Abstract
Least-squares (LS) and discontinuous Petrov–Galerkin (DPG) finite element methods are an emerging methodology in the computational partial differential equations with unconditional stability and built-in
a posteriori error control. This special issue represents the state of the art
in minimal residual methods in the
Least-squares (LS) and discontinuous Petrov–Galerkin (DPG) finite element schemes are an attractive class of methods for the numerical treatment of partial differential equations. Among other advantages, they produce hermitian and positive-definite discrete systems of equations and enjoy a built-in a posteriori error estimator (based on an appropriate residual norm) on fairly general meshes.
The first-order system least-squares (FOSLS) method minimizes the
Using Newton–Raphson iterations, extensions to nonlinear problems are, in general, rather straightforward. However, rigorous results are missing for challenging problems like the Monge–Ampere equation. The paper [17] gives some insights into the numerical difficulties arising from the use of outer Newton-like linearizations for this equation. The sequence of first-order div-curl systems converges in a small number of steps, and optimal finite element convergence rates with respect to the mesh size are achieved for problems on convex domains with smooth and appropriately bounded data.
A further application of the least-squares approach consists in the so-called saddle-point least-squares (SPLS) discretization. A discrete test space is paired with a discrete trial space using the operator associated with the bilinear form in such a way that this pair automatically satisfies the discrete inf-sup condition. Extension of this methodology to PDEs with discontinuous coefficients arising in elliptic interface problems, via a non-conforming trial space is performed in [1]. They show that a higher-order approximation of the fluxes is achieved. Combined with the gradient-recovery technique and adaptive refinement, optimal discrete approximation spaces for the flux are constructed. The SPLS method may be put in duality with the DPG method as follows: while the DPG method starts with a trial space and designs an accompanying stable test space [7], the SPLS method does the reverse.
A program for DPG schemes having test function spaces that are automatically computable to guarantee stability was laid out in [8] and a fully automatic adaptive process was presented in [9].
Most DPG schemes are based on ultra-weak formulations. A characterization of interface spaces that connect the broken spaces to their unbroken counterparts is provided in [5]. DPG schemes lead to discretizations that deliver close to optimal
The DPG framework is also well suited for space-time discretizations and, in particular, well established for Schrödinger equations and acoustic waves. Avoiding explicit traces of the graph energy spaces, the authors of [10] show that a test space exists which guarantees discrete inf-sup stability for general wave equations. This analysis also transfers to general wave equations in heterogeneous media and provides robust estimates in the energy norm. The relation between the existence of Fortin operators and discrete stability of the practical DPG method is utilized to provide insights on analysis of both ideal and practical DPG methods.
Although the inherent a posteriori error control [4] is a major advantage of the DPG method, the analysis of a standard marking strategy for the stationary linear transport equation is a demanding task. Relationships with DPG error indicators enables a practical reliable and efficient error control in the trial norm for the computed DPG approximations as shown in [6]. A suitable adaptive mesh refinement strategy with Dörfler marking is designed and the contraction property for the errors in adaptive DPG approximations is proven.
The ability of the DPG method to deliver robust convergence for singular perturbation problem relies on its ability for resolving the (Riesz representation of the) residual approximated with the enriched test space technique. The authors of [16] use the convection-dominated diffusion problem with the adjoint graph norm, to study an alternative approximation of the residual using splines.
In order to consider a wider class of irregular solutions driven by possibly irregular sources, and minimize
the Gibbs effect inherent in the
One original motivation of the DPG methodology is the design of stable schemes by the computation of optimal test spaces in the class of Petrov–Galerkin schemes. For non-Hilbert Banach spaces, the idea is generalized in [12] for unsymmetric variational formulations of convection-diffusion-reaction equations in
DPG methods are more expensive than standard Galerkin methods, especially at the element level. One of the critical
bottlenecks comes with the integration of the Gram matrix corresponding to the test space inner product. The paper [13] presents algorithms for fast integration of Gram matrices corresponding to all exact sequence energy spaces:
Another challenge is concerned with the transformation of a global problem into a set of sub-problems. The paper [18] uses algebraic dual polynomials to set up the Steklov-Poincaré operator for the mixed formulation of the Poisson problem.
The paper [15] presents an update on Camellia, a user friendly software for a rapid implementation of the DPG method for a wide class of practical problems in 2D and 3D applications. Recent improvements are extended symbolic manipulations and added support for standard Galerkin formulations.
The papers of this special issue have been carefully selected by the editors on the occasion of the third workshop on minimum residual and least-squares finite element methods held at Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, USA.
References
[1] C. Bacuta and J. Jacavage, A non-conforming saddle point least squares approach for elliptic interface problems, Comput. Methods Appl. Math. 19 (2019), no. 3, 399–414. 10.1515/cmam-2018-0202Search in Google Scholar
[2] F. Bertrand, Z. Cai and E. Y. Park, Least-squares methods for elasticity and Stokes equations with weakly imposed symmetry, Comput. Methods Appl. Math. 19 (2019), no. 3, 415–430. 10.1515/cmam-2018-0255Search in Google Scholar
[3] P. Bochev and M. Gunzburger, Least-Squares Finite Element Methods, Springer, New York, 2009. 10.1007/b13382Search in Google Scholar
[4] C. Carstensen, L. Demkowicz and J. Gopalakrishnan, A posteriori error control for DPG methods, SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 52 (2014), no. 3, 1335–1353. 10.1137/130924913Search in Google Scholar
[5] C. Carstensen, L. Demkowicz and J. Gopalakrishnan, Breaking spaces and forms for the DPG method and applications including Maxwell equations, Comput. Math. Appl. 72 (2016), no. 3, 494–522. 10.1016/j.camwa.2016.05.004Search in Google Scholar
[6] W. Dahmen and R. Stevenson, Adaptive strategies for transport equations, Comput. Methods Appl. Math. 19 (2019), no. 3, 431–464. 10.1515/cmam-2018-0230Search in Google Scholar
[7] L. Demkowicz and J. Gopalakrishnan, A class of discontinuous Petrov–Galerkin methods. Part I: The transport equation, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 199 (2010), no. 23–24, 1558–1572. 10.1016/j.cma.2010.01.003Search in Google Scholar
[8] L. Demkowicz and J. Gopalakrishnan, A class of discontinuous Petrov–Galerkin methods. II: Optimal test functions, Numer. Methods Partial Differential Equations 27 (2011), no. 1, 70–105. 10.1002/num.20640Search in Google Scholar
[9] L. Demkowicz, J. Gopalakrishnan and A. H. Niemi, A class of discontinuous Petrov–Galerkin methods. Part III: Adaptivity, Appl. Numer. Math. 62 (2012), no. 4, 396–427. 10.1016/j.apnum.2011.09.002Search in Google Scholar
[10] J. Ernesti and C. Wieners, Space-time discontinuous Petrov–Galerkin methods for linear wave equations in heterogeneous media, Comput. Methods Appl. Math. 19 (2019), no. 3, 465–481. 10.1515/cmam-2018-0190Search in Google Scholar
[11] T. Führer, Superconvergent DPG methods for second-order elliptic problems, Comput. Methods Appl. Math. 19 (2019), no. 3, 483–502. 10.1515/cmam-2018-0250Search in Google Scholar
[12] P. Houston, I. Muga, S. Roggendorf and K. G. van der Zee, The convection-diffusion-reaction equation in non-Hilbert Sobolev spaces: A direct proof of the inf-sup condition and stability of Galerkin’s method, Comput. Methods Appl. Math. 19 (2019), no. 3, 503–522. 10.1515/cmam-2018-0198Search in Google Scholar
[13] J. Mora and L. Demkowicz, Fast integration of DPG matrices based on sum factorization for all the energy spaces, Comput. Methods Appl. Math. 19 (2019), no. 3, 523–555. 10.1515/cmam-2018-0205Search in Google Scholar
[14] I. Muga, M. J. W. Tyler and K. G. van der Zee, The discrete-dual minimal residual method (DDMRes) for weak advection-reaction problems in Banach spaces, Comput. Methods Appl. Math. 19 (2019), no. 3, 557–579. 10.1515/cmam-2018-0199Search in Google Scholar
[15] N. V. Roberts, Camellia: A rapid development framework for finite element solvers, Comput. Methods Appl. Math. 19 (2019), no. 3, 581–602. 10.1515/cmam-2018-0218Search in Google Scholar
[16] J. Salazar, J. Mora and L. Demkowicz, Alternative enriched test spaces in the DPG method for singular perturbation problems, Comput. Methods Appl. Math. 19 (2019), no. 3, 603–630. 10.1515/cmam-2018-0207Search in Google Scholar
[17] C. Westphal, A Newton div-curl least-squares finite element method for the elliptic Monge–Ampere equation, Comput. Methods Appl. Math. 19 (2019), no. 3, 631–643. 10.1515/cmam-2018-0196Search in Google Scholar
[18] Y. Zhanga, V. Jaina, A. Palhab and M. Gerritsma, The discrete Steklov–Poincaré operator using algebraic dual polynomials, Comput. Methods Appl. Math. 19 (2019), no. 3, 645–661. 10.1515/cmam-2018-0208Search in Google Scholar
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston