $1.56(-1)$ \\
1226: 35 & $1.33(-3)$ & $1.33(-3)$ & $1.93(-3)$ & $1.93(-3)$ & $1.34(-3)$ & $1.34(-3)$ & $1.74(-1)$ \\
1227: 36 & $3.82(-4)$ & $3.07(-4)$ & $1.16(-2)$ & $1.16(-2)$ & $3.62(-4)$ & $3.62(-4)$ & $1.92(-1)$ \\
1228: 37 & $4.83(-3)$ & $4.84(-3)$ & $4.36(-4)$ & $4.36(-4)$ & $4.83(-3)$ & $4.83(-3)$ & $2.11(-1)$ \\
1229: 38 & $1.48(-3)$ & $1.19(-3)$ & $2.04(-2)$ & $2.04(-2)$ & $1.54(-3)$ & $1.54(-3)$ & $2.31(-1)$ \\
1230: 39 & $1.34(-2)$ & $1.34(-2)$ & $6.66(-3)$ & $6.66(-3)$ & $1.33(-2)$ & $1.33(-2)$ & $2.50(-1)$ \\
1231: 40 & $2.95(-4)$ & $1.68(-4)$ & $1.71(-2)$ & $1.71(-2)$ & $1.86(-4)$ & $1.86(-4)$ & $2.70(-1)$ \\
1232: 41 & $3.06(-2)$ & $3.06(-2)$ & $2.29(-2)$ & $2.29(-2)$ & $3.07(-2)$ & $3.07(-2)$ & $2.91(-1)$ \\
1233: 42 & $1.19(-2)$ & $1.24(-2)$ & $1.05(-3)$ & $1.05(-3)$ & $1.19(-2)$ & $1.19(-2)$ & $3.11(-1)$ \\
1234: 43 & $5.93(-2)$ & $5.93(-2)$ & $5.13(-2)$ & $5.13(-2)$ & $5.95(-2)$ & $5.95(-2)$ & $3.32(-1)$ \\
1235: 44 & $3.82(-2)$ & $3.86(-2)$ & $2.77(-2)$ & $2.77(-2)$ & $3.81(-2)$ & $3.81(-2)$ & $3.53(-1)$ \\
1236: 45 & $1.05(-1)$ & $1.06(-1)$ & $9.61(-2)$ & $9.61(-2)$ & $1.06(-1)$ & $1.06(-1)$ & $3.76(-1)$ \\
1237: 46 & $8.35(-2)$ & $8.39(-2)$ & $7.26(-2)$ & $7.26(-2)$ & $8.30(-2)$ & $8.30(-2)$ & $3.91(-1)$ \\
1238: 47 & $1.76(-1)$ & $1.76(-1)$ & $1.67(-1)$ & $1.67(-1)$ & $1.76(-1)$ & $1.76(-1)$ & $4.31(-1)$ \\
1239: 48 & $1.53(-1)$ & $1.53(-1)$ & $1.43(-1)$ & $1.43(-1)$ & $1.52(-1)$ & $1.52(-1)$ & $4.21(-1)$ \\
1240: 49 & $3.14(-1)$ & $3.14(-1)$ & $2.93(-1)$ & $2.93(-1)$ & $3.15(-1)$ & $3.15(-1)$ & $5.49(-1)$ \\
1241: 50 & $2.89(-1)$ & $2.90(-1)$ & $2.68(-1)$ & $2.68(-1)$ & $2.88(-1)$ & $2.88(-1)$ & $5.25(-1)$ \\
1242: \hline
1243: \hline
1244: \end{longtable}
1245:
1246:
1247:
1248: \setlongtables
1249: \begin{longtable}{lllllll}
1250: \caption{Numerical errors in the quantum eigenvalue analysis with $M=200$ and $N=201$.}
1251: \label{table.ho200} \\
1252: \hline
1253: \hline
1254: Mode & Sinc & DSC-RSK & FD & Euler & MEuler & Sech \\
1255: \hline
1256: 0 & $8.49(-13)$ & $7.03(-13)$ & $8.70(-13)$ & $1.00$ & $1.00$ & $1.33(-13)$ \\
1257: 4 & $2.11(-14)$ & $6.12(-15)$ & $7.80(-14)$ & $9.86(-1)$ & $9.86(-1)$ & $1.42(-14)$ \\
1258: 8 & $2.28(-14)$ & $6.48(-15)$ & $9.57(-14)$ & $9.71(-1)$ & $9.71(-1)$ & $1.02(-14)$ \\
1259: 12 & $1.21(-14)$ & $1.02(-14)$ & $5.74(-14)$ & $9.55(-1)$ & $9.55(-1)$ & $9.66(-14)$ \\
1260: 16 & $3.66(-15)$ & $4.52(-15)$ & $5.23(-14)$ & $9.40(-1)$ & $9.40(-1)$ & $1.07(-13)$ \\
1261: 20 & $3.81(-15)$ & $9.70(-15)$ & $4.75(-14)$ & $9.24(-1)$ & $9.24(-1)$ & $1.52(-13)$ \\
1262: 24 & $3.48(-15)$ & $3.04(-15)$ & $4.21(-14)$ & $9.09(-1)$ & $9.09(-1)$ & $1.84(-13)$ \\
1263: 28 & $3.74(-16)$ & $4.24(-15)$ & $3.54(-14)$ & $8.93(-1)$ & $8.93(-1)$ & $1.36(-13)$ \\
1264: 32 & $4.15(-15)$ & $3.94(-15)$ & $3.24(-14)$ & $8.78(-1)$ & $8.78(-1)$ & $1.24(-13)$ \\
1265: 36 & $2.53(-15)$ & $2.92(-15)$ & $2.94(-14)$ & $8.63(-1)$ & $8.63(-1)$ & $8.10(-14)$ \\
1266: 40 & $7.02(-16)$ & $1.75(-15)$ & $2.72(-14)$ & $8.47(-1)$ & $8.47(-1)$ & $2.25(-13)$ \\
1267: 44 & $4.79(-16)$ & $4.79(-16)$ & $2.44(-14)$ & $8.32(-1)$ & $8.32(-1)$ & $2.32(-13)$ \\
1268: 48 & $1.46(-16)$ & $1.03(-15)$ & $2.27(-14)$ & $8.16(-1)$ & $8.16(-1)$ & $5.51(-13)$ \\
1269: 52 & $0.00$ & $1.35(-16)$ & $2.18(-14)$ & $8.01(-1)$ & $8.01(-1)$ & $1.18(-12)$ \\
1270: 56 & $1.26(-16)$ & $2.51(-16)$ & $1.96(-14)$ & $7.85(-1)$ & $7.85(-1)$ & $1.53(-12)$ \\
1271: 60 & $3.52(-16)$ & $2.35(-16)$ & $1.77(-14)$ & $7.70(-1)$ & $7.70(-1)$ & $1.72(-12)$ \\
1272: 64 & $0.00$ & $8.81(-16)$ & $1.74(-14)$ & $7.54(-1)$ & $7.54(-1)$ & $1.06(-12)$ \\
1273: 68 & $2.07(-16)$ & $0.00$ & $1.53(-14)$ & $7.39(-1)$ & $7.39(-1)$ & $9.25(-14)$ \\
1274: 72 & $7.84(-16)$ & $3.92(-16)$ & $1.41(-14)$ & $7.23(-1)$ & $7.23(-1)$ & $1.01(-12)$ \\
1275: 76 & $5.57(-16)$ & $3.72(-16)$ & $1.34(-14)$ & $7.08(-1)$ & $7.08(-1)$ & $1.45(-12)$ \\
1276: 80 & $0.00$ & $0.00$ & $1.29(-14)$ & $6.92(-1)$ & $6.92(-1)$ & $3.57(-13)$ \\
1277: 84 & $0.00$ & $3.36(-16)$ & $1.21(-14)$ & $6.77(-1)$ & $6.77(-1)$ & $7.92(-13)$ \\
1278: 88 & $0.00$ & $3.21(-16)$ & $1.19(-14)$ & $6.61(-1)$ & $6.61(-1)$ & $1.43(-12)$ \\
1279: 92 & $3.07(-16)$ & $3.07(-16)$ & $1.69(-14)$ & $6.46(-1)$ & $6.46(-1)$ & $3.58(-12)$ \\
1280: 96 & $2.95(-16)$ & $0.00$ & $1.41(-13)$ & $6.30(-1)$ & $6.30(-1)$ & $4.46(-12)$ \\
1281: 100 & $5.66(-16)$ & $2.83(-16)$ & $2.12(-12)$ & $6.15(-1)$ & $6.15(-1)$ & $8.07(-13)$ \\
1282: 104 & $5.44(-16)$ & $0.00$ & $2.82(-11)$ & $5.99(-1)$ & $5.99(-1)$ & $5.98(-12)$ \\
1283: 108 & $6.55(-16)$ & $6.55(-16)$ & $3.11(-10)$ & $5.84(-1)$ & $5.84(-1)$ & $2.65(-11)$ \\
1284: 112 & $6.32(-16)$ & $1.01(-15)$ & $2.86(-9)$ & $5.68(-1)$ & $5.68(-1)$ & $5.61(-11)$ \\
1285: 116 & $6.10(-16)$ & $1.22(-16)$ & $2.20(-8)$ & $5.53(-1)$ & $5.53(-1)$ & $8.50(-11)$ \\
1286: 120 & $2.19(-14)$ & $2.17(-14)$ & $1.43(-7)$ & $5.37(-1)$ & $5.37(-1)$ & $1.47(-10)$ \\
1287: 124 & $1.25(-12)$ & $1.26(-12)$ & $7.88(-7)$ & $5.22(-1)$ & $5.22(-1)$ & $2.11(-10)$ \\
1288: 128 & $5.35(-11)$ & $5.39(-11)$ & $3.71(-6)$ & $5.06(-1)$ & $5.06(-1)$ & $1.69(-10)$ \\
1289: 132 & $1.70(-9)$ & $1.72(-9)$ & $1.51(-5)$ & $4.91(-1)$ & $4.91(-1)$ & $1.45(-9)$ \\
1290: 136 & $3.94(-8)$ & $3.99(-8)$ & $5.36(-5)$ & $4.75(-1)$ & $4.75(-1)$ & $3.91(-8)$ \\
1291: 140 & $6.47(-7)$ & $6.57(-7)$ & $1.70(-4)$ & $4.60(-1)$ & $4.60(-1)$ & $6.47(-7)$ \\
1292: 144 & $7.14(-6)$ & $7.30(-6)$ & $4.99(-4)$ & $4.44(-1)$ & $4.44(-1)$ & $7.14(-6)$ \\
1293: 148 & $4.66(-5)$ & $4.86(-5)$ & $1.60(-3)$ & $4.29(-1)$ & $4.29(-1)$ & $4.66(-5)$ \\
1294: 152 & $1.21(-4)$ & $1.39(-4)$ & $5.24(-3)$ & $4.13(-1)$ & $4.13(-1)$ & $1.21(-4)$ \\
1295: 156 & $7.86(-5)$ & $1.60(-4)$ & $6.37(-3)$ & $3.98(-1)$ & $3.98(-1)$ & $7.86(-5)$ \\
1296: 160 & $1.97(-3)$ & $2.08(-3)$ & $2.57(-3)$ & $3.82(-1)$ & $3.82(-1)$ & $1.97(-3)$ \\
1297: 164 & $8.39(-3)$ & $8.48(-3)$ & $4.95(-3)$ & $3.67(-1)$ & $3.67(-1)$ & $8.39(-3)$ \\
1298: 168 & $1.91(-2)$ & $1.92(-2)$ & $1.61(-2)$ & $3.51(-1)$ & $3.51(-1)$ & $1.91(-2)$ \\
1299: 172 & $3.39(-2)$ & $3.40(-2)$ & $3.12(-2)$ & $3.36(-1)$ & $3.36(-1)$ & $3.39(-2)$ \\
1300: 176 & $5.31(-2)$ & $5.32(-2)$ & $5.05(-2)$ & $3.21(-1)$ & $3.21(-1)$ & $5.31(-2)$ \\
1301: 180 & $7.74(-2)$ & $7.75(-2)$ & $7.48(-2)$ & $3.05(-1)$ & $3.05(-1)$ & $7.74(-2)$ \\
1302: 184 & $1.08(-1)$ & $1.08(-1)$ & $1.05(-1)$ & $2.89(-1)$ & $2.89(-1)$ & $1.08(-1)$ \\
1303: 188 & $1.47(-1)$ & $1.47(-1)$ & $1.44(-1)$ & $2.74(-1)$ & $2.74(-1)$ & $1.47(-1)$ \\
1304: 192 & $1.99(-1)$ & $1.99(-1)$ & $1.96(-1)$ & $2.59(-1)$ & $2.59(-1)$ & $1.99(-1)$ \\
1305: 196 & $2.74(-1)$ & $2.74(-1)$ & $2.69(-1)$ & $2.43(-1)$ & $2.43(-1)$ & $2.74(-1)$ \\
1306: 200 & $4.15(-1)$ & $4.15(-1)$ & $4.05(-1)$ & $2.28(-1)$ & $2.28(-1)$ & $4.15(-1)$ \\
1307: \hline
1308: \hline
1309: \end{longtable}
1310:
1311:
1312: For the Sech method, a near optimal $D=0.28$ is used. In the DSC-RSK method, relatively large values of $r$ are
1313: chosen: $(M,r)= (50,35)$, and (200,90). For $N=51$, and 201, the computational
1314: domain is chosen as $x \in [-8.7, 8.7]$, and [-17.6, 17.6], respectively.
1315:
1316: This example is chosen to show the subtleness in numerical analysis. A method that is
1317: good for one problem might not be good for other problems. Detailed analysis is required
1318: for a given problem. In particular, we show that the analysis and claim in
1319: ``Proof'' about the Sinc pseudospectral method is invalid.
1320:
1321: The relative errors in estimating eigenmodes for different $M$
1322: with $N=M+1$ are given in Table \ref{table.ho50} and Table \ref{table.ho200}.
1323: Since the $O(1/x)$ decay in the Sinc kernel is outpaced by the Gaussian decay of
1324: the Hermite functions when $|x|$ is large, there is no need for sum acceleration.
1325: In fact, the Euler-accelerated sinc method (Euler) does not work as well as the
1326: Sinc does. Clearly, the Sinc method is the best for all $M$ and all eigenmodes.
1327: As it is known that when $r \to \infty$, the DSC-RSK method approaches to the Sinc method,
1328: a very large $r$ is chosen for each $M$, such that the DSC-RSK method results are
1329: very similar to those of the Sinc. Thus, overall, the DSC-RSK method performs better than the
1330: FD, Euler, MEuler, and Sech methods.
1331:
1332: What comes as a surprise is the Sech method, which is able to deliver results of
1333: double precision accuracy --- in contrast to the fact that it does not reach the accuracy
1334: of $10^{-7}$ in all other test cases.
1335: Overall, although it is not as accurate as the Sinc and DSC-RSK method, the Sech method performs
1336: better than the FD, Euler and MEuler methods.
1337:
1338: When $M \ge 50$, the results of the Euler and MEuler methods are essentially the same.
1339: In particular, for $M=200$, they all yield wrong results.
1340:
1341:
1342:
1343: \section{Analysis of ``Proof'''s miscellaneous claims}\label{further}
1344:
1345: In this section, we further analyze ``Proof'''s claims. For convenience, these
1346: claims will be presented in an itemized style.
1347:
1348: \begin{itemize}
1349: \item {\sc [``Proof''- Section 1]}
1350: ``It is impossible to review the work of this very
1351: prolific author in detail, but of the more than one hundred articles listed at
1352: http://www.math.msu.edu/wei/, most use the DSC or LDAF schemes.''
1353:
1354:
1355: {\sc [Analysis]}
1356: The contrary is true: More than half of the articles do not use the DSC or LDAF schemes.
1357:
1358:
1359: \item {\sc [``Proof''- Section 1]}
1360: ``Since the finite difference weights are {\it nearly} Gaussian, one cannot escape the conclusion that the
1361: LDAF/DSC methods are really just high order finite difference methods in disguise!''
1362:
1363: {\sc [Analysis]}
1364: There is no disguise about the relation between the DSC and high order finite differences
1365: in our work, as the relation has been spelled out many times in the DSC literature
1366: (e.g. in \cite{weijpa,weiijnme}). It is surprising to see this accusation as the author
1367: was informed of the existence of these references in a comment on his draft.
1368: Note that all collocation schemes, including the Daubechies wavelet collocation method,
1369: can be cast into the finite difference form \cite{Fornberg1}.
1370: However, the DSC method has also been formulated in the Galerkin form \cite{Lim}
1371: for solving differential equations, which is not a high order finite difference method.
1372:
1373:
1374: \item {\sc [``Proof''- Section 1]}
1375: ``The LDAF/DSC is also a special case of Boyd's earlier theory of sum-accelerated
1376: pseudospectral methods: special in that the weighting function is a Gaussian.''
1377:
1378: {\sc [Analysis]}
1379: This is an unfounded claim.
1380: First, as a computational (discrete) realization of singular convolution kernels,
1381: including kernels of delta type, Abel type and Hilbert type \cite{weijcp99},
1382: the DSC has little to do with Boyd's sum-accelerated method.
1383:
1384: Second, the DSC-RSK approximation of derivatives does not fit into Boyd's sum-acceleration
1385: form $\frac{{\rm d} u}{{\rm d} x} \approx \sum_{j=-M}^{M} w^{\rm DSC}_{Mj}d_j^{(1),{\rm sinc}}$
1386: in general --- there is an extra term, see Section \ref{methods}. Only in a very special
1387: case, the on-grid differentiation for the first derivative, can the DSC-RSK method reduce to a form
1388: similar to Boyd's sum-accelerated pseudospectral methods. However, off-grid differentiations,
1389: which have been widely used in staggered grids in the previous DSC-RSK applications, cannot.
1390: More extra terms occur even for on-grid differentiations when higher order derivatives are
1391: considered.
1392:
1393: Finally, the DSC-RSK method is constructed by accelerating the Whittaker-Shannon-Kotel'nikov sampling
1394: (interpolation) kernel.
1395:
1396: \item {\sc [``Proof''- Section 2]}
1397: ``Fourier analysis has been widely used to analyze difference formulas ever since this was popularized by
1398: von Neuman(n). The reason is that the Fourier basis function, $\exp^{(ikx)}$, is an eigenfunction of both
1399: the differentiation operator and also of all possible difference formulas. This implies that the
1400: accuracy of difference formulas can be assessed - and improved - merely by comparing the eigenvalues.''
1401:
1402:
1403: {\sc [Analysis]}
1404:
1405: First, it is inappropriate to state that ``the accuracy of difference formulas can be assessed - and improved
1406: - merely by comparing the eigenvalues''. In general, the performance of a difference formula for approximating
1407: a derivative of a function cannot be assessed by its performance on differentiating $\exp^{(ikx)}$. The reason
1408: is the follows. In differentiating $\exp^{(ikx)}$, the (discrete) Fourier method is exact and all difference
1409: formulas are less accurate. This does not justify the Fourier method to be a universal standard for
1410: judging a numerical method's performance of differentiation of a general function, because the
1411: performance always depends on the functional class, regularity, decay rate, etc. A simple counterexample
1412: to ``Proof'''s logic is that in differentiating an $n$th order polynomial, an $n$th order FD method is
1413: {\it exact}, while the Fourier method is {\it not}.
1414:
1415: Second, in solving differential equations, the superiority of differentiating $\exp^{(ikx)}$ does not
1416: establish the superiority of a numerical method in general, since differential equations
1417: might involve functions of different mathematical properties, and be either nonlinear, or
1418: with variable coefficients, or with other complex non-differentiating terms. For example, the
1419: Hermite spectral method does not give an exact result for the differentiation of $\exp^{(ikx)}$
1420: as the Fourier method does. However, it can give the exact solution to the quantum Harmonic oscillator
1421: problem, see Eq. (\ref{harmonic}), whereas, the Fourier method can only provide approximations to this
1422: solution. Therefore, rigorous numerical analysis should always be done case by case, with detailed
1423: consideration of functional class and various constraints.
1424:
1425:
1426:
1427: \item {\sc [``Proof''- Section 2]}
1428: ``In practice, the requirement that $u(x)$ decays exponentially for $|x| \rightarrow \infty$
1429: implies that the grid can be truncated to some large-but-finite span; the derivative sums
1430: are then truncated to summations over the entire truncated grid.''
1431:
1432: {\sc [Analysis]}
1433: The Fourier basis function $u(x)= e^{ikx}$ is widely used in practice as well as in ``Proof'',
1434: and does not decays exponentially for $|x| \rightarrow \infty$.
1435:
1436:
1437: \item {\sc [``Proof''- Section 3]}
1438: ``However, the problem of summing slowly convergent series is an ancient one. A broad collection
1439: of schemes, known variously as ``summability'', ``sequence acceleration'' or ``sum-acceleration''
1440: methods have been developed. Boyd [5] was the first to apply such ideas to pseudospectral
1441: series to invent the form of nonstandard differences called ``sum-accelerated pseudospectral''.''
1442:
1443:
1444: {\sc [Analysis]}
1445: The general idea of accelerating the Whittaker-Shannon-Kotel'nikov sampling, i.e.,
1446: the sinc pseudospectral series, with a weight function was introduced as early as 1919 by M.
1447: Theis \cite{Theis}. Campbell introduced a weight of the form
1448: $w(x)=\frac{\int_{-1}^1\exp[(1-t^2)^{-1}-itx]dt}{\int_{-1}^1\exp[(1-t^2)^{-1}-itx]dt}$ to
1449: the sinc pseudospectral series in 1968 \cite{Campbell}.
1450:
1451:
1452:
1453: \item {\sc [``Proof''- Section 3]}
1454: ``The sinc differentiation eigenvalue for the first derivative is the usual sine series $\cdots$.
1455: The first option to obtain a sparse stencil is to simply {\it truncate} the infinite
1456: series at some upper limit $n$. This is a really bad idea because the error in the series,
1457: truncated after $n$ terms, is $O(1/n)$, and therefore unacceptably large.''
1458:
1459:
1460: {\sc [Analysis]}
1461: Note that ``the sinc differentiation eigenvalue for the first derivative'' refers to
1462: the result of differentiating $e^{(ikx)}$ with the Sinc method. The truncation error of the
1463: sinc pseudospectral method depends not only on the decay rate of the differentiation kernel,
1464: but also on the decay rate of the function being differentiated. This partially
1465: explains why the performance in differentiating $e^{(ikx)}$ does not translate directly
1466: into the performance in differentiating other functions. In Section \ref{quantum} we
1467: show that for a quantum eigenvalue problem whose solution is of Schwartz class, the sinc
1468: collocation outperforms the Boyd's Euler-accelerated sinc (Euler) and spectrally
1469: weighted least square differences (Sech) by many orders of magnitude, see
1470: Tables \ref{table.ho50} and \ref{table.ho200}.
1471:
1472:
1473: \item {\sc [``Proof''- Section 5]}
1474: ``The shaded region shows that when $a < a_{\rm FD}$, the finite difference error is worse than that
1475: for the Gaussian weighting – but only for $K > \pi/2$.''
1476:
1477: {\sc [Analysis]}
1478: Section \ref{deriva} provides a counterexample.
1479: Ironically, many more counterexamples appear in Fig. 2 of ``Proof''.
1480:
1481:
1482: \item {\sc [``Proof''- Section 5]}
1483: ``Given that the Fourier spectra of smooth functions fall off exponentially as $|K|$ increases,
1484: even small errors near $K = 0$ are intolerable.''
1485:
1486:
1487: {\sc [Analysis]}
1488: There is a simple counterexample: The Fourier spectra of smooth functions, such as
1489: the $C^{\infty}$ function of $e^{-x}\sin(x)$, do not fall off exponentially as $|K|$
1490: increases.
1491:
1492:
1493:
1494:
1495: \item {\sc [``Proof''- Section 5]}
1496: ``Why are finite differences so superior to DSC, given that both employ weights that are
1497: close-to-Gaussian? The answer is that the finite difference weights are tuned to give
1498: maximum accuracy in the limit $K \rightarrow 0$.''
1499:
1500:
1501: {\sc [Analysis]}
1502: It is well-known that high order
1503: finite difference weights are {\it exact} in differentiating polynomials of the same order or
1504: less, which have a wide Fourier spectral distribution beyond the
1505: component of $K \rightarrow 0$.
1506:
1507:
1508: \item {\sc [``Proof''- Section 7]}
1509: ``How can the DSC/LDAF algorithms be salvaged? One could of course try a
1510: different sum-acceleration weighting from the Gaussian. However, this is merely to explore
1511: various instances of the sum-acceleration methods of [5]. ''
1512:
1513: {\sc [Analysis]}
1514:
1515: The many examples given here give the reader sufficient information
1516: to judge the validity of this claim.
1517:
1518: \end{itemize}
1519:
1520:
1521: \section{Concluding remarks}
1522:
1523:
1524:
1525: This paper examines the validity of claims made in Boyd's paper, ``A proof that the discrete
1526: singular convolution (DSC)/Lagrange-distributed approximation function (LDAF) method is inferior
1527: to high order finite differences'' \cite{boyd06}, which is referred to as ``Proof''. A wide variety
1528: of test problems are employed to compare six different numerical methods, including the
1529: discrete singular convolution with the regularized Shannon kernel (DSC-RSK), the
1530: standard finite difference (FD),
1531: Boyd's spectrally-weighted difference with the sech weight (Sech) \cite{Boyd94},
1532: Boyd's finite difference (Boyd's FD) \cite{Boyd94},
1533: Boyd's Euler-accelerated sinc algorithm (Euler) \cite{Boyd91,Boyd94}, and
1534: Boyd's modified Euler-accelerated sinc algorithm (MEuler) \cite{Boyd91,Boyd94}.
1535: These methods are employed in our comparisons because ``Proof'' has placed great emphasis
1536: of them, including many detailed expressions and/or numerical procedures, and because
1537: they are related to some of ``Proof'''s claims.
1538: Some of the test problems, such as differentiating $e^{ikx}$ and a boundary value problem,
1539: are the designated tests used in either ``Proof'' or Boyd's earlier literature \cite{Boyd94}.
1540: In numerous examples, the DSC-RSK method outperforms all the other five methods by factors of
1541: multiple orders of magnitude. In particular, for many problems with large wavenumbers or a
1542: wide range of wavenumbers (including large amplitudes in small wavenumbers),
1543: the DSC-RSK method is up to a million times more accurate than any of the other five methods mentioned.
1544:
1545: Although ``Proof'' presents error expressions for both the FD and DSC-RSK methods for
1546: differentiating the Fourier basis function, its claims are not directly supported by
1547: these error expressions, and the claim about the superiority of the FD method over
1548: the DSC-RSK method is based on numerical experiments with a limited set of parameters,
1549: and on some informal arguments. Moreover, ``Proof'''s claim about the superiority of
1550: spectrally-weighted differences over the DSC-RSK method is not supported by any analysis.
1551:
1552: While we demonstrate that the DSC-RSK method outperforms the FD method for
1553: differentiating $e^{(ikx)}$ with fairly small wavenumbers, it may be the case
1554: that the FD method is superior with very small wavenumbers.
1555: In fact, the DSC-RSK method's less accurate performance in differentiating functions with
1556: {\it solely} very small wavenumbers is nothing new to us. It is for this reason that the DSC-RSK method was not
1557: proposed as another finite difference scheme. Instead, it was proposed as
1558: a local spectral method, to be used for problems that are difficult for both
1559: low order methods and global spectral methods. High frequency problems in flows,
1560: structural vibrations, and electromagnetic wave scattering and propagation are
1561: typical examples \cite{BaWeZh04,Lim,Weijsv,Zhaoijss,Zhou,Zhouijnmf}.
1562: The DSC algorithm had hardly been used in small stencils in its applications,
1563: except for a couple of cases in complying with referee's requests. Nevertheless,
1564: for certain problems, it could outperform the FD method with small stencils as shown in Section \ref{deriva}
1565: and many other examples. The analysis of spectral convergence of the DSC-RSK method was given for
1566: certain class of functions in \cite{Qian}.
1567:
1568: One may expect that for some physical problems where functions have Fourier spectra
1569: with amplitudes decaying exponentially,
1570: the ability to accurately approximate large wavenumbers is not important.
1571: In Section \ref{expon}, we present an example in which the function has
1572: exponentially decaying amplitudes in wavenumbers $k$, i.e., amplitudes in large wavenumbers
1573: are exponentially small comparing to those in small wavenumbers. Contrary to ``Proof'''s
1574: claims, the DSC-RSK method outperforms the FD method over all the stencils examined, and is up to
1575: $10^6$ times more accurate than the FD method and Boyd's spectrally weighted difference, the Sech method,
1576: with some large stencils. This example indicates that for six numerical methods examined,
1577: the dominant errors in derivatives originate from large wavenumbers. Therefore, a
1578: method that is not only accurate for low wavenumbers, but also able to deliver high
1579: accuracy for large wavenumbers, will be more useful for many physical problems whose
1580: Fourier spectra decay exponentially.
1581:
1582:
1583: Indeed, many problems examined in this work involve considerable amplitudes in either
1584: large wavenumbers, or a wide range of wavenumbers which include both small and large wavenumbers.
1585: These problems are not suitable for low order methods -- they require high order methods with relatively
1586: large stencils to achieve highly accurate results. In designing counterexamples, emphasis was not given to
1587: physical origins, partially because the claims of ``Proof'' have very little to do
1588: with applications, and partially because the DSC-RSK method has been applied to many
1589: practical problems in the past, in particular, to problems involving large wavenumbers
1590: \cite{BaWeZh04,Lim,Weijsv,Zhaoijss,Zhou,Zhouijnmf}. The importance of large wavenumbers,
1591: or `short waves', cannot be overemphasized in scientific and engineering applications.
1592: At the beginning of the new millennium, Zienkiewicz \cite{Zienkiewicz} listed the problem
1593: of short waves in acoustics, electromagnetics or surface wave applications as one of two unsolved
1594: computational problems. Babu{\v s}ka and coworkers \cite{Babuska,Babuska2,Deraemaeker,Ihlenburg1,Ihlenburg2}
1595: devoted much effort to constructing advanced numerical methods for high frequency waves in
1596: the Helmholtz equation. Engquist and his co-workers \cite{Engquist} proposed the segment projection
1597: method for the propagation of high-frequency waves in waveguides.
1598: Shu and Osher \cite{Shu} designed highly oscillatory problems in
1599: hyperbolic conservation laws to validate high-order shock-capturing methods.
1600: In space science and aerospace engineering, it is pertinent to quote Langley and Bardell \cite{Langley}
1601: from their review paper: ``...the prediction of medium to high frequency vibration levels
1602: is a particularly difficult task. ...there is no single technique
1603: which can be applied with confidence to all types of aerospace
1604: structures. Furthermore, there are certain problems of pressing
1605: practical concern for which it is not possible at present to make a
1606: reliable design prediction of high frequency vibration levels
1607: --- the prediction of on-orbit micro-vibration levels in satellite
1608: structures is arguably a problem of this type''.
1609:
1610:
1611: Like Boyd's Sech method, the DSC-RSK method has a free parameter $r$. Since ``Proof'''s
1612: claim was very strong, specifically including all $a < a_{\rm FD}$ (i.e., all $r >
1613: \frac{1} {\sqrt{2} a_{\rm FD}}$, see ``Proof'''s Abstract), we have chosen near optimal $r$
1614: values in this work. In practice, $r$ values can be optimized according to specific
1615: applications. For a given stencil, there is a quite wide range of $r$ values that deliver very good
1616: results. Hence, the DSC-RSK method is relatively robust. Although it takes some experience and
1617: understanding to choose a near optimal $r$ value, there is no need to know the exact solution a prior.
1618: If one wishes to obtain a near optimal $r$ value, one can
1619: analyze the Fourier frequency response of the numerical solution. A near optimal $r$ value can
1620: then be obtained by elevating (or decreasing) the first choice of $r$ if the Fourier frequency
1621: response involves very high frequency components (or solely low frequency components).
1622:
1623: The sole purpose of this paper is to analyze the validity of ``Proof''.
1624: Although the reported counterexamples are a very small fraction of counterexamples we know,
1625: we have no intention to claim the superiority of the DSC-RSK algorithm. Given the great
1626: diversity of problems with different physical origins, it is improper to claim
1627: that one method is superior to others {\it in general} without detailed analysis and
1628: comparison. However, for a given problem, one could show that some methods are more suitable
1629: than others. Case-by-case study is very important for validating new numerical methods.
1630: In view of the fact that detailed comparisons between the DSC-RSK method and many other
1631: numerical methods, including many other spectrally-weighted differences,
1632: have not been made anywhere, it is entirely
1633: possible to find another method that outperforms the DSC-RSK method for some examples studied in this work.
1634: It is also possible to come up with other examples for which the DSC-RSK method does not perform as well as the
1635: other five finite difference-type methods examined in this work. However, these possibilities
1636: do not affect the conclusion of the present paper, which demonstrates that the general statements
1637: in ``Proof'' are unfounded.
1638:
1639:
1640:
1641: \vspace*{1.5cm}
1642:
1643: \centerline{\bf Acknowledgments}
1644:
1645: {This work was supported in part by NSF Grant IIS-0430987.
1646: }
1647:
1648:
1649: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1650: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1651: %%% Start of Bibliography %%%
1652: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1653: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1654: \newcommand{\ncAddPaper} [7]{\bibitem{#1}#2, {\it #3}, #4, #5 (#7), pp. #6.}
1655: \newcommand{\ncAddBook} [5]{\bibitem{#1}#2, {\it #3}, #4, #5.}
1656: \newcommand{\ncAddPaperC}[6]{\bibitem{#1}#2, {\it #3}, #4, #5, (#6). }
1657: \newcommand{\ncAddProced}[6]{\bibitem{#1}#2, {\it #3}, in #4, #5, #6.}
1658:
1659: \ncAddPaper{Babuska} {I. Babu\v{s}ka}
1660: {Is the pollution effect of the FEM avoidable for the Helmholtz equation considering high wave numbers?}
1661: {SIAM J. Numer. Anal.} {34} {2392} {1997}
1662:
1663: \ncAddPaper{Babuska2}{I. Babu\v{s}ka, T. Strouboulis, S.K. Gangaraj and C.S. Upadhyay}
1664: {Pollution error in the h-version of the finite element method and the local quality of the recovered derivatives}
1665: {Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech. Engng.}{140} {1-37} {1997}
1666:
1667:
1668: \ncAddPaper{BaWeZh04} {G. Bao, G.W. Wei, and S. Zhao}
1669: {Numerical solution of the Helmholtz equation
1670: with high wave numbers} {Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng.}
1671: {59} {389-408} {2004}
1672:
1673: \ncAddPaper{Boyd91} {J.P. Boyd}
1674: {Sum-accelerated pseudospectral methods: the Euler-accelerated sinc
1675: algorithm}
1676: {Appl. Numer. Math.} {7} {287-296} {1991}
1677:
1678: \ncAddPaper{Boyd94} {J.P. Boyd}
1679: {Sum-accelerated pseudospectral methods: finite differences and
1680: sech-weighted differences}
1681: {Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engng.} {116} {1-11} {1994}
1682:
1683: \ncAddPaper{boyd06}{J.P. Boyd} {A proof that the discrete singular convolution
1684: (DSC)/Lagrange-distributed approximation function (LDAF) method is inferior
1685: to high order finite differences}
1686: {J. Comput. Phys.} {214} {538-549} {2006}
1687:
1688:
1689: \ncAddPaper{Campbell} {L. Campbell} {Sampling theorem for the Fourier transform of a distribution
1690: with bounded support}{SIAM J. Applied Math.} {16}{626-636}{1968}
1691:
1692:
1693: \ncAddPaper{Cody} {W.J. Cody}
1694: {Specfun -- A portable Fortran package of special function routines
1695: and test drivers}
1696: {ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software} {19} {22-32} {1993}
1697:
1698:
1699:
1700: \ncAddPaper{Deraemaeker} {A. Deraemaeker, I. Babu\v{s}ka and P. Bouillard}
1701: {Dispersion and pollution of the FEM solution for the Helmholtz equation in one, two and three dimensions}
1702: {Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng.} {46} {471-499} {1999}
1703:
1704: \ncAddPaper{Engquist}
1705: {B. Engquist, Q. Runborg and A.K. Tornberg}
1706: {High-frequency wave propagation by the segment projection method}
1707: {J. Comput. Phys.} {178} {373-390} {2002}
1708:
1709: \ncAddBook{Fornberg1}{B. Fornberg}{A Practical Guide to Pseudospectral Methods}
1710: {Cambridge University Press}{Cambridge, 1996}
1711:
1712: \ncAddPaper{Fornberg} {B. Fornberg}
1713: {Calculation of weights in finite difference formulas}
1714: {SIAM Rev.} {40} {685-691} {1998}
1715:
1716: \ncAddPaper{Hoffman}{D.K. Hoffman, N. Nayar, O.A. Sharafeddin and D.J. Kouri}
1717: {Analytic banded approximation for the discretized free propagator}
1718: {J. Phys. Chem-US} {95} {8299-8305} {1991}
1719:
1720:
1721: \ncAddPaper{Ihlenburg1} {F. Ihlenburg and I. Babu\v{s}ka}
1722: {Finite-element solution of the Helmholtz-equation with high wave-number. 1. The H-version of the FEM}
1723: {Comput. Math. Appl.} {30} {9-37} {1995}
1724:
1725: \ncAddPaper{Ihlenburg2} {F. Ihlenburg and I. Babu\v{s}ka}
1726: {Finite element solution of the Helmholtz equation with high wave number. 2. The h-p version of the FEM}
1727: {SIAM J. Numer. Aanal.} {34} {315-358} {1997}
1728:
1729: \ncAddPaper{Langley}{R.S. Langley and N.S. Bardell}
1730: {A review of current analysis capabilities
1731: applicable to the high frequency vibration
1732: prediction of aerospace structures}
1733: {The Aeronautical Journal} {102} {287-297}{1998}
1734:
1735: \ncAddPaper{Lim}
1736: {C.W. Lim, Z.R. Li and G.W. Wei} {DSC-Ritz method for the high frequency mode analysis of
1737: thick shallow shells}
1738: { Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng.} {62} {205-232} {2005}
1739:
1740:
1741: \ncAddBook{Press} {W.H. Press, S.A. Teukolsky, W.T. Vetterling and B.P. Flannery}
1742: {Numerical recipes in Fortran: the art of scientific computing}
1743: {Cambridge University Press} {1999}
1744:
1745: \ncAddPaper{Qian} {L.W. Qian}
1746: {On the regularized Whittaker-Kotel'nikov-Shannon sampling formula}
1747: {Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.} {131} {1169-1176} {2003}
1748:
1749: \ncAddPaper{Shu} {C.W. Shu and S. Osher}
1750: {Efficient implementation of essentially non-oscillatory shock-capturing schemes. 2.}
1751: {J. Comput. Phys.} {83} {32-78} {1989}
1752:
1753: \ncAddPaper{Theis} {M. Theis}
1754: { \"{U}ber eine interpolations formel von de la Vall\'{e}e Poussin}
1755: {Math. Z.} {3} {93-113} {1919}
1756:
1757: \ncAddPaper{weijcp99}{G.W. Wei}
1758: {Discrete singular convolution for solution of the Fokker--Planck
1759: equations}
1760: {J. Chem. Phys.}{110}{8930--8942}{1999}
1761:
1762:
1763: \ncAddPaper{weijpa}{G.W. Wei}
1764: {A unified approach for solving the Fokker-Planck equation}
1765: { J. Phys. A, Math. Gen.}
1766: {33} {4935-4953} {2000}
1767:
1768: \ncAddPaper{weiijnme} {G.W. Wei, Y.B. Zhao and Y. Xiang}
1769: {Discrete singular convolution and its application to the analysis of plates with internal supports.
1770: I Theory and algorithm} {Int. J. Numer. Methods Engng.} {55} {913-946} {2002}
1771:
1772:
1773: \ncAddPaper{Weijsv}
1774: {G.W. Wei, Y.B. Zhao, and Y. Xiang} {A novel approach for the analysis of high frequency vibrations}
1775: {J. Sound Vibration} {257} {207-246} {2002}
1776:
1777: \ncAddPaper{Zhaoijss}
1778: {Y.B. Zhao, G.W. Wei, and Y. Xiang}{Discrete singular convolution for the prediction of high frequency vibration of plates}
1779: {Int. J. Solids and Struct.} {39} {65-88} {2002}
1780:
1781: %\ncAddPaper{Yu}{S.N. Yu, S. Zhao, and G.W. Wei}
1782: % {Local spectral time splitting method for first- and second-order
1783: % partial differential equations}
1784: % { J. Comput. Phys.} {206} {727-780} {2005}
1785:
1786:
1787: \ncAddPaper{Zhou}
1788: {Y.C. Zhou and G.W. Wei}{High-resolution conjugate filters for the simulation of flows} {J. Comput. Phys.}
1789: {189} {150-179} {2003}
1790:
1791: \ncAddPaper{Zhouijnmf}{Y.C. Zhou, Y. Gu and G.W. Wei} {Shock-capturing with natural high frequency oscillations}
1792: {Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluid} {41} {1319-1338} {2003}
1793:
1794: \ncAddPaper{Zienkiewicz}{O. C. Zienkiewicz} {Achievements and some
1795: unsolved problems of the finite element method}
1796: {Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng.}
1797: { 47} {9-28} {2000}
1798:
1799:
1800: \end{thebibliography}
1801: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1802: %%% End of Bibliography %%%
1803: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1804:
1805: %\end{document}
1806:
1807:
1808: \end{document}
1809:
1810:
1811: