Arbitrary high-order linear structure-preserving schemes for the regularized long-wave equation
Extracted source text · arXiv 2105.03930
\documentclass[a4paper,11pt,fleqn]{article}
\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,amsthm,graphicx,subfigure,float,caption,epstopdf,tabularx,color, bm,amsfonts,epic}
\usepackage[top=1in, bottom=1in, left=1.25in, right=1.25in]{geometry}
\usepackage{appendix}
\usepackage{multirow}
\usepackage{diagbox}
\usepackage{appendix}
\newtheorem{shm}{Scheme}[section]
\allowdisplaybreaks
\newtheorem{thm}{Theorem}[section]
\newtheorem{shn}{Scheme}[section]
\newtheorem{lem}{Lemma}[section]
\newtheorem{coro}{Corollary}[section]
\newtheorem{den}{Definition}[section]
\newtheorem{ex}{Example}[section]
\newtheorem{rmk}{Remark}[section]
%\newtheorem{shm}{Method}[section]
\newtheorem*{prf}{Proof}
\numberwithin{equation}{section}
\renewcommand{\figurename}{\textbf{Fig.}}
\renewcommand{\tablename}{\textbf{Table.}}
\newcommand{\alertred}[1]{{\color[rgb]{0.95,0,0.05}{#1}}}
\newcommand{\alertgreen}[1]{{\color[rgb]{0,0.8,0.2}{#1}}}
\newcommand{\alertblue}[1]{{\color[rgb]{0.05,0.05,0.9}{#1}}}
%\usepackage[labelsep=period]{caption}
%\include{ref}
%----------------------
\newcommand*{\B}{\mathcal B} %Hamiltonian operator.
\newcommand{\cH}{\mathcal H}
\newcommand{\cI}{\mathcal I}
\newcommand*{\D}{\mathcal D}
\newcommand{\F}{\mathcal F}
\newcommand{\G}{\mathcal G}
\newcommand{\R}{\mathcal R}
\newcommand*{\m}{\phantom{m}}
\newcommand*{\sumli}{\sum\limits}
\newcommand*{\pa}{\partial}
%\usepackage{showlabels}
%\renewcommand{\showlabelfont}{\small\slshape\color{blue}}
\usepackage{indentfirst}
\graphicspath{{Fig}}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{document}
\title{Arbitrary high-order linear structure-preserving schemes for the regularized long-wave
equation}
\author{Chaolong Jiang$^{1,2}$, Xu Qian$^1$\footnote{Correspondence author. Email:
qianxu@nudt.edu.cn.}, Songhe Song$^1$, and Jin Cui$^{3,4}$ \\
{\small $^1$ Department of Mathematics, College of Liberal Arts and Science, }\\
{\small National University of Defense Technology, Changsha, 410073, P.R. China}\\
{\small $^2$ School of Statistics and Mathematics, }\\
{\small Yunnan University of Finance and Economics, Kunming 650221, P.R. China}\\
{\small $^3$ Department of Basic Sciences, Nanjing Vocational College of Information Technology,}\\
{\small Nanjing 210023, China} \\
{\small $^4$ Jiangsu Key Laboratory for Numerical Simulation of Large Scale Complex Systems,}\\
{\small School of Mathematical Sciences, Nanjing Normal University,}\\
{\small Nanjing 210023, P.R. China}\\
}
\date{}
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
In this paper, a class of arbitrarily high-order linear momentum-preserving and energy-preserving schemes are proposed, respectively, for solving the regularized long-wave
equation. For the momentum-preserving scheme, the key idea is based on the extrapolation/prediction-correction technique and the symplectic Runge-Kutta method in time, together with the standard Fourier pseudo-spectral method in space. We show that the scheme is linear, high-order, unconditionally stable and preserves the discrete momentum of the system. For the energy-preserving scheme, it is mainly based on the energy quadratization approach and the analogous linearized strategy used in the construction of the linear momentum-preserving scheme. The proposed scheme is linear, high-order and can preserve a discrete quadratic energy exactly. Numerical results are addressed to demonstrate the accuracy and efficiency of the proposed scheme. \\[2ex]
\textbf{AMS subject classification:} 65M06, 65M70\\[2ex]
\textbf{Keywords:} Momentum-preserving, energy-preserving, high-order, linear scheme, regularized long-wave
equation.
\end{abstract}
\section{Introduction}
In 1966, to describe long-wave behaviour, Peregrine \cite{Peregrine66jfm} first proposed the regularized long-wave (RLW) equation. Later on, Benjamin, Bona and Mahony \cite{BBM-72-PTRSL} used the RLW equation to model small amplitude long waves on the surface of water in a channel. Nowadays, { the RLW equation has been widely applied} in fluids, plasma, anharmonic lattice and low temperature nonlinear crystals, etc. In this paper, we consider the two-dimensional RLW equation, as follows:
\begin{align}\label{RLW-equation}
\left \{
\aligned
&\partial_tu({\bf x},t)+\alpha\partial_x u({\bf x},t)+\beta\partial_yu({\bf x},t)+{\color{blue} \alpha} u({\bf x},t)\partial_xu({\bf x},t)+{\color{blue} \beta} u({\bf x},t)\partial_yu({\bf x},t)\\
&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-\mu\partial_{xxt}u({\bf x},t)-\theta\partial_{yyt}u({\bf x},t)=0,\ {\bf x}\in\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^2,\ t>0,\\%\times \mathbb{R},\ d=1,2
&u({\bf x},0)=u_0({\bf x}),\ {\bf x}\in{\Omega}\subset\mathbb{R}^2,
\endaligned
\right.
\end{align}
where $t$ is the time variable, ${\bf x}$ is the spatial variable, $u:=u({\bf x},t)$ is the real-valued wave function, $\alpha,\beta,\mu>0$ and $\theta>0$ are given real constants, $u_0({\bf x})$ is a given initial data, $\Omega=[a,b]\times[c,d]$ is a bounded domain, and the periodic boundary condition is considered on $\partial\Omega$. %We assume $u(x,y,t)\to 0$ as $x\to \pm\infty$ and $y\to \pm\infty$.
According to \cite{Sun-Qin-2004-jcm}, when $u$ is assumed to be smooth, the RLW equation \eqref{RLW-equation} then can be rewritten as the classical Hamiltonian formulation
\begin{align}\label{RLW-Hamiltonian-system}
u_t=\mathcal S\frac{\delta\mathcal H}{\delta u},
\end{align}
where $\mathcal S = -(1-\mu\partial_{xx}-\theta\partial_{yy})^{-1}(\alpha\partial_x+\beta\partial_y)$ is a Hamiltonian operator and the Hamiltonian functional is
\begin{align}\label{RLW-Hamiltonian-energy}
\mathcal H(t) =\int_{\Omega}\Big(\frac{1}{2}u^2+\frac{1}{6} u^3\Big)d{\bf x},\ t\ge0.
\end{align}
Besides the Hamiltonian energy \eqref{RLW-Hamiltonian-energy}, {the RLW equation \eqref{RLW-equation} also conserves the mass} %\cite{Olver-79-MPPS}
\begin{align}\label{RLW-mass-energy}
\mathcal M(t)=\int_{\Omega}ud{\bf x}\equiv \mathcal M(0),\ t\ge0,
\end{align}
and momentum
\begin{align}\label{RLW-momentum}
\mathcal I(t) =\int_{\Omega}\Big(\frac{1}{2}u^2+\frac{\mu}{2} u_x^2+\frac{\theta}{2} u_y^2\Big)d{\bf x}\equiv \mathcal I(0),\ t\ge0.
\end{align}
The first attempts to investigate the numerical solution of the RLW equation can date back to 1966, when Peregrine \cite{Peregrine66jfm} constructed a finite difference scheme to
find the development of an undular bore for the equation. %In 1979, %Alexander and Morris \cite{Alexander-Morris-79-jcp} proposed a dissipative Galerkin method and some comparative numerical comparisons between the RLW equation and the KdV equation are presented.
Later on, various efficient and accurate numerical schemes were proposed, including the finite element methods \cite{AM-79-jcp,LHQjsc2018,MC-cpc-2012}, the pseudo-spectral method \cite{GCjcp-1988}, the meshless method \cite{DS-CPC-2011}, and so on. However, these schemes do not exactly preserve the momentum \eqref{RLW-momentum} nor the Hamiltonian energy \eqref{RLW-Hamiltonian-energy} of the RLW equation. It has been shown that, in the numerical simulation of solitary wave interactions for the RLW equation, the schemes that cannot preserve invariant quantities lead to an amplitude error which
grows with time and a quadratic perturbation in the phase \cite{DL-jpamg-2003}. Thus, developing numerical
schemes which can preserve the invariant quantities is necessary for accurately simulating the solitary wave of the RLW equation.
% multisymplectic method \cite{Cai-2009-cpc,Li-Sun-2013-mcm,Sun-Qin-2004-jcm}
Over the years, many attempts to develop momentum-preserving schemes have been done on the RLW equation. In \cite{CWG-1991-jcp}, Chang, et al. proposed a fully-implicit finite difference scheme which can satisfy the discrete analogue of the momentum. Meanwhile, it is proven rigorously in mathematics that the scheme is second-order accurate in time and space. { More recently, based on the technique
in \cite{Frasca-Caccia-IMA-2020}, Frasca-Caccia et al. \cite{Frasca-Caccia-AMC-2021} proposed a novel class of fully-implicit second-order schemes in time, which can preserve both mass and momentum. For the implicit scheme, a nonlinear equation shall be solved by using a nonlinear iterative method at each time step, and thus it may be time consuming.} In Ref. \cite{Zhang-amc-2005}, Zhang constructed a linear momentum-preserving scheme, in which a linear system is to be solved at every time step. Thus it is computationally much cheaper than that of the implicit one. Other linear momentum-preserving schemes can be found in \cite{HWG-DCDSB-2019,HWG-NMPDE-2020,JZS-anm-2020,KF-2009-JJIAM,WZC-07-amc,WDG-amc-2019}. Nevertheless, to our best knowledge, all of the existing linear momentum-preserving schemes can achieve at most second-order accurate in time.
The first aim of this paper is to present a novel paradigm for developing arbitrary high-order linear momentum-preserving (LMP) schemes for the RLW equation. We firstly reformulate the original equation into a skew-adjoint system. The nonlinear terms of the system are then approximated with an extrapolation/prediction-correction technique to obtain a linearized momentum-conserving system. We further apply the symplectic Runge-Kutta (RK) method in time and the Fourier pseudo-spectral method in space to the resulting linearized system and a fully discrete scheme is obtained, which is linear, high-order, and can preserve the discrete momentum exactly.
On the other hand, Hamiltonian energy is one of most famous geometric characteristics of the Hamiltonian systems. In the past few decades, there has been a series of studies on energy-preserving schemes for Hamiltonian systems, such as, but are not limited to, averaged vector field (AVF) methods \cite{LWQ14,QM08}, Hamiltonian Boundary Value Methods (HBVMs) \cite{BI16,BIT10} and energy-preserving collocation methods \cite{CH11bit,H10}, functionally fitted energy-preserving methods\cite{LWsina16,Miyatake-2014-bit} and energy-preserving continuous stage Runge-Kutta methods \cite{MB16,TS12}. These schemes can be easily extended to propose high-order energy-preserving schemes for the RLW equation, but the resulting schemes are fully implicit in which a large of nonlinear systems need to be solved at every time step and thus it may be very time consuming. Based on the discrete variational derivative method \cite{DO11,Furihata99}, Koide and Furihata \cite{KF-2009-JJIAM} constructed a linear energy-preserving scheme, however { the scheme is only second-order accurate in time.}
The second aim of this paper is to present a new strategy for proposing arbitrary high-order linear energy-preserving (LEP) schemes for the RLW equation. Based on the energy quadratization (EQ) approach \cite{GZYW18,YZW17,ZYGW17} and the analogous linearized idea used in the construction of the linear momentum-preserving scheme, we obtain a class of linear energy-preserving schemes. The proposed scheme is high-order, easy to be implemented and can exactly preserve the discrete quadratic energy.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section \ref{RLW-section-2}, high-order linear structure-preserving schemes for the RLW equation are proposed and their structure-preserving properties are investigated in details. Extensive numerical examples for the one dimensional (1D) and two dimensional (2D) RLW equation are shown to illustrate the accuracy and efficiency of the scheme, respectively. We draw some conclusions in Section \ref{RLW-section-4}.
\section{High-order linear structure-preserving scheme}\label{RLW-section-2}
Denote $t_{n}=n\tau,$ and $t_{ni}=t_n+c_i\tau,\ i=1,2,\cdots,s$, $n = 0,1,2,\cdots,$ where $\tau$ is the time step and $c_1,c_2,\cdots,c_s$ are distinct real numerbers (usually $0\le c_i\le 1$). The approximation of the function $u({\bf x},t)$ at points $t_n$ and $t_{ni}$ are denoted by $u^n$ and $u_{i}^n$, respectively. Similarly, the approximations of the function $q({\bf x},t)$ at points $t_n$ and $t_{ni}$ are denoted by $q^n$ and $q_{i}^n$, respectively.
\subsection{High-order linear momentum-preserving scheme}\label{RLW-section-2.1}
In this subsection, we propose a class of temporal high-order linear semi-discrete momentum-preserving schemes based on the combination of the extrapolation/prediction-correction approach with the symplectic RK method. To this end, we first rewrite \eqref{RLW-equation} into an equivalent form
\begin{align}\label{RLW-momentum-equation}
\mathcal Du_t=\mathcal G(u)u,\ \mathcal G(u)=-\big[\alpha\partial_x+\beta\partial_y
+\frac{{ \alpha}}{3}(u\partial_x+\partial_xu)+\frac{{\beta}}{3}(u\partial_y+\partial_yu)\big],
\end{align}
where $\mathcal D =1-\mu\partial_{xx}-\theta\partial_{yy}$ is a self-adjoint operator.%, the operators $u\partial_x+\partial_xu$ and $u\partial_y+\partial_yu$ satisfy $(u\partial_x+\partial_xu)u=u\partial_xu+\partial_x(u^2)$ and $(u\partial_y+\partial_yu)u=u\partial_yu+\partial_y(u^2)$, respectively.
We assume that the numerical solutions of $u$ in \eqref{RLW-momentum-equation} from $t=0$ to $t\le t_n$ are obtained and the Lagrange interpolating
polynomial (denoted by $\mathcal L_{MP}({\bf x},t)$) based on these solutions and the corresponding grid points in time are proposed.
Then we use $\mathcal L_{MP}({\bf x},t)$ to approximate the nonlinear terms of \eqref{RLW-momentum-equation} in $(t_n,t_{n+1}]$ and a linearized system is obtained, as follows:
\begin{align}\label{linear-RLW-momentum-equation}
\mathcal D\tilde u_t=\mathcal G(\mathcal L_{MP}({\bf x},t))\tilde u,
\end{align}
where $\tilde u:=\tilde u({\bf x},t)$ is an approximation of $u({\bf x},t)$ in $(t_n,t_{n+1}]$.
Here, wo should note that since $\mathcal G(u)$ is a skew-adjoint operator for all $u$, $\mathcal G(\mathcal L_{MP}({\bf x},t))$ is also skew-adjoint and the following result holds
\begin{align}
\frac{d}{dt}(\frac{1}{2}\mathcal D \tilde u,\tilde u)=(\mathcal D \tilde u_t,\tilde u)=(\mathcal G(\mathcal L_{MP}({\bf x},t))\tilde u,\tilde u)=0.
\end{align}
{However, we should note that the system \eqref{linear-RLW-momentum-equation} cannot conserve the mass. In fact, with noting the self-adjoint property of the operator $\mathcal D$ and the periodic boundary condition, we can deduce from \eqref{RLW-momentum-equation} that
\begin{align}
\frac{d}{dt}(\tilde u,1)&=(\tilde u_t,1)\nonumber\\
&=(\mathcal D^{-1}\mathcal G(\mathcal L_{MP}({\bf x},t))\tilde u,1)\nonumber\\
&=(\mathcal G(\mathcal L_{MP}({\bf x},t))\tilde u,\mathcal D^{-1}1)\nonumber\\
&=(\mathcal G(\mathcal L_{MP}({\bf x},t))\tilde u,1)\nonumber\\
&=-\frac{\alpha}{3}(\mathcal L_{MP}({\bf x},t)\partial_x\tilde u,1)-\frac{\beta}{3}(\mathcal L_{MP}({\bf x},t)\partial_y\tilde u,1)\nonumber\\
&\not=0,
\end{align}
where $(\cdot,\cdot)$ is the continuous inner production defined by $(u,v)=\int_{\Omega}uvd{\bf x}$ and $\|u\|^2=(u,u)$.}
Finally, we apply an RK method to the linearized system \eqref{linear-RLW-momentum-equation} in time to give a class of semi-discrete linear schemes for \eqref{RLW-momentum-equation}, as follows:
\begin{shn}\label{RLW-scheme-2.1} Let $b_i,a_{ij}(i,j=1,\cdots,s)$ be real numbers and let $c_i=\sum_{j=1}^sa_{ij}$. For the given $u^n$ and $u_{i}^{n,*}=\mathcal L_{MP}({\bf x},t_n+c_i\tau),i=1,\cdots,s$, an s-stage linear Runge-Kutta method is given by
\begin{align}\label{Linear-momentum-schemes}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&k_i^n=\mathcal D^{-1}\mathcal G(u_{i}^{n,*})u_{i}^n,\ u_{i}^n=u^n+\tau\sum_{j=1}^{s}a_{ij}k_j^n,\\
&u^{n+1}=u^n+\tau\sum_{i=1}^{s}b_ik_i^n,
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{align}
where $i=1,2,\cdots,s$.
\end{shn}
\begin{thm} \label{RLW-equation-th2.1} If the coefficients of the RK method satisfy
\begin{align}\label{RLW-RK-coeff}
b_ia_{ij}+b_ja_{ji}=b_ib_j, \ \forall \ i,j=1,\cdots,s,
\end{align}
{\bf Scheme 2.1} exactly preserves the semi-discrete momentum, as follows:
\begin{align}\label{RLW-equation-new-2.5}
I^{n+1}=I^n, \ I^n=\frac{1}{2}(u^n,\mathcal Du^n),\ n=0,1,2,\cdots.
\end{align}
\end{thm}
\begin{prf} It follows from the second equality of \eqref{Linear-momentum-schemes} that
\begin{align}\label{LMP-RLW-equation-2.4}
I^{n+1}-{I}^n&=\frac{1}{2}(u^{n+1},\mathcal Du^{n+1})-\frac{1}{2}(u^{n},\mathcal Du^{n})\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{2}(u^n+\tau\sum_{i=1}^{s}b_ik_i^n,\mathcal D(u^n+\tau\sum_{j=1}^{s}b_jk_j^n))-\frac{1}{2}(u^{n},\mathcal Du^{n})\nonumber\\
&=\frac{\tau}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{s}b_i(u^n,\mathcal Dk_i^n)+\frac{\tau}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{s}b_i(k_i^n,\mathcal Du^n)+\frac{\tau^2}{2}\sum_{i,j=1}^{s}b_ib_j(k_i^n,\mathcal Dk_j^n).
\end{align}
With noting
\begin{align}\label{LMP-RLW-equation-2.5}
\frac{\tau}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{s}b_i(u^n,\mathcal Dk_i^n)&=\frac{\tau}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{s}b_i(u_{i}^n-\tau\sum_{j=1}^{s}a_{ij}k_j^n,\mathcal Dk_i^n)\nonumber\\
&=\frac{\tau}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{s}b_i(u_{i}^n,\mathcal Dk_i^n)-\frac{\tau^2}{2}\sum_{i,j=1}^{s}b_ja_{ji}(k_i^n,\mathcal Dk_j^n).
\end{align}
Similarly, we have
\begin{align}\label{RLW-equation-2.6}
\frac{\tau}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{s}b_i(k_i^n,\mathcal Du^n)=\frac{\tau}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{s}b_i(k_i^n,\mathcal Du_{i}^n)-\frac{\tau^2}{2}\sum_{i,j=1}^{s}b_ia_{ij}(k_i^n,\mathcal Dk_j^n).
\end{align}
{We insert \eqref{LMP-RLW-equation-2.5} and \eqref{RLW-equation-2.6} into \eqref{LMP-RLW-equation-2.4} and then use the self-adjoint property of $\mathcal D$ to obtain}
\begin{align*}
I^{n+1}-{I}^n&=\frac{\tau}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{s}b_i\big[(u_{i}^n,\mathcal Dk_i^n)+(k_i^n,\mathcal Du_{i}^n)\big]+\frac{\tau^2}{2}\sum_{i,j=1}^{s}(b_ib_j-b_ia_{ij}-b_ja_{ji})(k_i^n,\mathcal Dk_j^n)\\
%&=\frac{\tau}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{s}b_i\big[(u_{ni},\mathcal Dk_i)+(k_i,\mathcal Du_{ni})\big]\\
&=\tau\sum_{i=1}^{s}b_i(u_{i}^n,\mathcal Dk_i^n)+\frac{\tau^2}{2}\sum_{i,j=1}^{s}(b_ib_j-b_ia_{ij}-b_ja_{ji})(k_i^n,\mathcal Dk_j^n).
%&=0,
\end{align*}
{The condition \eqref{RLW-RK-coeff} together with the equality}
\begin{align*}
(u_{i}^n,\mathcal Dk_i^n)=(u_{i}^n,\mathcal G(u_{i}^{n,*})u_{i}^n)=0
\end{align*}
implies $\ I^{n+1}={I}^n$. This completes the proof. \qed
\end{prf}
\begin{rmk}\label{RLW-rmk-2.1} Assume that the initial condition $u_0({\bf x})$ is sufficiently smooth, then it follows from \eqref{RLW-equation-new-2.5} that the numerical solution of {\bf Scheme 2.1} satisfies
\begin{align*}
\sqrt{\|u^n\|^2+\mu\|\partial_xu^n\|^2+\theta\|\partial_yu^n\|^2}=\sqrt{\|u_0({\bf x})\|^2+\mu\|\partial_xu_0({\bf x})\|^2+\theta\|\partial_yu_0({\bf x})\|^2}\le C,
\end{align*}
which implies that
\begin{align*}
\|u^n\|\le C,\ \|\partial_xu^n\|\le C,\ \|\partial_yu^n\|\le C,
\end{align*}
is uniformly bounded. Thus, {\bf Scheme 2.1} is unconditionally stable.% with respect to the initial value.
\end{rmk}
%It is clear to see that when the time step $\tau$ sufficiently small, the coefficient matrix of the linear equations \eqref{Linear-momentum-schemes} almost equates to unite matrix, which implies the {\bf Scheme \ref{RLW-scheme-2.1}} admits unique solution. Actually, we can obtain the following result.
%\begin{thm} \label{RLW-thm-2.2} If the RK coefficient matrix ${\bf A}=(a_{ij})$ is positive definite, {\bf Scheme 2.1} is uniquely solvable.
%
%
%\end{thm}
%
%\begin{prf} The homogeneous linear equation system of \eqref{Linear-momentum-schemes} is
%\begin{align}\label{proof-thm-2.4-2.9}
%\left\{
%\begin{aligned}
%&u_{i}^n=\tau\sum_{j=1}^{s}a_{ij}k_j^n,\\
%& \mathcal Dk_i^n=\mathcal G(u_{i}^{n,*})u_{i}^n,\ i=1,2,\cdots,s,
%\end{aligned}
%\right.
%\end{align}
%where $u_{i}^n$ and $k_i^n$ are unknowns.
%Then taking the continuous inner product of the second equation in \eqref{proof-thm-2.4-2.9} with $u_{i}^n$, we have
%\begin{align*}
%(\mathcal Dk_i^n,u_{i}^n)=(\mathcal G(u_{i}^{n,*})u_{i}^n,u_{i}^n)=0,
%\end{align*}
%which implies
%\begin{align*}
%\tau\sum_{i,j=1}^{s}a_{ij}(\mathcal Dk_i^n,k_j^n)=0 \iff \tau(\mathcal A{\bf k}^n,{\bf A}\mathcal A{\bf k}^n)=0,
%\end{align*}
%where $\mathcal D=\mathcal A\mathcal A^{*}$ and ${\bf k}^n=(k_1^n,k_2^n,\cdots,k_s^n)^T$. If ${\bf A}$ is positive definite, we can obtain
%\begin{align*}
%\mathcal A{\bf k}^n=0\Rightarrow \mathcal D{\bf k}^n=0\Rightarrow {\bf k}^n=0,
%\end{align*}
%which shows that the homogeneous linear equation system \eqref{proof-thm-2.4-2.9} has only zero solution. We finish the proof. \qed
%\end{prf}
%\begin{rmk} It follows from Remark \ref{LI-EI-rmk3.2} that the proposed scheme cannot preserve the discrete Hamiltonian energy \eqref{sm-Hamiltonian-energy-conservetion-law}. In addition, the nonlinear terms of the semi-discrete system \eqref{NLS-SP-SAV-reformulation} are explicitly discretized, thus our scheme cannot preserve the semi-discrete mass, as follows:
%\begin{align}\label{LI-EI-discerete-mass}
%\mathcal M^n=\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}u^nd{\bf x}.
%\end{align}
%
%\end{rmk}
To improve accuracy as well as stability of {\bf Scheme} \ref{RLW-scheme-2.1}, the prediction-correction strategy \cite{GZW2020jcp,GZW-20-SISC,SX-CiCP-2018} is employed to {\bf Scheme} \ref{RLW-scheme-2.1} and an $s$-stage linear Runge-Kutta prediction-correction schemes are obtained, as follows:
\begin{shn}\label{RLW-scheme-2.2} Let $b_i,a_{ij}(i,j=1,\cdots,s)$ be real numbers and let $c_i=\sum_{j=1}^sa_{ij}$. For the given $u^n$, an s-stage linear Runge-Kutta prediction-correction method is given by the following two steps:
1. Prediction: {set the iterative initial value $k_i^{n,0}=u^n$} and let $M>0$ be a given integer, for $m=0,1,\cdots,M-1$, we calculate $k_i^{n,m+1}$ using
{\begin{align}\label{Linear-momentum-P-schemes}
k_i^{n,m+1}=\mathcal D^{-1}\mathcal G(u_{i}^{n,m})u_{i}^{n,m},\ u_{i}^{n,m}=u^n+\tau\sum_{j=1}^{s}a_{ij}k_j^{n,m},\ i=1,2,\cdots,s.
\end{align}}
Then, we set $u_{i}^{n,*}=u_{i}^{n,M}$.
2. Correction: for the predicted value $u_{i}^{n,*},\ i=1,2,\cdots,s$, we obtain $u^{n+1}$ by
\begin{align}\label{Linear-momentum-C-schemes}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&k_i^n=\mathcal D^{-1}\mathcal G(u_{i}^{n,*})u_{i}^n,\ u_{i}^n=u^n+\tau\sum_{j=1}^{s}a_{ij}k_j^n,\\
%& k_i^n=-(1-\mu\partial_{xx}-\theta\partial_{yy})^{-1}\big[(\alpha\partial_x+\beta\partial_y)u_{i}^n+\frac{\gamma}{3}(u_{i}^{n,*}\partial_x+\partial_xu_{i}^{n,*})u_{i}^n\\
%&~~~~~~~+\frac{\delta}{3}(u_{i}^{n,*}\partial_y+\partial_yu_{i}^{n,*})u_{i}^n\big],\\
&u^{n+1}=u^n+\tau\sum_{i=1}^{s}b_ik_i^n,
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{align}
where $i=1,2,\cdots,s$.
\end{shn}
{\begin{rmk} It's worth noting that when the termination criterion for iteration is satisfied in \eqref{Linear-momentum-P-schemes}, we obtain the value $k_i^{n,M},\ i=1,2,\cdots,s$. Then, $u_{i}^{n,M}$ is updated by
\begin{align*}
u_{i}^{n,M}=u^n+\tau\sum_{j=1}^{s}a_{ij}k_j^{n,M},\ i=1,2,\cdots,s.
\end{align*}
\end{rmk}}
\begin{thm} \label{RLW-equation-th2.2} If the coefficients of {\color{blue} \eqref{Linear-momentum-C-schemes}} satisfy the condition \eqref{RLW-RK-coeff},
{\bf Scheme 2.2} exactly conserves the semi-discrete momentum \eqref{RLW-equation-new-2.5}.
\end{thm}
\begin{prf} The aim of the prediction step is to obtain a solution $u_{i}^{n,*},\ i=1,2,\cdots,s$ with the desirable accuracy as well as stability, which is then used to linearize the nonlinear system \eqref{RLW-momentum-equation}. Moreover, the proof of the semi-discrete momentum \eqref{RLW-equation-new-2.5} only depends on the skew-adjoint property of $\mathcal G(u_{i}^{n,*})$. Thus, it is similar to Theorem \ref{RLW-equation-th2.1}. For brevity, we omit it.\qed
\end{prf}
\begin{rmk} By the similar argument to Remark \ref{RLW-rmk-2.1}, we can show that {\bf Scheme 2.2} is unconditionally stable.
\end{rmk}
\begin{rmk}\label{RLW-RMK-2.4} {If we take $c_1,c_2,\cdots,c_s$ as the zeros of the $s$th shifted Legendre polynomial
\begin{align*}
\frac{d^s}{dx^s}\Big(x^s(x-1)^s\Big),
\end{align*}
the RK (or collocation) method based on these nodes has the order $2s$ and satisfies the condition \eqref{RLW-RK-coeff} (see Refs. \cite{ELW06,Sanzs88,SCbook94} and references therein). The RK coefficients for $s=2$ and $s=3$ (denoted by 4th-Gauss method and 6th-Gauss method, respectively) are given in Table \ref{Gauss-cllocation-method}} (e.g., see Ref. \cite{ELW06})
\begin{table}[H]
\centering
%\begin{tabular}{c|cc}
%${c}$ & ${A}$ \\
%\hline
%& ${b}^{T}$ \\
%\end{tabular}
%=
\begin{tabular}{c|cc}
$\frac{1}{2}-\frac{\sqrt{3}}{6}$ &$\frac{1}{4}$ & $\frac{1}{4}- \frac{\sqrt{3}}{6}$\\
$\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\sqrt{3}}{6}$ &$\frac{1}{4}+ \frac{\sqrt{3}}{6}$ &$\frac{1}{4}$ \\
\hline
&$\frac{1}{2}$&$\frac{1}{2}$
\end{tabular}\\
\vspace{1mm}
\begin{tabular}{c|ccc}
$\frac{1}{2}-\frac{\sqrt{15}}{10}$ &$\frac{5}{36}$ & $\frac{2}{9}-\frac{\sqrt{15}}{15}$ &$\frac{5}{36}- \frac{\sqrt{15}}{30}$\\
$\frac{1}{2}$ &$\frac{5}{36}+ \frac{\sqrt{15}}{24}$ & $\frac{2}{9}$ & $\frac{5}{36}- \frac{\sqrt{15}}{24}$ \\
$\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\sqrt{15}}{10}$ & $\frac{5}{36}+ \frac{\sqrt{15}}{30}$ & $\frac{2}{9}+\frac{\sqrt{15}}{15}$ & $\frac{5}{36}$ \\
\hline
& $\frac{5}{18}$ & $\frac{4}{9}$ & $\frac{5}{18}$
\end{tabular}
\caption{Gauss methods of order 4 and 6.}\label{Gauss-cllocation-method}
\end{table}
\end{rmk}
\begin{rmk}\label{RLW-RMK-2.5} As is well-known, the interpolation polynomial will be highly oscillating if too
many interpolation points are chosen, which makes the extrapolation
not sufficiently accurate. Inspired by Refs. \cite{GZW2020jcp,LS2020jsc}, we only choose $t_{n-1}$, $t_{n-1}+c_i\tau,\ i=1,2,\cdots,s$ and $t_n$ as the interpolation points in this paper. For example, for the 6th-Gauss method, we set the interpolation points $(t_{n-1},u^{n-1}),\ (t_{n-1}+c_1\tau,u_1^{n-1}),\ (t_{n-1}+c_2\tau,u_2^{n-1})$ and $(t_{n-1}+c_3\tau,u_3^{n-1})$, the Lagrange interpolating polynomial at $t_n+c_i\tau,\ i=1,2,3$ is given \cite{BWC2020arixv,LGZJSC-2021}, as follows:
\begin{align}\label{RLW-LI-2.12}
&u_1^{n,*}=(6\sqrt{15}-26)u^{n-1}+(-5\sqrt{15}/3+11)u_1^{n-1}+(16\sqrt{15}/3-24)u_2^{n-1}\nonumber\\
&~~~~~~~~+(-29\sqrt{15}/3+40)u_3^{n-1},\\\label{RLW-LI-2.13}
&u_2^{n,*}=-17u^{n-1}+(5\sqrt{15}/2+\frac{35}{2})u_1^{n-1}-17u_2^{n-1}+(-5\sqrt{15}/2+\frac{35}{2})u_3^{n-1},\\\label{RLW-LI-2.14}
&u_3^{n,*}=(-6\sqrt{15}-26)u^{n-1}+(29\sqrt{15}/3+40)u_1^{n-1}+(-16\sqrt{15}/3-24)u_2^{n-1}\nonumber\\
&~~~~~~~~+(5\sqrt{15}/3+11)u_3^{n-1}.
\end{align}
In particular, when the 6th-Gauss method and the above $u_i^{n,*},\ i=1,2,3$ are used for {\bf scheme 2.1}, the resulting scheme may achieve fourth-order accuracy in time \cite{LS2020jsc} and we denote it as 4th-LMPS. In addition, 4th-LMPS is a linear scheme, thus we obtain the starting values $u_1^1,\ u_2^1$ and $u_3^1$ by using the 6th-Gauss method for \eqref{RLW-momentum-equation}.
\end{rmk}
\begin{rmk} { Here, we introduce two notations, as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item 4th-LMP-PCS: using 4th-Gauss method to {\bf Scheme \ref{RLW-scheme-2.2}};
\item 6th-LMP-PCS: applying 6th-Gauss method to {\bf Scheme \ref{RLW-scheme-2.2}}.
\end{itemize}
In addition, we should note that, to the best of our knowledge, the theoretical result on the choice of iteration step $M$ is missing. From our numerical experience, 4th-LMP-PCS can achieve fourth-order accurate in time by choosing $M= 3$, and 6th-LEP-PCS can arrive at sixth-order accurate in time by choosing $M=5$.}
\end{rmk}
%Meanwhile, the interpolating
%polynomial of $u_N({\bf x},t)$ of order 4 in \cite{BWC2020arixv} is employed for 4th-LMPS and 4th-LEPS.
\subsection{High-order linear energy-preserving scheme}\label{RLW-section-2.2}
In this section, we propose a class of temporal high-order linear semi-discrete energy-preserving schemes for the RLW equation \eqref{RLW-equation} by using the EQ idea \cite{GZYW18,JWG19,JCW19jsc,YZW17,ZYGW17} and the similar linearized strategy mentioned as above. To this end, we start with introducing an auxiliary variable
\begin{align*}
q:=q({\bf x},t)=u^2.
\end{align*}
Then, the Hamiltonian energy \eqref{RLW-Hamiltonian-energy} is rewritten into the following quadratic form
\begin{align}\label{IEQ-RLW-energy}
\mathcal E(t) =\int_{\Omega}\Big(\frac{1}{2}u^2+\frac{1}{6} uq\Big)d{\bf x},\ t\ge0.
\end{align}
Based on the energy variational principle, we obtain the following EQ reformulated system from \eqref{RLW-Hamiltonian-system}
\begin{align}\label{RLW-IEQ-reformulation1}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&\partial_t u=\mathcal S\bigg (u+\frac{1}{6}q+\frac{1}{3}u^2\bigg), \\
&\partial_t q=2u\partial_tu,
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{align}
{with the consistent initial conditions
\begin{align}
u({\bf x},0)=u_0({\bf x}),\ q({\bf x},0)=(u_0({\bf x}))^2.
\end{align}}
~~~~{We then define the operator $\mathcal L$ as $\mathcal Lw \overset{Def}{=}(\mathcal S u)w\overset{Def}{=}\mathcal S\big(u\cdot w\big)$, and the adjoint operator of
$\mathcal L$ is denoted as $\mathcal L^*$, which satisfies $\mathcal L^*w=-u\cdot \mathcal Sw$. Denoting
\begin{equation*}
\Phi=\begin{bmatrix}
u\\
q
\end{bmatrix},
\end{equation*}
we obtain
\begin{align}
\frac{\delta\mathcal E}{\delta\Phi}=\begin{bmatrix}\vspace{2mm}
\frac{\delta\mathcal E}{\delta u}\\
\frac{\delta\mathcal E}{\delta q}
\end{bmatrix}:=\begin{bmatrix}\vspace{2mm}
u+\frac{1}{6}q\\
\frac{1}{6}u
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{align}
Then we rewrite \eqref{RLW-IEQ-reformulation1} into
\begin{align}\label{RLW-IEQ-reformulation-1}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&\partial_t u=\mathcal S\frac{\delta\mathcal E}{\delta u}+2\mathcal L\frac{\delta\mathcal E}{\delta q}, \\
&\partial_t q=-2\mathcal L^*\frac{\delta\mathcal E}{\delta u}+4u\cdot \mathcal L\frac{\delta\mathcal E}{\delta q},
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{align}
which is equivalent to
\begin{align}\label{RLW-IEQ-reformulation-2}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&\partial_t u=\mathcal S\frac{\delta\mathcal E}{\delta u}+2\mathcal L\frac{\delta\mathcal E}{\delta q}, \\
&\partial_t q=-2\mathcal L^*\frac{\delta\mathcal E}{\delta u}-4\mathcal L^{*}\mathcal S^{-1}\mathcal L\frac{\delta\mathcal E}{\delta q}.
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{align}
Thus,}
%The system \eqref{RLW-IEQ-reformulation1} is equivalent to
%\begin{align}\label{RLW-IEQ-reformulation2}
%\left\{
%\begin{aligned}
%&\partial_t u=\mathcal S\frac{\delta\mathcal E}{\delta u}+2\mathcal L\frac{\delta\mathcal E}{\delta q}, \\
%&\partial_t q=-2\mathcal L^*\frac{\delta\mathcal E}{\delta u}+4\mathcal L^*\mathcal S^{-1} \mathcal L\frac{\delta\mathcal E}{\delta q},
%\end{aligned}
%\right.
%\end{align}
{the system \eqref{RLW-IEQ-reformulation1} can be reformulated into an energy-conserving system, as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{IEQ-skew-system}
\Phi_t=\mathcal M(\Phi) \frac{\delta \mathcal E}{\delta \Phi},
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal M(\Phi)$ is the following skew-adjoint operator
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal M(\Phi) =\begin{bmatrix}
\mathcal S &2\mathcal L\\
-2\mathcal L^* &-4\mathcal L^{*}\mathcal S^{-1} \mathcal L
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{equation*}
}
%with the consistent initial condition
%\begin{align}\label{eq2.6}
%u({\bf x},0)=u_0({\bf x}), \ q({\bf x},0)=u_0({\bf x}).
%\end{align}
\begin{thm}\label{LI-E-NLS-thm-2.1} The IEQ reformulation \eqref{RLW-IEQ-reformulation1} preserves the following quadratic energy
\begin{align}\label{RLW-Q-energy}
\frac{d}{dt} \mathcal{E}(t)=0,\ \mathcal{E}(t)=\int_{\Omega}\Big(\frac{1}{2}u^2+\frac{1}{6} uq\Big)d{\bf x},\ t\ge0.
\end{align}
\end{thm}
\begin{prf} According to \eqref{IEQ-RLW-energy} and \eqref{RLW-IEQ-reformulation1} together with the skew-adjoint property of $\mathcal S$, we have
\begin{align*}
\frac{d}{dt} \mathcal{E}(t)&=\int_{\Omega}\Big(u\partial_tu+\frac{1}{6} q\partial_tu+\frac{1}{6} u\partial_tq\Big)d{\bf x}\\
&=\int_{\Omega}\Big[(u+\frac{1}{6} q+\frac{1}{3} u^2)\partial_tu\Big]d{\bf x}\\
&=\int_{\Omega}\big(u+\frac{1}{6} q+\frac{1}{3} u^2\big)\mathcal S\big (u+\frac{1}{6}q+\frac{1}{3}u^2\big)d{\bf x}\\
&=0.
\end{align*}
This completes the proof. \qed
\end{prf}
Similarly, we assume that the numerical solutions of $u$ in \eqref{RLW-IEQ-reformulation1} from $t=0$ to $t\le t_n$ are obtained and the Lagrange interpolating
polynomial (denoted by $\mathcal L_{EP}({\bf x},t)$) based on these solutions and the corresponding grid points in time are proposed.
Then we apply the Lagrange interpolating
polynomial $\mathcal L_{EP}({\bf x},t)$ to the nonlinear terms of \eqref{RLW-IEQ-reformulation1} and a linearized energy-conserving system in $(t_n,t_{n+1}]$ is obtained, as follows:
\begin{align}\label{linear-RLW-IEQ-equation}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&\partial_t \tilde u=\mathcal S\bigg (\tilde u+\frac{1}{6}\tilde q+\frac{1}{3}\mathcal L_{EP}({\bf x},t)\tilde u\bigg), \\
&\partial_t \tilde q=2\mathcal L_{EP}({\bf x},t)\partial_t\tilde u,\ i=1,2,\cdots,s,
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{align}
where $\tilde u:=\tilde u({\bf x},t)$ and $\tilde q:=\tilde q({\bf x},t)$ {\color{blue} are} approximations of $u({\bf x},t)$ and $q({\bf x},t)$ in $(t_n,t_{n+1}]$, respectively. % Here, $u_{ni}^{*}$ is an (explicit) extrapolation approximation to $u({\bf x},t_n+c_i\tau),\ i=1,2,\cdots,s$ defined as above.
Next, we apply an RK method to the linearized system \eqref{linear-RLW-IEQ-equation} to give a class of semi-discrete linear RK methods for solving \eqref{RLW-IEQ-reformulation1}, as follows:
\begin{shn}\label{RLW-scheme-2.3} Let $b_i,a_{ij}\ (i,j=1,\cdots,s)$ be real numbers and let $c_i=\sum_{j=1}^sa_{ij}$. For the given $(u^n,q^n)$ and $u_{i}^{n,*}=\mathcal L_{EP}({\bf x},t_n+c_i\tau),\ i=1,\cdots,s$, an s-stage linear Runge-Kutta method is given by
\begin{align}\label{E-linear-RLW-IEQ-equation1}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&k_i^n=\mathcal S\bigg (u_{i}^n+\frac{1}{6}q_{i}^n+\frac{1}{3}u_{i}^{n,*} u_{i}^n\bigg),\ u_{i}^n=u^n+\tau\sum_{j=1}^{s}a_{ij}k_j^n,\\
&q_{i}^n=q^n+\tau\sum_{j=1}^{s}a_{ij}l_j^n,\ l_i^n=2u_{i}^{n,*}k_i^n,\ i=1,2,\cdots,s,
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{align}
and $(u^{n+1},q^{n+1})$ is then updated by
\begin{align}\label{E-linear-RLW-IEQ-equation2}
u^{n+1}=u^n+\tau\sum_{i=1}^{s}b_ik_i^n,\ q^{n+1}=q^n+\tau\sum_{i=1}^{s}b_{i}l_i^n.
\end{align}
\end{shn}
\begin{thm}\label{RLW-equation-th2.3} If the coefficients of \eqref{E-linear-RLW-IEQ-equation1} and \eqref{E-linear-RLW-IEQ-equation2} satisfy \eqref{RLW-RK-coeff}, {\bf Scheme 2.3} preserves the following semi-discrete energy
\begin{align}\label{semi-RLW-Q-energy}
E^{n+1}= E^n,\ {E}^n=\int_{\Omega}\Big(\frac{1}{2}(u^n)^2+\frac{1}{6} u^nq^n\Big)d{\bf x},\ n=0,1,2,\cdots,.
\end{align}
\end{thm}
\begin{prf}According to \eqref{E-linear-RLW-IEQ-equation1} and \eqref{E-linear-RLW-IEQ-equation2}, we have
\begin{align*}
{E}^{n+1}- E^n&=\frac{1}{2}(u^{n+1},u^{n+1})+\frac{1}{6} (u^{n+1},q^{n+1})-\frac{1}{2}(u^{n},u^{n})-\frac{1}{6} (u^{n},q^{n})\nonumber\\
&=\frac{\tau}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{s}b_i((u^n,k_i^n)+(k_i^n,u^n))+\frac{\tau^2}{2}\sum_{i,j=1}^{s}b_ib_j(k_i^n,k_j^n)\nonumber\\
&~~~+\frac{\tau}{6}\sum_{i=1}^{s}b_i\big((u^n,l_i^n)+ (k_i^n,q^n)\big)+\frac{\tau^2}{6}\sum_{i,j=1}^{s}b_ib_j(k_i^n,l_j^n)\nonumber\\
&=\tau\sum_{i=1}^{s}b_i\big((u_i^n,k_i^n)+\frac{1}{6}(u_i^n,l_i^n)+\frac{1}{6}(k_i^n,q_i^n)\big)\nonumber\\
&+\frac{\tau^2}{2}\sum_{i,j=1}^{s}(b_ib_j-b_ia_{ij}-b_ja_{ji})(k_i^n,k_j^n)+\frac{\tau^2}{6}\sum_{i,j=1}^{s}(b_ib_j-b_ia_{ij}-b_ja_{ji})(k_i^n,l_j^n).
\end{align*}
With the condition \eqref{RLW-RK-coeff} and the skew-adjoint property of $\mathcal S$, we have
\begin{align*}
(u_i^n,k_i^n)+\frac{1}{6}(u_i^n,l_i^n)+\frac{1}{6}(k_i^n,q_i^n)&=(k_i^n,u_i^n)+\frac{1}{6}(u_i^n,2u_{i}^{n,*}k_i^n)+\frac{1}{6}(k_i^n,q_i^n)\\
&=(k_i^n,u_i^n)+\frac{1}{6}(k_i^n,2u_{i}^{n,*}u_i^n)+\frac{1}{6}(k_i^n,q_i^n)\\
&=(k_i^n,u_i^n+\frac{1}{3}u_{i}^{n,*}u_i^n+\frac{1}{6}q_i^n)\\
&{=(\mathcal S(u_i^n+\frac{1}{3}u_{i}^{n,*}u_i^n+\frac{1}{6}q_i^n),u_i^n+\frac{1}{3}u_{i}^{n,*}u_i^n+\frac{1}{6}q_i^n)}\\
&=0,
\end{align*}
which implies $ E^{n+1}={E}^n$.
This completes the proof. \qed
\end{prf}
%\section{The construction of the high-order linearly implicit exponential integrator}\label{Sec:LI-EP:3}
%In this section, a class of high-order linearly implicit energy-preserving integrators are proposed for the SAV reformulated system \eqref{NLS-SAV-reformulation}. For simplicity, in this paper, we shall introduce our schemes in two space dimension, i.e., $d=2$ in \eqref{NLS-SAV-reformulation}. Generalizations to $d=1$ or $3$ are straightforward.
%\begin{rmk}When the time step $\tau$ is sufficiently small, the {\bf Scheme \ref{RLW-scheme-2.3}} admits unique solution. This is because the coefficient matrix of the linear equations \eqref{Linear-momentum-schemes} almost equates to unite matrix,
%
%\end{rmk}
Our next object is to apply the prediction-correction strategy to {\bf Scheme \ref{RLW-scheme-2.3}} and a class of high-order linear RK prediction-correction schemes are given, as follows:
\begin{shn}\label{RLW-scheme2.4} Let $b_i,a_{ij}(i,j=1,\cdots,s)$ be real numbers and let $c_i=\sum_{j=1}^sa_{ij}$. For given $u^n$, an s-stage linear Runge-Kutta prediction-correction method is given by
1. Prediction: set the iterative initial value $k_i^{n,0}=u^n$ and let $M>0$ be a given integer, for $m=0,1,\cdots,M-1$, we calculate $k_i^{n,m+1}$ using
\begin{align*}%\label{linear-RLW-IEQ-equation1}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&k_i^{n,m+1}=\mathcal S\bigg (u_{i}^{n,m}+\frac{1}{6}q_{i}^{n,m}+\frac{1}{3}(u_{i}^{n,m})^2\bigg),\ u_{i}^{n,m}=u^n+\tau\sum_{j=1}^{s}a_{ij}k_j^{n,m},\\
& q_{i}^{n,m}=q^n+\tau\sum_{j=1}^{s}a_{ij}l_j^{n,m},\ l_i^{n,m}=2u_{i}^{n,m}k_i^{n,m},\ i=1,2,\cdots,s.
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{align*}
Then, we set $u_{i}^{n,*}=u_{i}^{n,M}$.
2. Correction: for the predicted value $u_{i}^{n,*}$, we obtain the $(u^{n+1},q^{n+1})$ by
\begin{align}\label{linear-RLW-IEQ-equation1}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&k_i^n=\mathcal S\bigg (u_{i}^n+\frac{1}{6}q_{i}^n+\frac{1}{3}u_{i}^{n,*} u_{i}^n\bigg),\ u_{i}^n=u^n+\tau\sum_{j=1}^{s}a_{ij}k_j^n,\\
& q_{i}^n=q^n+\tau\sum_{j=1}^{s}a_{ij}l_j^n,\ l_i^n=2u_{i}^{n,*}k_i,\ i=1,2,\cdots,s,
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{align}
and $(u^{n+1},q^{n+1})$ is then updated by
\begin{align}\label{linear-RLW-IEQ-equation2}
u^{n+1}=u^n+\tau\sum_{i=1}^{s}b_ik_i^n,\ q^{n+1}=q^n+\tau\sum_{i=1}^{s}b_{i}l_i^n.
\end{align}
\end{shn}
\begin{thm}\label{RLW-equation-th2.4} If the coefficients of \eqref{linear-RLW-IEQ-equation1} and \eqref{linear-RLW-IEQ-equation2} satisfy \eqref{RLW-RK-coeff}, {\bf Scheme 2.4} satisfies the semi-discrete energy \eqref{semi-RLW-Q-energy}.
\end{thm}
\begin{prf}The proof is similar to Theorem \ref{RLW-equation-th2.3}, thus, for brevity, we omit it.\qed
\end{prf}
\begin{rmk} { We should note that the proofs of Theorems \ref{RLW-equation-th2.1}-\ref{RLW-equation-th2.3} follow along similar lines of that given by Sanz-Serna in Ref. \cite{Sanzs88} and Sanz-Serna and Calvo in Ref. \cite{SCbook94}, respectively, that symplectic
Runge-Kutta methods conserve quadratic invariants.}
\end{rmk}
\begin{rmk} We should note that, the quadratic energy \eqref{RLW-Q-energy} is only equivalent to the original Hamiltonian energy \eqref{RLW-Hamiltonian-energy} in the continuous level, which implies that the proposed scheme cannot preserve the folowing original energy
\begin{align}\label{semi-discrete-RLW-Hamiltonian-energy}
H^n =\int_{\Omega}\Big(\frac{1}{2}(u^n)^2+\frac{1}{6} (u^n)^3\Big)d{\bf x},\ n=0,1,2,\cdots,.
\end{align}
\end{rmk}
Last but not least, to improve readability, we give a summary on the construction of the proposed schemes. There are two key steps:
\begin{itemize}
\item[Step 1:] We linearize the nonlinear system \eqref{RLW-momentum-equation} and \eqref{IEQ-skew-system} by using the extrapolation technique or prediction-correction strategy for the structure matrix $\mathcal G(u)$ and $\mathcal M(\Phi)$, respectively, and a linearized conservative system is obtained, which satisfies a quadratic invariant;
\item[Step 2:] The linearized system is then discretized by the symplectic RK method and a linear momentum-preserving scheme or energy-preserving is proposed, respectively.
\end{itemize}
\begin{rmk} The schemes obtained by using 4th-Gauss method and 6th-Gauss method (see Remark \ref{RLW-RMK-2.4}) to {\bf Scheme \ref{RLW-scheme2.4}} are denoted by 4th-LEP-PCS and 6th-LEP-PCS, respectively. In our numerical experiments, we choose $M=3$ and $M=5$ for 4th-LEP-PCS and 6th-LEP-PCS, respectively, so that 4th-LEP-PCS and 6th-LEP-PCS can achieve at fourth-order accurate and sixth-order accurate in time, respectively.
\end{rmk}
\begin{rmk} As {stated} in Remark \ref{RLW-RMK-2.5}, we also choose $t_{n-1},$ $t_{n-1}+c_i\tau,\ i=1,2,\cdots,s$ and $t_n$ as the interpolation points. %In particular, for the 6th-Gauss method, the Lagrange interpolating polynomial at $t_n+c_i\tau,\ i=1,2,3$ (i.e., $u_i^{n,*},\ i=1,2,3$) are obtained by using \eqref{RLW-LI-2.12}-\eqref{RLW-LI-2.14}.
We denote the scheme obtained by using the 6th-Gauss method and the Lagrange interpolating polynomial \eqref{RLW-LI-2.12}-\eqref{RLW-LI-2.14} to {\bf scheme 2.3} as 4th-LEPS, which may achieve fourth-order accurate in time, and similarly, we obtain the starting values $u_1^1,\ u_2^1$ and $u_3^1$ by using the 6th-Gauss method for \eqref{RLW-IEQ-reformulation1}.
\end{rmk}
\begin{rmk}
In general, a numerical scheme is called momentum/energy-preserving scheme if it can preserve the
corresponding momentum/energy conservation law exactly after temporal and spatial full-discretizations. Thus, it is very important to choose suitable
spatial discretization. Actually, we shall pay special attention to the following aspects on the spatial discretization:
\begin{itemize}
\item preserves symmetric property of the operator $\mathcal D$;
\item preserves skew-symmetric property of the operators $\mathcal G(u_{i}^{n,*})$ and $\mathcal S$ for the momentum-preserving scheme and energy-preserving scheme, respectively;
\item the spatial accuracy is comparable to that of the time-discrete discretization.
\end{itemize}
Based on these facts and the periodic boundary condition , the standard Fourier pseudo-spectral
method is a fine choice for the spatial discretization because of its high-order accuracy and the FFT technique. For more details on the Fourier pseudo-spectral method, please refer to Refs. \cite{CQ01,ST06}.
\end{rmk}
\section{Numerical examples}\label{RLW-section-3}
In the rest of this section, we present extensive numerical performances of the proposed schemes for solving the RLW equation in 1D and 2D.
On one hand, { we show numerical errors and computational efficiencies of the proposed schemes and in the 1D case, we compare our schemes with the linear-implicit Crank-Nicolson momentum-ponserving scheme (LCN-MPS) \cite{HWG-NMPDE-2020} and linear mass- and energy-ponserving scheme (LEPS) \cite{KF-2009-JJIAM}, respectively.}
On the other hand, we apply the proposed schemes to simulate some interesting phenomena, such as
the elastic interaction of two solitary waves, the development of an undular bore and the Maxwellian pulse solitary waves. Here, we should note that LEPS also conserves a modified discrete energy and in our computation, we use the Fourier pseudo-spectral method instead of the finite difference method in space. Moreover, to quantify the numerical errors on the solution, we introduce the error functions
\begin{align*}
&e_{\infty}(t_n)=\|u(\cdot,t_n)-u^n\|_{l^{\infty}},\ e_{2}(t_n)=\|u(\cdot,t_n)-u^n\|_{l^{2}}.
\end{align*}
All simulations are performed on a Win10 machine with Intel Core i7 and 32GB
using MATLAB R2015b.
%\ e_{\mathcal M}(t_n)=|\mathcal M^n-\mathcal M^0|, \\
%&e_{\mathcal I}(t_n)=|\mathcal I^n-\mathcal I^0|,\ e_{\mathcal E}(t_n)=|\mathcal E^n-\mathcal E^0|,\ e_{\mathcal H}(t_n)=|\mathcal H^n-\mathcal H^0|,
%where $\|\cdot\|_{l^2}$ and $\|\cdot\|_{l^{\infty}}$ represent the discrete $L^2$-norm and $L^{\infty}$-norm, respectively.
%In addition, in our computations, we choose $M= 3$ in the prediction step for 4th-LEPS and 4th-LEP-PCS, while for 6th-LEPS and 6th-LEP-PCS, we set $M=5$.
%For the more details on the construction of $u_N({\bf x},t)$, please refer to \cite{GZW2020jcp,LS2020jsc}.
\subsection{RLW equation in 1D}
We first consider the RLW equation in 1D given by \cite{BBM-72-PTRSL,Olver-79-MPPS,Peregrine66jfm}
\begin{align}\label{RLW-1d-equation}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&\partial_tu(x,t)+\alpha\partial_xu(x,t)+\alpha u(x,t)\partial_x u(x,t)-\mu\partial_{xxt}u(x,t)=0,\ x\in\Omega,\\
&u(x,0)=3c\text{sech}^2(k(x-x_0)),\ x\in{\Omega},
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{align}
which possesses the following solitary wave solution
\begin{align}
u(x,t)=3c\text{sech}^2(k(x-vt-x_0)),\ x\in\Omega,\ t\ge0,
\end{align}
where $k=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{ c}{\mu(1+ c)}}$ and $v=\alpha(1+ c)$.
%Here, the initial condition is chose from the exact solution.
\begin{table}[H]
\tabcolsep=9pt
\footnotesize
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.1}
\centering
\caption{{Numerical errors and convergence rates for the different schemes with various time steps and the Fourier node $2048$ at $T=1$.}}\label{Tab:RLW-equation:1}
\begin{tabular*}{\textwidth}[h]{@{\extracolsep{\fill}} c c c c c c}\hline
{Scheme\ \ } &{$\tau$} &{$e_{2}(t_n=1)$} &{order}& {$e_{\infty}(t_n=1)$}&{order} \\ %% µÚ1 ÐÐ
\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{{LCN-MPS\cite{HWG-NMPDE-2020}}} &{$\frac{1}{100}$}& {1.684e-03}&{-} &{1.117e-03} & {-}\\[1ex]%&{2.8}\\
{} &{$\frac{1}{200}$}& {4.251e-04}&{1.986} &{2.812e-04} & {1.990}\\[1ex] %&{4.3} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
{} &{$\frac{1}{400}$}& {1.068e-04}&{1.992} &{7.052e-05} &{1.995} \\[1ex]%\hline
{} &{$\frac{1}{800}$}& {2.677e-05}&{1.996} &{1.766e-05} &{1.998} \\
\multirow{4}{*}{{LEPS\cite{KF-2009-JJIAM}}} &{$\frac{1}{100}$}& {1.164e-03}&{-} &{5.086e-04} & {-}\\[1ex]%&{2.8}\\
{} &{$\frac{1}{200}$}& {2.913e-04}&{1.998} &{1.275e-04} & {1.996}\\[1ex] %&{4.3} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
{} &{$\frac{1}{400}$}& {7.287e-05}&{1.999} &{3.190e-05} &{1.998} \\[1ex]%\hline
{} &{$\frac{1}{800}$}& {1.822e-05}&{2.000} &{7.980e-06} &{1.999} \\\hline
% \multirow{4}{*}{3rd-LEPS} &{$\frac{1}{100}$}& {4.072e-05}&{-} &{2.763e-05} & {-}\\[1ex]%&{2.8}\\
% {} &{$\frac{1}{200}$}& {5.103e-06}&{2.996} &{3.457e-06} & {2.998}\\[1ex] %&{4.3} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
% {} &{$\frac{1}{400}$}& {6.388e-07}&{2.998} &{4.323e-07} &{2.999} \\[1ex]%\hline
% {} &{$\frac{1}{800}$}& {7.991e-08}&{2.999} &{5.406e-07} &{3.000} \\\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{4th-LMPS} &{$\frac{1}{100}$}& {5.646e-07}&{-} &{3.781e-07} & {-}\\[1ex]%&{2.8}\\
{} &{$\frac{1}{200}$}& {3.540e-08}&{3.995} &{2.365e-08} & {3.998}\\[1ex] %&{4.3} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
{} &{$\frac{1}{400}$}& {2.216e-09}&{3.998} &{1.479e-09} &{3.999} \\[1ex]%\hline
{} &{$\frac{1}{800}$}& {1.386e-10}&{3.999} &{9.244e-11} &{4.000} \\
\multirow{4}{*}{4th-LEPS} &{$\frac{1}{100}$}& {5.942e-07}&{-} &{3.794e-07} & {-}\\[1ex]%&{2.8}\\
{} &{$\frac{1}{200}$}& {3.724e-08}&{3.996} &{2.372e-08} & {3.999}\\[1ex] %&{4.3} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
{} &{$\frac{1}{400}$}& {2.331e-09}&{3.998} &{1.483e-09} &{3.999} \\[1ex]%\hline
{} &{$\frac{1}{800}$}& {1.458e-10}&{3.999} &{9.272e-11} &{4.000} \\%\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{4th-LMP-PCS} &{$\frac{1}{100}$}& {1.288e-07}&{-} &{7.957e-08} & {-}\\[1ex]%&{2.8}\\
{} &{$\frac{1}{200}$}& {8.060e-09}&{3.999} &{4.967e-09} & {4.002}\\[1ex] %&{4.3} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
{} &{$\frac{1}{400}$}& {5.040e-10}&{3.999} &{3.102e-10} &{4.001} \\[1ex]%\hline
{} &{$\frac{1}{800}$}& {3.151e-11}&{4.000} &{1.938e-11} &{4.001} \\
\multirow{4}{*}{4th-LEP-PCS} &{$\frac{1}{100}$}& {1.246e-07}&{-} &{8.185e-08} & {-}\\[1ex]%&{2.8}\\
{} &{$\frac{1}{200}$}& {7.775e-09}&{4.002} &{5.115e-09} & {4.000}\\[1ex] %&{4.3} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
{} &{$\frac{1}{400}$}& {4.856e-10}&{4.001} &{3.196e-10} &{4.000} \\[1ex]%\hline
{} &{$\frac{1}{800}$}& {3.033e-11}&{4.001} &{1.999e-11} &{3.999} \\\hline%\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{6th-LMP-PCS} &{$\frac{1}{10}$}& {2.092e-06}&{-} &{1.318e-06} & {-}\\[1ex]%&{2.8}\\
{} &{$\frac{1}{20}$}& {3.412e-08}&{5.938} &{2.044e-08} & {6.011}\\[1ex] %&{4.3} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
{} &{$\frac{1}{40}$}& {5.454e-10}&{5.967} &{3.185e-10} &{6.004} \\[1ex]%\hline
{} &{$\frac{1}{80}$}& {8.622e-12}&{5.983} &{4.952e-12} &{6.006} \\
\multirow{4}{*}{6th-LEP-PCS} &{$\frac{1}{10}$}& {2.282e-06}&{-} &{1.484e-06} & {-}\\[1ex]%&{2.8}\\
{} &{$\frac{1}{20}$}& {3.564e-08}&{6.000} &{2.357e-08} & {5.976}\\[1ex] %&{4.3} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
{} &{$\frac{1}{40}$}& {5.561e-10}&{6.002} &{3.704e-10} &{5.992} \\[1ex]%\hline
{} &{$\frac{1}{80}$}& {8.682e-12}&{6.001} &{5.798e-12} &{5.998} \\\hline%\hline
\end{tabular*}
\end{table}
First of all, we verify the proposed schemes can achieve high-order accuracy in time. We set the computational domain $\Omega=[-100,100]$ and take parameters $\alpha=\mu=1,\ x_0=0$ and $c=3$. Then, we fix the Fourier node $2048$ so that spatial errors play no role here. We calculate the numerical errors between the numerical solution and { the exact solution} and convergence rates with various time steps at $T=1$, which are summarized in Tab. \ref{Tab:RLW-equation:1}. It is clear to see that (i) LCN-MPS and LEPS are second-order accurate in time and their numerical errors are much larger than others; (ii) 4th-LMPS, 4th-LEPS, 4th-LMP-PCS and 4th-LEP-PCS are all fourth-order accurate in time; (iii) 6th-LMP-PCS and 6th-LEP-PCS are sixth-order accurate in time {indeed}; (iv) the error provided by 6th-LMP-PCS is the smallest and LCN-MPS admits the largest numerical error.
Subsequently, we display the global $l^2$-
and $l^{\infty}$- errors (i.e., $e_2(t_n)$ and $e_{\infty}(t_n)$) of $u$ versus the CPU time using the eight
numerical schemes with the Fourier node 3072 and various time steps at $T=10$, respectively, in Fig. \ref{RLW1d-CPU}. For a given global error, we observe that {(i) the cost of LCN-MPS is the most expensive;} (ii) the cost of 6th-LEP-PCS is the cheapest; (iii) the costs of 4th-LEPS and 4th-LEP-PCS are much cheaper than the ones provided by 4th-LMPS and 4th-LMP-PCS, respectively.
{Furthermore, we also examine how errors accumulate over a long time by taking parameters $\alpha=\mu=1,\ x_0=0$ and $c=1$ with the time step $\tau=0.1$ and the Fourier node 2048, respectively. The results are summarized in Fig. \ref{RLW1d-error}, which implies that the solution error of the proposed schemes grows linearly with time. Here, we set the computational domain $\Omega=[-250,250]$ to prevent the significant error introduced by the boundary.}
Next, we consider to test the { robustness} of the proposed schemes in simulating evolution of the soliton as a large time step $\tau=0.35$ is chosen. The results are summarized in Fig. \ref{RLW1d-soliton}. In particular, we also display the reference solution obtained by LEPS with the small time step $\tau=0.001$ in Fig. \ref{RLW1d-soliton} (h).
We find that (i) LCN-MPS, 4th-LEPS, 4th-LMPS and 4th-LEP-PCS { fail to} capture the waveform of the soliton; (ii) although 4th-LMP-PCS and 6th-LEP-PCS can capture the amplitude and waveform, but the small disturbance emergences; (iii) 6th-LMP-PCS can simulate the soliton well. Based on these observations, we find the following facts: (i) the sixth-order schemes are more robust than the fourth-order ones at the large time step; (ii) the scheme proposed by the prediction-correction strategy shows more robust than the one provided by the extrapolation technique; (iii)
the linear momentum-preserving scheme is more robust than the linear energy-preserving at large time step. It is remarked that the result provided by LEPS is omitted since the computing result is below-up.
%\begin{rmk} We should note that when we set $M=4$, 4th-LMP-PCS can accurately simulate the soltion, however, the result provided by 4th-LEP-PCS {\color{blue} still shows a small disturbance}.
%\end{rmk}
Finally, we consider the interaction of two solitary waves of the RLW equation in 1D \eqref{RLW-1d-equation} by choosing the initial condition
\begin{align}
u(x,0)=3c_1\text{sech}^2(k_1(x-x_1))+3c_2\text{sech}^2(k_2(x-x_2)), \ x\in\Omega,
\end{align}
where $k_1=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{c_1}{\mu(1+c_1)}}$ and $k_2=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{c_2}{\mu(1+c_2)}}$.
We take the computational domain $\Omega=[-60,300]$ with a periodic boundary condition and take parameters $\alpha=1,\ \mu=1,\ x_1=-20,\ x_2=15, c_1=1,$ and $c_2=0.5$, respectively.
In the implementation, we choose the time step $\tau=0.01$ and the Fourier node 1024, respectively. The evolution of the solitary waves is summarized Fig. \ref{RLW1d-fig-1}. We observe that an interaction occurs when the larger one is catching up with the smaller one and eventually passes it. We point out that the profile of $u$
calculated using other schemes are similar to Fig. \ref{RLW1d-fig-1}, thus for brevity, we omit them here. In addition, we further visualize the mass, momentum, Hamiltonian energy and quadratic energy residuals (i.e., $|M^n-M^0|,|I^n-I^0|,|H^n-H^0|$ and $|E^n-E^0|$, hereafter), which are summarized in Fig. \ref{RLW1d-fig-2}. We
can draw the following observations: (i) 4th-LEPS, 4th-LEP-PCS and 6th-LEP-PCS preserve the discrete mass and quadratic energy exactly, and they cannot preserve the discrete momentum exactly but the residuals reduce as the accuracy of the scheme is improved; (ii) LCN-MPS, 4th-LMPS, 4th-LMP-PCS and 6th-LMP-PCS preserve discrete momentum up to the machine precision and conserve the discrete mass approximately; (iii) LEPS preserves the discrete mass and all of the proposed schemes cannot preserve the discrete Hamiltonian energy exactly.
{Moreover, inspired by \cite{Frasca-Caccia-AMC-2021}, we treat the numerical solution of 6th-LMP-PCS on a finer grid: $\tau=0.001$ and Fourier node 2048 at $T=30$ as the reference exact solution and some comparisons with the solutions of the different schemes on a much coarser grid: $\tau=0.1$ and Fourier node 1024 at $T=30$ are summarized in Tab. \ref{Tab:RLW-equation:2}. It is clear to observe: (i) the momentum errors of LCN-MPS, 4th-LMPS, 4th-LMP-PCS and 6th-LMP-PCS are preserved to machine accuracy and LEPS, 4th-LEPS, 4th-LEP-PCS and 6th-LEP-PCS can preserve the discrete mass exactly; (ii) all of the schemes cannot preserve the discrete Hamiltonian energy exactly and the energy error provided by 6th-LMP-PCS is the smallest; (iii) the solution error of 6th-LEP-PCS is the smallest and the one provided by LEPS is the largest.}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{70mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{1d_RWL_CPU1-eps-converted-to}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{70mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{1d_RWL_CPU2-eps-converted-to}
\end{minipage}
%\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
%\includegraphics[width=60mm]{1d_NLS_fig4.eps}
%\end{minipage}
%\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
%\includegraphics[width=60mm]{1d_NLS_fig5.eps}
%\end{minipage}
\caption{{ The numerical error versus the CPU time using the different numerical schemes with the various time steps and the Fourier node 3072 at $T=10$ for the RLW equation in 1D \eqref{RLW-1d-equation}.}}\label{RLW1d-CPU}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{65mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{1d_error1-eps-converted-to}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{65mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{1d_error2-eps-converted-to}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{65mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{1d_error3-eps-converted-to}
\end{minipage}
%\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
%\includegraphics[width=60mm]{1d_NLS_fig4.eps}
%\end{minipage}
%\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
%\includegraphics[width=60mm]{1d_NLS_fig5.eps}
%\end{minipage}
\caption{{The numerical error using the different numerical schemes with the time step $\tau=0.1$ and the Fourier node 2048 at $T=100$ for the RLW equation in 1D \eqref{RLW-1d-equation}.}}\label{RLW1d-error}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{70mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{1d_RWL_Cfig1-eps-converted-to}
\caption*{(a) 4th-LEPS}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{70mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{1d_RWL_Cfig4-eps-converted-to}
\caption*{(b) 4th-LMPS}
\end{minipage}
\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{70mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{1d_RWL_Cfig2-eps-converted-to}
\caption*{(c) 4th-LEP-PCS}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{70mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{1d_RWL_Cfig5-eps-converted-to}
\caption*{(d) 4th-LMP-PCS}
\end{minipage}
\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{70mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{1d_RWL_Cfig3-eps-converted-to}
\caption*{(e) 6th-LEP-PCS}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{70mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{1d_RWL_Cfig6-eps-converted-to}
\caption*{(f) 6th-LMP-PCS}
\end{minipage}
\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{70mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{1d_RWL_Cfig0-eps-converted-to}
\caption*{{(g) LCN-MPS}}
\end{minipage}
\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{70mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{1d_exact_fig-eps-converted-to}
\caption*{{(h) The reference solution obtained by LEPS with the time step $\tau=0.001$}}
\end{minipage}
\caption{ The profile of $u$ provided by the proposed schemes with the time step $\tau=0.35$ and the Fourier node 2048 at $T=70$ for the RLW equation in 1D \eqref{RLW-1d-equation}.}\label{RLW1d-soliton}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\begin{minipage}[t]{75mm}
\includegraphics[width=70mm]{1d_RWL_fig1-eps-converted-to}
\end{minipage}
\caption{ The profile of $u$ provided by 6th-LEP-PCS over time interval $[0,150]$ with the time step $\tau=0.01$ and the Fourier node 1024, respectively, for the RLW equation in 1D \eqref{RLW-1d-equation}.}\label{RLW1d-fig-1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{RLW1d_example2_M-eps-converted-to}
%\caption*{(a) Mass}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{RLW1d_example2_Mom-eps-converted-to}
%\caption*{(b) Momentum}
\end{minipage}
\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{RLW1d_example2_H-eps-converted-to}
%\caption*{(c) Hamiltonian energy}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{RLW1d_example2_E-eps-converted-to}
%\caption*{(d) Quadratic energy}
\end{minipage}
\caption{{The residuals on discrete conservation laws using the different numerical schemes with the time step $\tau=0.01$ and the Fourier node 1024, respectively, for the one-dimensional RLW equation \eqref{RLW-1d-equation}.}}\label{RLW1d-fig-2}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[H]
\tabcolsep=9pt
\footnotesize
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.1}
\centering
\caption{{The interaction of two solitary waves of the RLW equation: the time step $\tau=0.1$ and the Fourier node 1024 at $T=30$.}}\label{Tab:RLW-equation:2}
\begin{tabular*}{\textwidth}[h]{@{\extracolsep{\fill}} c c c c c c}\hline
{Scheme\ \ } &{$|M^n-M^0|$} &{$|H^n-H^0|$} &{$|I^n-I^0|$}& {$e_2(t_n=30)$} \\[2ex] %% µÚ1 ÐÐ
\hline
{LCN-MPS} &{2.564e-02}& {5.256e-05}&{3.411e-13} &{1.004e-02} \\[2ex]%&{2.8}\\
{LEPS} &{3.553e-14}& {7.590e-04}&{6.679e-04} &{1.741e-02}\\[2ex] %&{4.3} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
{4th-LMPS} &{7.313e-05}& {1.630e-08}&{2.132e-14} &{1.318e-04} \\[2ex]%\hline
{4th-LEPS} &{1.776e-14}& {1.316e-04}&{1.325e-04} &{2.462e-04} \\[2ex]
{4th-LMP-PCS} &{1.067e-04}& {5.684e-09}&{2.132e-14} &{1.092e-04} \\[2ex] %&{4.3} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
{4th-LEP-PCS} &{2.487e-14}& {2.068e-05}&{2.092e-05} &{8.816e-05} \\[2ex]
{6th-LMP-PCS} &{6.968e-08}& {1.378e-12}&{5.684e-14} &{2.947e-08}\\[2ex]
{6th-LEP-PCS} &{3.553e-15}& {1.060e-08}&{1.065e-08} &{2.727e-08} \\[2ex]\hline
\end{tabular*}
\end{table}
%{\bf Example 3:} Finally,
%\begin{align}
%u(x,0)=\exp(-(x-7)^2), \ x\in\mathbb{R},
%\end{align}
%
%
%
%\begin{figure}[H]
%\centering
%\begin{minipage}[t]{70mm}
%\includegraphics[width=80mm]{1d_RWL_fig2.eps}
%\end{minipage}
%\caption{ The profile of $u$ provided by 4th-LEPS over time interval $[0,150]$ with the time step $\tau=0.1$ and the Fourier node 1024, respectively, for the RLW equation in 1D \eqref{RLW-1d-equation}.}\label{RLW1d-fig-1}
%\end{figure}
%
%
%\begin{figure}[H]
%\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
%\includegraphics[width=60mm]{RLW1d_example3_M.eps}
%\end{minipage}
%\caption{(a) Mass}
%\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
%\includegraphics[width=60mm]{RLW1d_example3_Mom.eps}
%\end{minipage}
%\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
%\includegraphics[width=60mm]{RLW1d_example3_H.eps}
%\end{minipage}
%\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
%\includegraphics[width=60mm]{RLW1d_example3_E.eps}
%\end{minipage}
%\caption{ The residuals on discrete conservation laws using the different numerical schemes with the time step $\tau=0.1$ and the Fourier node 1024, respectively, for the RLW equation in 1D \eqref{RLW-1d-equation}.}\label{RLW1d-fig-2}
%\end{figure}
\subsection{RLW equation in 2D}
In this subsection, we firstly investigate temporal accuracies and computational efficiencies of the proposed schemes for two-dimensional RLW equation \eqref{RLW-equation}, respectively.
We consider the computational domain $\Omega=[0,2\pi]^2$ and fix the parameters $\alpha=1, \beta=1, \theta=1$ and $\mu=1$.
Although the two-dimensional RLW equation \eqref{RLW-equation} admits soliton solution \cite{Huang-AMM-2002}, we shall point out that even a large enough computational domain cannot prevent the periodic
boundary condition from introducing a significant (aliasing) error relative to the whole
space problem. Thus, we choose the initial profiles as
\begin{align}
u(x,y,0)=(1+\sin(x))(1+\sin(y)),
\end{align}
and the exact solution at $T=10$ is generated by 6th-LEP-PCS with the time step $\tau=0.001$ and the Fourier node $128\times 128$, respectively.
The $l^2$ and $l^{\infty}$ -errors and convergence rates with various time steps and the Fourier node $128\times 128$ at $T=10$ are summarized in Tab. \ref{Tab:2dRLW-equation:1}. As shown in the Table, we observe that (i) 4th-LMPS, 4th-LEPS, 4th-LMP-PCS and 4th-LEP-PCS can achieve fourth-order accurate in time, and 6th-LMP-PCS and 6th-LEP-PCS are sixth-order accurate in time; (ii) the error provided by 6th-LEP-PCS is the smallest and the error provided by 4th-LEPS is the largest; (iii) 4th-LEP-PCS admits much smaller numerical error than 4th-LMP-PCS.
{Moreover, some comparisons with the solutions of the different schemes on a much coarser grid: the time step $\tau=0.2$ and the Fourier node $64\times 64$ at $T=50$ are given in Tab. \ref{Tab:2dRLW-equation:2}, where the exact solution at $T=50$ is obtained by 6th-LEP-PCS on a finer grid: $\tau=0.001$ and the Fourier node $128\times 128$. It is clear to see that (i) 4th-LEPS, 4th-LEP-PCS and 6th-LEP-PCS can preserve the discrete mass exactly and the mass errors provided by the momentum-preserving schemes are reduced as the accuracy of the scheme is improved; (ii) 4th-LMPS, 4th-LMP-PCS and 6th-LMP-PCS conserve the discrete momentum (up to rounding error); (iii) the solution error of 6th-LEP-PCS is the smallest and the one provided by 4th-LMPS is the largest.}
In Fig. \ref{RLW2d-CPU}, we display the global $l^2$ and $l^{\infty}$ -errors (i.e., $e_2(t_n)$ and $e_{\infty}(t_n)$) of $u$ versus the CPU time using the proposed schemes with the Fourier node $128\times 128$ and various time steps at $T=10$, respectively. For a given global error, we can observe that (i) the cost of 6th-LEP-PC is the cheapest and the cost of 4th-LMPS is most expensive; (ii) the costs of 4th-LEP-PCS and 4th-LEPS are much cheaper than the ones provided by 4th-LMP-PCS and 4th-LMPS, respectively; (iii) the cost provided by the linear energy-preserving scheme is much cheaper than the linear momentum-preserving one of the same order.
\begin{table}[H]
\tabcolsep=9pt
\footnotesize
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.1}
\centering
\caption{{Numerical errors and convergence rates for the different schemes with various time steps and the Fourier node $128\times 128$ at $T=10$.}}\label{Tab:2dRLW-equation:1}
\begin{tabular*}{\textwidth}[h]{@{\extracolsep{\fill}} c c c c c c}\hline
{Scheme\ \ } &{$\tau$}&{$e_{2}(t_n=10)$} &{order}& {$e_{\infty}(t_n=10)$}&{order} \\ %% µÚ1 ÐÐ
\hline
% \multirow{4}{*}{3rd-LMPS} &{$\frac{1}{100}$}& {4.517e-05}&{-} &{2.362e-05} & {-}\\[1ex]%&{2.8}\\
% {} &{$\frac{1}{200}$}& {5.652e-06}&{2.998} &{2.968e-06} & {2.992}\\[1ex] %&{4.3} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
% {} &{$\frac{1}{400}$}& {7.068e-07}&{2.999} &{3.720e-07} &{2.996} \\[1ex]%\hline
% {} &{$\frac{1}{800}$}& {8.838e-08}&{3.000} &{4.657e-08} &{2.998} \\
% \multirow{4}{*}{3rd-LEPS} &{$\frac{1}{100}$}& {4.072e-05}&{-} &{2.763e-05} & {-}\\[1ex]%&{2.8}\\
% {} &{$\frac{1}{200}$}& {5.103e-06}&{2.996} &{3.457e-06} & {2.998}\\[1ex] %&{4.3} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
% {} &{$\frac{1}{400}$}& {6.388e-07}&{2.998} &{4.323e-07} &{2.999} \\[1ex]%\hline
% {} &{$\frac{1}{800}$}& {7.991e-08}&{2.999} &{5.406e-07} &{3.000} \\\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{4th-LMPS} &{$\frac{1}{10}$}& {5.190e-04}&{-} &{2.228e-04} & {-}\\[1ex]%&{2.8}\\
{} &{$\frac{1}{20}$}& {4.308e-05}&{3.590} &{1.808e-05} & {3.623}\\[1ex] %&{4.3} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
{} &{$\frac{1}{40}$}& {3.009e-06}&{3.839} &{1.246e-06} &{3.859} \\[1ex]%\hline
{} &{$\frac{1}{80}$}& {1.977e-07}&{3.928} &{8.133e-08} &{3.937} \\
\multirow{4}{*}{4th-LEPS} &{$\frac{1}{10}$}& {1.022e-03}&{-} &{3.564e-04} & {-}\\[1ex]%&{2.8}\\
{} &{$\frac{1}{20}$}& {6.140e-05}&{4.057} &{2.215e-05} & {4.008}\\[1ex] %&{4.3} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
{} &{$\frac{1}{40}$}& {3.796e-06}&{ 4.016} &{1.394e-06} &{3.990} \\[1ex]%\hline
{} &{$\frac{1}{80}$}& {2.364e-07}&{4.005} &{8.759e-08} &{3.992} \\%\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{4th-LMP-PCS} &{$\frac{1}{10}$}& {5.648e-04}&{-} &{2.442e-04} & {-}\\[1ex]%&{2.8}\\
{} &{$\frac{1}{20}$}& {3.761e-05}&{3.909} &{1.637e-05} & {3.898}\\[1ex] %&{4.3} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
{} &{$\frac{1}{40}$}& {2.418e-06}&{3.959} &{1.056e-06} &{3.955} \\[1ex]%\hline
{} &{$\frac{1}{80}$}& {1.531e-07}&{3.981} &{6.697e-08} &{ 3.979} \\
\multirow{4}{*}{4th-LEP-PCS} &{$\frac{1}{10}$}& {2.614e-04}&{-} &{1.128e-04} & {-}\\[1ex]%&{2.8}\\
{} &{$\frac{1}{20}$}& {1.531e-05}&{4.094} &{6.778e-06} & {4.057}\\[1ex] %&{4.3} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
{} &{$\frac{1}{40}$}& {9.248e-07}&{4.049} &{4.144e-07} &{4.032} \\[1ex]%\hline
{} &{$\frac{1}{80}$}& {5.681e-08}&{4.025} &{ 2.560e-08} &{4.017} \\\hline%\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{6th-LMP-PCS} &{$\frac{1}{10}$}& {3.828e-07}&{-} &{1.694e-07} & {-}\\[1ex]%&{2.8}\\
{} &{$\frac{1}{20}$}& {6.461e-09}&{5.889} &{ 2.872e-09} & {5.882}\\[1ex] %&{4.3} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
{} &{$\frac{1}{40}$}& {1.044e-10}&{5.952} &{4.646e-11} &{5.950} \\[1ex]%\hline
{} &{$\frac{1}{80}$}& {1.664e-12}&{5.973} &{7.847e-13} &{5.889} \\
\multirow{4}{*}{6th-LEP-PCS} &{$\frac{1}{10}$}& {9.059e-08}&{-} &{3.474e-08} & {-}\\[1ex]%&{2.8}\\
{} &{$\frac{1}{20}$}& {1.501e-09}&{5.915} &{5.829e-10} & {5.897}\\[1ex] %&{4.3} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
{} &{$\frac{1}{40}$}& {2.447e-11}&{5.939} &{9.413e-12} &{5.953} \\[1ex]%\hline
{} &{$\frac{1}{80}$}& {3.969e-13}&{5.946} &{1.819e-13} &{5.697} \\\hline%\hline
\end{tabular*}
\end{table}
{\color{red}\begin{table}[H]
\tabcolsep=9pt
\footnotesize
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.1}
\centering
\caption{{The numerical solution of the RLW equation in 2D: $\tau=0.2$ and Fourier node $64\times 64$ at $T=50$.}}\label{Tab:2dRLW-equation:2}
\begin{tabular*}{\textwidth}[h]{@{\extracolsep{\fill}} c c c c c c}\hline
{Scheme\ \ } &{$|M^n-M^0|$} &{$|H^n-H^0|$} &{$|I^n-I^0|$}& {$e_2(t_n=50)$} \\[2ex] %% µÚ1 ÐÐ
\hline
%{LCN-MPS} &{2.552e-05}& {1.365e-08}&{4.832e-13} &{1.286e-04} \\[2ex]%&{2.8}\\
% {LEPS} &{3.552e-14}& { 5.843e-07}&{6.986e-07} &{1.728e-04} \\[2ex] %&{4.3} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
{4th-LMPS} &{1.423e-01}& {1.189e-01}&{8.527e-14} &{2.341e-01} \\[2ex]%\hline
{4th-LEPS} &{1.634e-13}& {1.096e-01}&{1.584e-01} &{1.279e-01} \\[2ex]
{4th-LMP-PCS} &{2.672e-02}& {2.310e-02}&{2.842e-14} &{8.039e-02} \\[2ex] %&{4.3} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
{4th-LEP-PCS} &{7.105e-15}& {4.111e-02}&{6.874e-02} &{1.426e-02} \\[2ex]
{6th-LMP-PCS} &{1.637e-04}& {1.411e-04}&{5.684e-14} &{3.567e-04} \\[2ex]
{6th-LEP-PCS} &{2.132e-14}& {2.446e-04}&{4.133e-04} &{4.572e-05} \\[2ex]\hline
\end{tabular*}
\end{table}}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{2d_RWL_CPU1-eps-converted-to}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{2d_RWL_CPU2-eps-converted-to}
\end{minipage}
%\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
%\includegraphics[width=60mm]{1d_NLS_fig4.eps}
%\end{minipage}
%\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
%\includegraphics[width=60mm]{1d_NLS_fig5.eps}
%\end{minipage}
\caption{ The numerical error versus the CPU time using the different numerical schemes with various time steps and the Fourier node $128\times 128$ at $T=10$ for the two-dimensional RLW equation \eqref{RLW-equation}.}\label{RLW2d-CPU}
\end{figure}
Meanwhile, the residuals on discrete conservation laws from $t=0$ and $t=500$ using the different numerical schemes are summarized in Fig. \ref{RLW2d-example1-fig1}.
We observe that 4th-LMPS, 4th-LMP-PCS and 6th-LMP-PCS can preserve the discrete momentum exactly, and 4th-LEPS, 4th-LEP-PCS and 6th-LEP-PCS preserve the discrete mass and quadratic energy (i.e., the modified energy \eqref{RLW-Q-energy}) exactly. In addition, it is clear to see that all schemes can preserve the Hamiltonian energy well.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{RLW2d_example1_M-eps-converted-to}
%\caption*{(a) Mass}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{RLW2d_example1_Mom-eps-converted-to}
%\caption*{(b) Momentum}
\end{minipage}
\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{RLW2d_example1_H-eps-converted-to}
%\caption*{(c) Hamiltonian energy}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{RLW2d_example1_E-eps-converted-to}
%\caption*{(d) Quadratic energy}
\end{minipage}
\caption{ {The residuals on discrete conservation laws using the different numerical schemes with the time step $\tau=0.01$ and the Fourier node $64\times 64$, respectively, for the two-dimensional RLW equation \eqref{RLW-equation}.}}\label{RLW2d-example1-fig1}
\end{figure}
Next, we consider the numerical evolution of an undular bore for the two-dimensional RLW equation with the initial condition \cite{LHQjsc2018}
\begin{align}
u(x,y,0)=0.05\Big(1-\tanh\big((x-x_0)^2+(y-y_0)^2-d^2\big)\Big)
\end{align}
with $x_0=0, y_0=0$ and $d=2$. We set computational domain $\Omega=[-60,300]^2$ with a periodic boundary condition, take parameters $\alpha=1, \beta=1, \theta=1$ and $\mu=1$, and use the time step $\tau=0.1$ and the Fourier node $512\times 512$, respectively. The profile of $u$ at different times are shown in Fig. \ref{RLW2d-example2-fig1}. It is clear to see that the 2D undular bore expands and propagates in a certain direction. This fact
is consistent with the results obtained in \cite{LHQjsc2018}. We should note that the profile of $u$ at different times calculated using other
schemes are similar to Fig. \ref{RLW2d-example2-fig1}, thus for brevity, we omit them here. Meanwhile, the residuals on discrete conservation laws from $t=0$ to $t=250$ are summarized in Fig. \ref{RLW2d-example2-fig2}, which agrees with the theoretical analysis.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{RLW2d_example2_0-eps-converted-to}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{RLW2d_example2_30-eps-converted-to}
\end{minipage}
\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{RLW2d_example2_60-eps-converted-to}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{RLW2d_example2_120-eps-converted-to}
\end{minipage}
\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{RLW2d_example2_180-eps-converted-to}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{RLW2d_example2_250-eps-converted-to}
\end{minipage}
\caption{ The profile of $u$ provided by 6th-LMP-PCS at times $t=0,30,60,120,180$ and 250 with the time step $\tau=0.1$ and the Fourier node $512\times 512$, respectively, for the two-dimensional RLW equation \eqref{RLW-equation}.}\label{RLW2d-example2-fig1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{RLW2d_example2_M-eps-converted-to}
%\caption*{(a) Mass}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{RLW2d_example2_Mom-eps-converted-to}
%\caption*{(b) Momentum}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{RLW2d_example2_H-eps-converted-to}
%\caption*{(c) Hamiltonian energy}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{RLW2d_example2_E-eps-converted-to}
%\caption*{(d) Quadratic energy}
\end{minipage}
\caption{ The residuals on discrete conservation laws using the different numerical schemes over time interval $[0,250]$ with the time step $\tau=0.1$ and the Fourier node $512\times 512$, respectively, for the two-dimensional RLW equation \eqref{RLW-equation}.}\label{RLW2d-example2-fig2}
\end{figure}
Finally, we consider the Maxwellian initial condition \cite{LHQjsc2018}, as follows:
\begin{align}
u(x,y,0)=e^{-((x-x_0)^2+(y-y_0)^2)},
\end{align}
with $x_0=40$ and $y_0=40$.
We take the computational domain $\Omega=[-100,100]^2$ with a periodic boundary condition and choose parameters $\alpha=1, \beta=1, \theta=1$ and $\mu=1$, and use the time step $\tau=0.1$ and the Fourier node $512\times 512$, respectively. The profiles of $u$ provided by 6th-LEP-PCS at various times are displayed in Fig. \ref{RLW2d-example3-fig1}. We can observe that the train of solitary waves expands and propagates in a certain direction. The results are in agreement with
those given in \cite{LHQjsc2018}. Here, we point out that the profile of $u$ at various times calculated using other
schemes are similar to Fig. \ref{RLW2d-example3-fig1}, thus for brevity, we omit them. In Fig. \ref{RLW2d-example3-fig2}, we investigate the residuals on discrete conservation laws form $t=0$ to $t=200$ of the proposed schemes, which behaves similarly as that given in Fig. \ref{RLW2d-example2-fig2}.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{RLW2d_example3_0-eps-converted-to}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{RLW2d_example3_5-eps-converted-to}
\end{minipage}
\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{RLW2d_example3_10-eps-converted-to}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{RLW2d_example3_20-eps-converted-to}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{RLW2d_example3_25-eps-converted-to}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{RLW2d_example3_50-eps-converted-to}
\end{minipage}
\caption{ The profiles of $u$ provided by 6th-LEP-PCS at times $t=0,5,10,20,25$ and 50 with the time step $\tau=0.1$ and the Fourier node $512\times 512$, respectively, for the RLW equation in 2D \eqref{RLW-equation}.}\label{RLW2d-example3-fig1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{RLW2d_example3_M-eps-converted-to}
\caption*{(a) Mass}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{RLW2d_example3_Mom-eps-converted-to}
\caption*{(b) Momentum}
\end{minipage}
\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{RLW2d_example3_H-eps-converted-to}
\caption*{(c) Hamiltonian energy}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{RLW2d_example3_E-eps-converted-to}
\caption*{(d) Quadratic energy}
\end{minipage}
\caption{ The residuals on discrete conservation laws using the different numerical schemes with the time step $\tau=0.1$ and the Fourier node $512\times 512$, respectively, for the two-dimensional RLW equation \eqref{RLW-equation}.}\label{RLW2d-example3-fig2}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}\label{RLW-section-4}
In this paper, two new class of structure-preserving schemes are developed for solving the RLW equation \eqref{RLW-equation}. These schemes can reach arbitrarily high-order accurate in time and are linear so that they are easy to be implementd and computationally efficient. The proposed momentum-preserving scheme is based on the use of the extrapolation/prediction-correction technique and the symplectic RK method in time, together with the standard Fourier pseudo-spectral method in space, respectively. The proposed energy-preserving scheme is based on the combination of the energy quadratization approach with the linearized idea used in the construction of the linear momentum-preserving scheme. We show that such scheme can conserve the discrete quadratic energy. Extensive numerical examples are addressed to illustrate
the efficiencies and accuracies of our new schemes. Numerical results indicate that the momentum-preserving scheme is more robust at
larger time steps than the energy-preserving one, the energy-preserving scheme is much more efficient than the momentum-preserving scheme, and the predictor-corrector scheme performs much better than the extrapolation scheme.
We conclude this paper with second remarks. First, the proposed energy-preserving scheme involves solving linear equations with complicated variable coefficients at every time step and this limitation can be removed by using the idea of the scalar auxiliary variable (SAV) approach \cite{CWJ-CPC-2021,SXY18,SXY17}. For more details, please refer to \cite{JCQS-arXiv-2021}.
{Second, it is known that any Runge-Kutta method conserves all linear invariants \cite{CIZ-MC-1997}, however, we should note that the proposed linear momentum-preserving schemes cannot preserve the discrete mass since the time discretization is done using the extrapolation/prediction-
correction technique. Although the higher order fully-implicit, mass and momentum conserving schemes can be obtained by applying a high-order symplectic Runge-Kutta method to the system \eqref{RLW-momentum-equation} (see \cite{Frasca-Caccia-FCM-2021}), it is challenging to construct high-order linear ones which can preserve both the mass and momentum. This will be an interesting topic for future studies.}
% Here, we should note that the proposed energy-preserving can only preserve a discrete analogue of the Hamiltonian energy, thus, it is an interesting question is whether it is possible to construct linearly implicit schemes which can preserve the discrete Hamiltonian energy, which will be an interesting topic for future studies.
%Last but not least, the presented strategy can be directly extended to propose high-order linearly implicit
%energy-preserving exponential integrators for the Hamiltonian PDEs given by
% For more details, please refer to appendix.
%However, we should note that the proposed schemes can not preserve the discrete mass conservation, Furthermore,
\section*{Acknowledgments}
The authors would like to express sincere gratitude to the referees for their insightful
comments and suggestions. This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 11901513, 11971481, 12071481), the National Key R\&D Program of China (Grant No. 2020YFA0709800), the Natural Science Foundation of Hunan (Grant No. 2021JJ40655), the Yunnan Fundamental Research Projects (Nos. 202101AT070208, 202001AT070066,
202101AS070044), the High Level Talents Research Foundation Project of Nanjing Vocational College of Information Technology (Grant No. YB20200906), and the Foundation of Jiangsu Key Laboratory for Numerical Simulation of Large Scale Complex Systems (Grant No. 202102).
Jiang and Cui are in particular grateful to Prof. Yushun Wang and Dr. Yuezheng Gong for fruitful discussions.
\bibliographystyle{plain}
\begin{thebibliography}{10}
\bibitem{AM-79-jcp}
M.~E. Alexander and J.~L. Morris.
\newblock Galerkin methods applied to some model equations for nonlinear
dispersive waves.
\newblock {\em J. Comput. Phys.}, 30:428--451, 1979.
\bibitem{BBM-72-PTRSL}
T.~B. Benjamin, J.~L. Bona, and J.~J. Mahony.
\newblock Model equations for long waves in nonlinear dispersive systems.
\newblock {\em Philos. Trans. R Soc. Lond. A}, 227:47--78, 1972.
\bibitem{BWC2020arixv}
Y.~Bo, Y.~Wang, and W.~Cai.
\newblock Arbitrary high-order linearly implicit energy-preserving algorithms
for {H}amiltonian {PDE}s.
\newblock {\em arXiv}, 2011.08375, 2020.
\bibitem{BI16}
L.~Brugnano and F.~Iavernaro.
\newblock {\em Line Integral Methods for Conservative Problems}.
\newblock Chapman et Hall/CRC: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2016.
\bibitem{BIT10}
L.~Brugnano, F.~Iavernaro, and D.~Trigiante.
\newblock Hamiltonian boundary value methods (energy preserving discrete line
integral methods).
\newblock {\em J. Numer. Anal. Ind. Appl. Math.}, 5:17--37, 2010.
\bibitem{CIZ-MC-1997}
M.~P. Calvo, A.~Iserles, and A.~Zanna.
\newblock Numerical solution of isospectral flows.
\newblock {\em Math. Comp.}, 66:1461--1486, 1997.
\bibitem{CWG-1991-jcp}
Q.~Chang, G.~Wang, and B.~Guo.
\newblock Conservative scheme for a model of nonlinear dispersive waves and its
solitary waves induced by boundary motion.
\newblock {\em J. Comput. Phys.}, 93:360--375, 1991.
\bibitem{CQ01}
J.~Chen and M.~Qin.
\newblock Multi-symplectic {F}ourier pseudospectral method for the nonlinear
{S}chr\"{o}dinger equation.
\newblock {\em Electr. Trans. Numer. Anal.}, 12:193--204, 2001.
\bibitem{CH11bit}
D.~Cohen and E.~Hairer.
\newblock Linear energy-preserving integrators for {P}oisson systems.
\newblock {\em BIT}, 51:91--101, 2011.
\bibitem{CWJ-CPC-2021}
J.~Cui, Y.~Wang, and C.~Jiang.
\newblock Arbitrarily high-order structure-preserving schemes for the
{G}ross-{P}itaevskii equation with angular momentum rotation.
\newblock {\em Comput. Phys. Commun.}, 261:107767, 2021.
\bibitem{DO11}
M.~Dahlby and B.~Owren.
\newblock A general framework for deriving integral preserving numerical
methods for {PDE}s.
\newblock {\em SIAM J. Sci. Comput.}, 33:2318--2340, 2011.
\bibitem{DS-CPC-2011}
M.~Dehghan and R.~Salehi.
\newblock The solitary wave solution of the two-dimensional regularized
long-wave equation in fluids and plasmas.
\newblock {\em Comput. Phys. Commun.}, 182:2540--2549, 2011.
\bibitem{DL-jpamg-2003}
A.~Dur\'an and M.A. L\'opez-Marcos.
\newblock Conservative numerical methods for solitary wave interactions.
\newblock {\em J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.}, 36:7761--7770, 2003.
\bibitem{Frasca-Caccia-IMA-2020}
G.~Frasca-Caccia and P.E. Hydon.
\newblock Simple bespoke preservation of two conservation laws.
\newblock {\em IMA J. Numer. Anal.}, 40:1294--1329, 2020.
\bibitem{Frasca-Caccia-FCM-2021}
G.~Frasca-Caccia and P.E. Hydon.
\newblock A new technique for preserving conservation laws.
\newblock {\em Found. Comput. Math.}, pages
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10208--021--09511--1, 2021.
\bibitem{Frasca-Caccia-AMC-2021}
G.~Frasca-Caccia and P.E. Hydon.
\newblock Numerical preservation of multiple local conservation laws.
\newblock {\em Appl. Math. Comput.}, 403:126203, 2021.
\bibitem{Furihata99}
D.~Furihata.
\newblock Finite difference schemes for {$\frac{\partial u}{\partial
t}=(\frac{\partial}{\partial x})^{\alpha}\frac{\delta {G}}{\delta u}$} that
inherit energy conservation or dissipation property.
\newblock {\em J. Comput. Phys.}, 156:181--205, 1999.
\bibitem{GZW2020jcp}
Y.~Gong, J.~Zhao, and Q.~Wang.
\newblock Arbitrarily high-order linear energy stable schemes for gradient flow
models.
\newblock {\em J. Comput. Phys.}, 419:109610, 2020.
\bibitem{GZW-20-SISC}
Y.~Gong, J.~Zhao, and Q.~Wang.
\newblock Arbitrarily high-order unconditionally energy stable schemes for
thermodynamically consistent gradient flow models.
\newblock {\em SIAM J. Sci. Comput.}, 42:B135--B156, 2020.
\bibitem{GZYW18}
Y.~Gong, J.~Zhao, X.~Yang, and Q.~Wang.
\newblock Fully discrete second-order linear schemes for hydrodynamic phase
field models of binary viscous fluid flows with variable densities.
\newblock {\em SIAM J. Sci. Comput.}, 40:B138--B167, 2018.
\bibitem{GCjcp-1988}
B.~Guo and W.~Cao.
\newblock The {F}ourier pseudo-spectral method with a restrain operator for the
{RLW} equation.
\newblock {\em J. Comput. Phys.}, 74:110--126, 1988.
\bibitem{H10}
E.~Hairer.
\newblock Energy-preserving variant of collocation methods.
\newblock {\em J. Numer. Anal. Ind. Appl. Math.}, 5:73--84, 2010.
\bibitem{ELW06}
E.~Hairer, C.~Lubich, and G.~Wanner.
\newblock {\em Geometric Numerical Integration: Structure-Preserving Algorithms
for Ordinary Differential Equations}.
\newblock Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2nd edition, 2006.
\bibitem{HWG-DCDSB-2019}
Q.~Hong, J.~Wang, and Y.~Gong.
\newblock Second-order linear structure-preserving modified finite volume
schemes for the regularized long wave equation.
\newblock {\em DCDS-B}, 24:6445--6464, 2019.
\bibitem{HWG-NMPDE-2020}
Q.~Hong, Y.~Wang, and Y.~Gong.
\newblock Optimal error estimate of two linear and momentum-preserving
{F}ourier pseudo-spectral schemes for the {RLW} equation.
\newblock {\em Numer Methods Partial Differential Eq.}, 36:394--417, 2020.
\bibitem{Huang-AMM-2002}
Z.~Huang.
\newblock On cauchy problems for the {RLW} equation in two space dimensions.
\newblock {\em Appl. Math. Mech.}, 23:169--177, 2002.
\bibitem{JZS-anm-2020}
B.~Ji, L.~Zhang, and Q.~Sun.
\newblock A dissipative finite difference {F}ourier pseudo-spectral method for
the symmetric regularized long wave equation with damping mechanism.
\newblock {\em Appl. Numer. Math.}, 154:90--103, 2020.
\bibitem{JCW19jsc}
C.~Jiang, W.~Cai, and Y.~Wang.
\newblock A linearly implicit and local energy-preserving scheme for the
sine-{G}ordon equation based on the invariant energy quadratization approach.
\newblock {\em J. Sci. Comput.}, 80:1629--1655, 2019.
\bibitem{JCQS-arXiv-2021}
C.~Jiang, J.~Cui, X.~Qian, and S.~Song.
\newblock High-order linearly implicit structure-preserving exponential
integrators for the nonlinear schr\"odinger equation.
\newblock {\em arXiv:2103.00390 [math.NA]}.
\bibitem{JWG19}
C.~Jiang, Y.~Wang, and Y.~Gong.
\newblock Arbitrarily high-order energy-preserving schemes for the
{C}amassa-{H}olm equation.
\newblock {\em Appl. Numer. Math.}, 151:85--97, 2020.
\bibitem{KF-2009-JJIAM}
S.~Koide and D.~Furihata.
\newblock Nonlinear and linear conservative finite difference schemes for
regularized long wave equation.
\newblock {\em Japan J. Indust. Appl. Math.}, 26:15--40, 2009.
\bibitem{LS2020jsc}
D.~Li and W.~Sun.
\newblock Linearly implicit and high-order energy-conserving schemes for
nonlinear wave equations.
\newblock {\em J. Sci. Comput.}, 83:A3703--A3727, 2020.
\bibitem{LWQ14}
H.~Li, Y.~Wang, and M.~Qin.
\newblock A sixth order averaged vector field method.
\newblock {\em J. Comput. Math.}, 34:479--498, 2016.
\bibitem{LGZJSC-2021}
X.~Li, Y.~Gong, and L.~Zhang.
\newblock Linear high-order energy-preserving schemes for the nonlinear
schr\"odinger equation with wave operator using the scalar auxiliary variable
approach.
\newblock {\em J Sci Comput}, 88, 2021, doi.org/10.1007/s10915-021-01533-9.
\bibitem{LWsina16}
Y.~Li and X.~Wu.
\newblock Functionally fitted energy-preserving methods for solving oscillatory
nonlinear {H}amiltonian systems.
\newblock {\em SIAM J. Numer. Anal.}, 54:2036--2059, 2016.
\bibitem{LHQjsc2018}
C.~Lu, W.~Huang, and J.~Qiu.
\newblock An adaptive moving mesh finite element solution of the {R}egularized
{L}ong {W}ave equation.
\newblock {\em J. Sci. Comput.}, 74:122--144, 2018.
\bibitem{MC-cpc-2012}
L.~Mei and Y.~Chen.
\newblock Numerical solutions of {RLW} equation using {G}alerkin method with
extrapolation techniques.
\newblock {\em Comput. Phys. Commun.}, 183:1609--1616, 2012.
\bibitem{Miyatake-2014-bit}
Y.~Miyatake.
\newblock An energy-preserving exponentially-fitted continuous stage
{R}unge-{K}utta method for {H}amiltonian systems.
\newblock {\em BIT}, 54:777--799, 2014.
\bibitem{MB16}
Y.~Miyatake and J.~C. Butcher.
\newblock A characterization of energy-preserving methods and the construction
of parallel integrators for {H}amiltonian systems.
\newblock {\em SIAM J. Numer. Anal.}, 54:1993--2013, 2016.
\bibitem{Olver-79-MPPS}
P.~J. Olver.
\newblock Euler operators and conservation laws of the {BBM} equation.
\newblock {\em Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc.}, 85:143--160, 1979.
\bibitem{Peregrine66jfm}
D.~H. Peregrine.
\newblock Calculations of the development of an undular bore.
\newblock {\em J. Fluid Mech.}, 25:321--330, 1966.
\bibitem{QM08}
G.~R.~W. Quispel and D.~I. McLaren.
\newblock A new class of energy-preserving numerical integration methods.
\newblock {\em J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.}, 41:045206, 2008.
\bibitem{Sanzs88}
J.~M. Sanz-Serna.
\newblock {Runge-Kutta} schemes for {H}amiltonian systems.
\newblock {\em BIT}, 28:877--883, 1988.
\bibitem{SCbook94}
J.~M. Sanz-Serna and M.~Calvo.
\newblock {\em Numerical Hamiltonian Problems}.
\newblock Chapman \& Hall, London, 1994.
\bibitem{ST06}
J.~Shen and T.~Tang.
\newblock {\em Spectral and High-Order Methods with Applications}.
\newblock Science Press, Beijing, 2006.
\bibitem{SX-CiCP-2018}
J.~Shen and J.~Xu.
\newblock Stabilized predictor-corrector schemes for gradient flows with strong
anisotropic free energy.
\newblock {\em Commun. Comput. Phys.}, 24:635--654, 2018.
\bibitem{SXY18}
J.~Shen, J.~Xu, and J.~Yang.
\newblock The scalar auxiliary variable {(SAV)} approach for gradient.
\newblock {\em J. Comput. Phys.}, 353:407--416, 2018.
\bibitem{SXY17}
J.~Shen, J.~Xu, and J.~Yang.
\newblock A new class of efficient and robust energy stable schemes for
gradient flows.
\newblock {\em SIAM Rev.}, 61:474--506, 2019.
\bibitem{Sun-Qin-2004-jcm}
Y.~Sun and M.~Qin.
\newblock A multi-symplectic scheme for {RLW} equation.
\newblock {\em J. Comput. Math.}, 22:611--621, 2004.
\bibitem{TS12}
W.~Tang and Y.~Sun.
\newblock Time finite element methods: a unified framework for numerical
discretizations of {ODE}s.
\newblock {\em Appl. Math. Comput.}, 219:2158--2179, 2012.
\bibitem{WZC-07-amc}
T.~Wang, L.~Zhang, and F.~Chen.
\newblock Conservative schemes for the symmetric regularized long wave
equations.
\newblock {\em Appl. Math. Comput.}, 190:1063--1080, 2007.
\bibitem{WDG-amc-2019}
X.~Wang, W.~Dai, and S.~Guo.
\newblock A conservative linear difference scheme for the {2D} regularized
long-wave equation.
\newblock {\em Appl. Math. Comput.}, 342:55--70, 2019.
\bibitem{YZW17}
X.~Yang, J.~Zhao, and Q.~Wang.
\newblock Numerical approximations for the molecular beam epitaxial growth
model based on the invariant energy quadratization method.
\newblock {\em J. Comput. Phys.}, 333:104--127, 2017.
\bibitem{Zhang-amc-2005}
L.~Zhang.
\newblock A finite difference scheme for generalized regularized long-wave
equation.
\newblock {\em Appl. Math. Comput.}, 168:962--972, 2005.
\bibitem{ZYGW17}
J.~Zhao, X.~Yang, Y.~Gong, and Q.~Wang.
\newblock A novel linear second order unconditionally energy stable scheme for
a hydrodynamic-tensor model of liquid crystals.
\newblock {\em Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg.}, 318:803--825, 2017.
\end{thebibliography}
%\bibliography{ref}
\end{document}
\section{Numerical results}\label{Sec:LI-EP:4}
%n the previous sections, \textcolor{red}{set the nonlinear Klein-Gordon equation as an example,} we present \textcolor{red}{novel linearly implicit energy-preserving exponential integrators} (denoted by ESAVS) for \textcolor{red}{the conservative systems}. In addition, the standard fixed-point iteration is used for EAVFS and the iteration \textcolor{red}{will be terminated} when the infinity norm of the error between two adjacent iterative steps is less than $10^{-14}$.
In this section, we report the numerical performance in accuracy, efficiency of computation and
energy preservation for the proposed schemes of the NLS equation. For brevity, in the rest
of this paper, the linearly implicit exponential
integration \eqref{LI-E-scheme1}-\eqref{LI-E-scheme2} of order 3 (see Algorithm 1) and 4 (see Algorithm 2) are
only used for demonstration purposes. Furthermore, we compare the selected schemes with the linear implicit energy-preserving schemes of order 3 (denoted by 3rd-LI-EPS) and 4 (denoted by 4th-LI-EPS) proposed in \cite{LGZ2020aml} in one dimensional case. In order to quantify the numerical solution, we use the $L^2$- and $L^{\infty}$-norms of the error between the numerical solution $\phi_{j,k}^n$ and the exact solution
$\phi(x_j,y_k,t_n)$, respectively. %and the relative invariant errors are defined as
%\begin{align*}
%=\Bigg({h_xh_y\sum_{j=0}^{N_x-1}\sum_{k=0}^{N_y-1}|\phi_{j,k}^n-\phi(x_j,y_k,t_n)|^2}\Bigg)^{\frac{1}{2}},\ e_{h,\infty}(t_n)=\max\limits_{0\le j\le N_x-1,0\le k\le N_y-1}|\phi_{j,k}^n-\phi(x_j,y_k,t_n)|,\ n\ge 0.
%\end{align*}
\subsection{NLS equation in 1D}
The first test example is the one dimensional (1D) nonlinear Schr\"{o}dinger equation \eqref{NLS-equation} with $\beta=2$, which has a single soliton solution given by \cite{ABB13}
\begin{align}
\phi(x,t)=e^{\text{i}(2x-3t)}\text{sech}(x-4t),\ x\in\Omega\subset\mathbb{R},\ t\ge0.
\end{align}
The computations are done on the space interval $\Omega=[-40,40]$ with a periodic boundary. To test the temporal discretization errors of the four numerical schemes, we fix the Fourier node $1024$ so that spatial errors play no role here.
The $L^2$ errors and $L^{\infty}$ errors in numerical solution of $\phi$ at time $t=1$ are calculated using four numerical schemes with various time steps and the results are displayed in Tab. \ref{Tab:LI-EI:1}, which shows 3rd-LI-EI and 3rd-LI-EPS have third-order accuracy in time, and 4th-LI-EI and 4th-LI-EPS have fourth-order accuracy in time, respectively. In Fig. \ref{LI-EI-1d-scheme:fig:1}, we show the global $L^2$ errors and $L^{\infty}$ errors of $\phi$ versus the CPU time using the four numerical schemes at $t=1$ with the Fourier node $2048$, respectively.
From Fig. \ref{LI-EI-1d-scheme:fig:1}, we can draw that for a given global error, the cost of the proposed scheme is much cheaper than that of the high-order linearly implicit scheme proposed in \cite{LGZ2020aml}.
\begin{table}[H]
\tabcolsep=9pt
\footnotesize
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.1}
\centering
\caption{{Numerical error and convergence rate for the different schemes under different time grid steps at $t=1$.}}\label{Tab:LI-EI:1}
\begin{tabular*}{\textwidth}[h]{@{\extracolsep{\fill}} c c c c c c}\hline
{Scheme\ \ } &{$\tau$} &{$L^2$-error} &{order}& {$L^{\infty}$-error}&{order} \\ %% µÚ1 ÐÐ
\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{3rd-LI-EI} &{$\frac{1}{100}$}& {2.734e-05}&{-} &{2.107e-05} & {-}\\[1ex]%&{2.8}\\
{} &{$\frac{1}{200}$}& {3.438e-06}&{2.99} &{2.632e-06} & {3.00}\\[1ex] %&{4.3} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
{} &{$\frac{1}{400}$}& {4.249e-07}&{3.01} &{3.240e-07} &{3.02} \\[1ex]%\hline
{} &{$\frac{1}{800}$}& {5.262e-08}&{3.01} &{ 4.002e-08} &{3.02} \\
\multirow{4}{*}{3rd-LI-EPS \cite{LGZ2020aml}} &{$\frac{1}{100}$}& {8.414e-05}&{-} &{5.531e-05} & {-}\\[1ex]%&{2.8}\\
{} &{$\frac{1}{200}$}& {1.058e-05}&{2.99} &{6.816e-06} & {3.02}\\[1ex] %&{4.3} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
{} &{$\frac{1}{400}$}& {1.328e-06}&{2.99} &{8.455e-07} &{3.01} \\[1ex]%\hline
{} &{$\frac{1}{800}$}& {1.662e-07}&{3.00} &{1.053e-07} &{3.01} \\\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{4th-LI-EI} &{$\frac{1}{400}$}& {1.411e-08}&{-} &{9.996e-09} & {-}\\[1ex]%&{2.8}\\
{} &{$\frac{1}{800}$}& {9.513e-10}&{3.89} &{6.895e-10} & {3.86}\\[1ex] %&{4.3} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
{} &{$\frac{1}{1600}$}& {6.171e-11}&{3.94} &{4.523e-11} &{3.93} \\[1ex]%\hline
{} &{$\frac{1}{3200}$}& {4.076e-12}&{3.92} &{3.020e-12} &{3.90} \\
% \multirow{4}{*}{4th-FI-EI} &{$\frac{1}{100}$}& {1.510e-08}&{-} &{1.446e-08} & {-}\\[1ex]%&{2.8}\\
% {} &{$\frac{1}{200}$}& {9.440e-10}&{4.00} &{9.033e-10} & {4.00}\\[1ex] %&{4.3} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
% {} &{$\frac{1}{400}$}& { 5.900e-11}&{4.00} &{ 5.645e-11} &{4.00} \\[1ex]%\hline
% {} &{$\frac{1}{800}$}& {3.687e-12}&{4.00} &{3.511e-12} &{4.00} \\%\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{4th-LI-EPS \cite{LGZ2020aml}} &{$\frac{1}{400}$}& {1.299e-08}&{-} &{1.012e-08} & {-}\\[1ex]%&{2.8}\\
{} &{$\frac{1}{800}$}& {8.132e-10}&{3.99} &{6.332e-10} & {3.99}\\[1ex] %&{4.3} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
{} &{$\frac{1}{1600}$}& {5.087e-11}&{4.00} &{3.959e-11} &{4.00} \\[1ex]%\hline
{} &{$\frac{1}{3200}$}& {3.178e-12}&{4.00} &{2.474e-12} &{4.00} \\\hline
%\multirow{4}{*}{4th-Gauss-M} &{$\frac{1}{100}$}& {2.164e-07}&{-} &{2.557e-06} & {-}\\[1ex]%&{2.8}\\
% {} &{$\frac{1}{200}$}& {2.233e-08}&{4.00} &{1.353e-08} & {4.00}\\[1ex] %&{4.3} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
% {} &{$\frac{1}{400}$}& {1.396e-09}&{4.00} &{8.459e-10} &{4.00} \\[1ex]%\hline
% {} &{$\frac{1}{800}$}& {8.725e-11}&{4.00} &{5.287e-11} &{4.00} \\\hline%\hline
\end{tabular*}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{1d_NLS_fig6.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{1d_NLS_fig7.eps}
\end{minipage}
\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{1d_NLS_fig4.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{1d_NLS_fig5.eps}
\end{minipage}
\caption{ The numerical errors versus the CPU time using the different numerical schemes for the 1D Schr\"odinger equation \eqref{NLS-equation}.}\label{LI-EI-1d-scheme:fig:1}
\end{figure}
%
%
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\begin{minipage}[t]{65mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{1d_NLS_fig1.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{65mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{1d_NLS_fig2.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{65mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{1d_NLS_fig3.eps}
\end{minipage}
\caption{The relative residuals on three discrete conservation laws using the different numerical schemes with the parameter $\beta=2$, the time step $\tau=0.01$ and the Fourier node 256, respectively, for the 1D Schr\"odinger equation \eqref{NLS-equation}.}\label{LI-EI-1d-scheme:fig:2}
\end{figure}
To further investigate the energy-preservation
of the four numerical schemes, we provide the energy residuals using the four numerical schemes for the 1D Schr\"odinger equation \eqref{NLS-equation} over the time interval $t\in[0,100]$ in Fig. \ref{LI-EI-1d-scheme:fig:2}. We can clearly see that the proposed scheme can preserve the discrete quadratic energy \eqref{LI-EI-F-energy} up to round-off error and both the discrete mass (see \eqref{LI-EI-discerete-mass}) and Hamiltonian energy (see \eqref{sm-Hamiltonian-energy-conservetion-law}) can be preserved well.
%In particular, the errors on the mass and Hamiltonian energy provided by the 4th-LI-EPS are much smaller than the one provided by 4th-LI-EI.
\subsection{NLS equation in 2D}
In this subsection, we display the numerical solutions for the two dimensional nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation which possesses the following analytical solution
\begin{align*}%\label{ESAV-NLS-2D}
\phi(x,y,t)=A\exp(\text{i}(k_1x+k_2y-\omega t)),\ \omega=k_1^2+k_2^2-\beta|A|^2,\ (x,y)\in\Omega.
\end{align*}
We choose the computational domain $\Omega=[0,2\pi]^2$ and take parameters $A=1,\ k_1=k_2=1$, $\beta=-1$ and $C_0=0$. We fix the Fourier node $32\times 32$ so that spatial errors can be neglected here. The $L^2$ errors and $L^{\infty}$ errors in numerical solution of $\phi$ at time $t=10$ are calculated using the proposed scheme with various time steps and the results are summarized in tab. \ref{Tab:LI-EI:2}. It is clear to see that the proposed schemes have third- and fourth-order accuracy in time, respectively. In Fig. \ref{LI-EI-1d-scheme:fig:3}, we investigate the relative energy residuals using the proposed scheme with the parameter $\beta=-1$, the time step $\tau=0.005$ and the Fourier node $32\times 32$, which shows the proposed scheme can preserve the discrete modified energy \eqref{LI-EI-F-energy} exactly, and the errors on the discrete mass and Hamiltonian energy are very small.
\begin{table}[H]
\tabcolsep=9pt
\footnotesize
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.1}
\centering
\caption{{Numerical error and convergence rate for the proposed schemes under different time grid steps at $t=10$.}}\label{Tab:LI-EI:2}
\begin{tabular*}{\textwidth}[h]{@{\extracolsep{\fill}} c c c c c c}\hline
{Scheme\ \ } &{$\tau$} &{$L^2$-error} &{order}& {$L^{\infty}$-error}&{order} \\ %% µÚ1 ÐÐ
\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{3rd-LI-EI} &{$\frac{1}{200}$}& {2.606e-05}&{-} &{4.148e-06} & {-}\\[1ex]%&{2.8}\\
{} &{$\frac{1}{400}$}& {3.266e-06}&{2.99} &{5.199e-07} & {2.99}\\[1ex] %&{4.3} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
{} &{$\frac{1}{800}$}& {4.089e-07}&{3.00} &{6.508e-08} &{3.00} \\[1ex]%\hline
{} &{$\frac{1}{1600}$}& {5.111e-08}&{3.00} &{8.134e-09} &{3.00} \\
%\multirow{4}{*}{3rd-LI-EPS} &{$\frac{1}{200}$}& {8.414e-05}&{-} &{5.531e-05} & {-}\\[1ex]%&{2.8}\\
% {} &{$\frac{1}{400}$}& {1.058e-05}&{2.99} &{6.816e-06} & {3.02}\\[1ex] %&{4.3} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
% {} &{$\frac{1}{800}$}& {1.328e-06}&{2.99} &{8.455e-07} &{3.01} \\[1ex]%\hline
% {} &{$\frac{1}{1600}$}& {1.662e-07}&{3.00} &{1.053e-07} &{3.01} \\\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{4th-LI-EI} &{$\frac{1}{200}$}& {3.951e-09}&{-} &{3.803e-08} & {-}\\[1ex]%&{2.8}\\
{} &{$\frac{1}{400}$}& {1.559e-09}&{3.99} &{2.482e-10} & {3.99}\\[1ex] %&{4.3} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
{} &{$\frac{1}{800}$}& {9.742e-11}&{4.00} &{1.552e-11} &{4.00} \\[1ex]%\hline
{} &{$\frac{1}{1600}$}& {6.128e-12}&{3.99} &{1.000e-12} &{3.96} \\\hline
%\multirow{4}{*}{4th-FI-EI} &{$\frac{1}{200}$}& {2.390e-07}&{-} &{3.803e-08} & {-}\\[1ex]%&{2.8}\\
% {} &{$\frac{1}{400}$}& {9.440e-10}&{} &{9.033e-10} & {}\\[1ex] %&{4.3} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
% {} &{$\frac{1}{800}$}& { 5.900e-11}&{4.00} &{ 5.645e-11} &{4.00} \\[1ex]%\hline
% {} &{$\frac{1}{1600}$}& {3.687e-12}&{4.00} &{3.511e-12} &{4.00} \\%\hline
%\multirow{4}{*}{4th-LI-EPS} &{$\frac{1}{200}$}& {3.276e-06}&{-} &{2.557e-06} & {-}\\[1ex]%&{2.8}\\
% {} &{$\frac{1}{400}$}& {2.069e-07}&{3.99} &{1.614e-07} & {3.99}\\[1ex] %&{4.3} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
% {} &{$\frac{1}{800}$}& {1.299e-08}&{3.99} &{1.012e-08} &{4.00} \\[1ex]%\hline
% {} &{$\frac{1}{1600}$}& {8.132e-10}&{4.00} &{6.332e-10} &{4.00} \\\hline
%\multirow{4}{*}{4th-Gauss-M} &{$\frac{1}{100}$}& {2.164e-07}&{-} &{2.557e-06} & {-}\\[1ex]%&{2.8}\\
% {} &{$\frac{1}{200}$}& {2.233e-08}&{4.00} &{1.353e-08} & {4.00}\\[1ex] %&{4.3} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
% {} &{$\frac{1}{400}$}& {1.396e-09}&{4.00} &{8.459e-10} &{4.00} \\[1ex]%\hline
% {} &{$\frac{1}{800}$}& {8.725e-11}&{4.00} &{5.287e-11} &{4.00} \\\hline%\hline
\end{tabular*}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{minipage}{0.48\linewidth}
\centerline{\includegraphics[height=5.6cm,width=0.87\textwidth]{2d_NLS_fig1}}
\centerline{ \footnotesize ~~ (a) 3rd-LI-EI}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.48\linewidth}
\centerline{\includegraphics[height=5.6cm,width=0.87\textwidth]{2d_NLS_fig2}}
\centerline{\footnotesize ~~~ (b) 4rd-LI-EI}
\end{minipage}
% \setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{-1mm}
\caption{\footnotesize The relative residuals on three discrete conservation laws using the two proposed schemes with the parameter $\beta=-1$, the time step $\tau=0.005$ and the Fourier node $32\times 32$, respectively, for the 2D Schr\"odinger equation \eqref{NLS-equation}.}\label{LI-EI-1d-scheme:fig:3}
\end{figure}
%\begin{figure}[H]
%\centering
%\begin{minipage}[t]{65mm}
%\includegraphics[width=65mm]{2d_NLS_fig1.eps}
%\end{minipage}
%\begin{minipage}[t]{65mm}
%\includegraphics[width=65mm]{2d_NLS_fig2.eps}
%\end{minipage}
%\caption{The relative energy residuals using the different numerical methods with the time step $\tau=0.005$ and the Fourier node $32\times 32$, respectively, for the 2D Schr\"odinger equation \eqref{NLS-equation}.}\label{LI-EI-1d-scheme:fig:2}
%\end{figure}
Subsequently, we focus on computing the nonlinear dynamics of turbulent superfluid governs by the following nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation
\begin{align} \label{NLS-equation2}
{\rm i} \partial_t \phi({\bf x},t) =-\frac{1}{2} \Delta \phi({\bf x},t) + \beta |\phi({\bf x},t)|^2 \phi({\bf x},t), \ {\bf x} \in \mathbb R^d,\ d=2,3,\ t > 0,
\end{align}
with a initial data corresponding to a superfluid with a uniform condensate density and a phase which has a random spatial distribution~\cite{antoine15,Kobay}.
We choose the computational domain $\Omega=[-10,10]^2$ with a periodic boundary condition used in \cite{antoine15,Kobay} and take the parameter $\beta=10$.
By using a similar procedure in~\cite{Kobay}, the initial data $\phi_0$ is chosen as $
\phi_0(x,y)=e^{{\rm i} \psi(x,y)}$, where $\psi$ is a random gaussian field with a covariance function given by $c(x,y)=e^{-(x^2+y^2)/2}$. The contour plots of the density function $|\phi|^2$ computed by 3rd-LI-EI for the dynamics at different times are shown in Fig. \ref{fig5.-21}. We can clearly see that the phenomenons of wavy tremble are clearly observed from the moment $t=0.3$, and the numerical results are in good agreement with those given in Refs.\cite{antoine15,Kobay}. Since the contour plots of the density function $|\phi|^2$ computed by the 4th-LI-EI are similar to Fig. \ref{fig5.-21}. For brevity, we omit it here. In Fig. \ref{fig5.-22} we show the relative residuals for three conservation laws, which behaves similarly as that given in Fig. \ref{LI-EI-1d-scheme:fig:3}.
%
\vspace{-1mm}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=2.6cm,width=0.17 \linewidth]{ex4_ground_state} \hspace{-3mm}
\includegraphics[height=2.6cm,width=0.17 \linewidth]{ex4_t0005} \hspace{-3mm}
\includegraphics[height=2.6cm,width=0.17 \linewidth]{ex4_t0020} \hspace{-3mm}
\includegraphics[height=2.6cm,width=0.17 \linewidth]{ex4_t0060} \hspace{-3mm}
\includegraphics[height=2.6cm,width=0.17 \linewidth]{ex4_t0100}\\
~\includegraphics[height=2.6cm,width=0.17 \linewidth]{ex4_t0200} \hspace{-3mm}
\includegraphics[height=2.6cm,width=0.17 \linewidth]{ex4_t0300} \hspace{-3mm}
\includegraphics[height=2.6cm,width=0.17\linewidth]{ex4_t0400} \hspace{-3mm}
\includegraphics[height=2.6cm,width=0.17 \linewidth]{ex4_t0700} \hspace{-3mm}
\includegraphics[height=2.6cm,width=0.17 \linewidth]{ex4_t5000}
\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{-0.5mm}
% \caption{\small Contour plots of the density function $|\psi|^2$ computed by the LI_EI_3th_errors method for the dynamics of a turbulent
%superfluid at different times $t=0,0.0005,0.002,0.006,0.01,0.2,0.3,0.4,0.7,5$ (in order from left to right and from top to bottom).}
\caption{\footnotesize Contour plots of the density function $|\phi|^2$ computed by the 3rd-LI-EI for the dynamics of a turbulent
superfluid with the parameter $\beta=10$, the time step $\tau=0.0001$ and the Fourier node $256\times 256$ at different times $t=0,0.0005,0.002,0.006,0.01,0.2,0.3,0.4,0.7,5$ for the 2D Schr\"odinger equation \eqref{NLS-equation2} (in order from left to right and from top to bottom). }
\label{fig5.-21}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{minipage}{0.48\linewidth}
\centerline{\includegraphics[height=5.6cm,width=0.87\textwidth]{LI_EI_3th_errors}}
\centerline{ \footnotesize ~~ (a) 3rd-LI-EI}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.48\linewidth}
\centerline{\includegraphics[height=5.6cm,width=0.87\textwidth]{LI_EI_4_order_errors}}
\centerline{\footnotesize ~~~ (b) 4rd-LI-EI}
\end{minipage}
% \setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{-1mm}
\caption{\footnotesize Relative residuals on three discrete conservation laws using the two proposed numerical schemes with the parameter $\beta=10$, the time step $\tau=0.0001$ and the Fourier node $256\times 256$ for the 2D Schr\"odinger equation \eqref{NLS-equation2}.}
\label{fig5.-22}
\end{figure}
\subsection{NLS equation in 3D}
In this subsection, we investigate the numerical results for the three dimensional nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation \eqref{NLS-equation} which possesses the following analytical solution
\begin{align*}%\label{ESAV-NLS-2D}
\phi(x,y,z,t)=\text{exp}({\rm i}(k_1x+k_2y+k_3z-wt)), ~~w=k_1^2+k_2^2+k_3^2-\beta,\ (x,y,z)\in\Omega.
\end{align*}
We choose the computational domain $\Omega=[0,2\pi]^3$ and take parameters $\ k_1=k_2=k_3=1$, $\beta=-1$ and $C_0=0$. We fix the Fourier node $16\times 16\times 16$ so that spatial errors can be neglected here. The error and convergence order of the proposed scheme at time $t=1$ are given in
Tab. \ref{Tab:LI-EI:3}, which can be observed that 3rd-LI-EI and 4th-LI-EI have third- and fourth-order accuracy in time, respectively. In Fig. \ref{LI-EI-1d-scheme:fig:3}, relative energy residuals using 3rd-LI-EI and 4th-LI-EI on the time interval $t\in[0,100]$, which behaves similarly as those given in 1D and 2D cases.
\begin{table}[H]
\tabcolsep=9pt
\footnotesize
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.1}
\centering
\caption{{Numerical error and convergence rate for the proposed schemes under different time grid steps at $t=1$.}}\label{Tab:LI-EI:3}
\begin{tabular*}{\textwidth}[h]{@{\extracolsep{\fill}} c c c c c c}\hline
{Scheme\ \ } &{$\tau$} &{$L^2$-error} &{order}& {$L^{\infty}$-error}&{order} \\ %% µÚ1 ÐÐ
\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{3rd-LI-EI} &{$\frac{1}{200}$}& {9.203e-07}&{-} &{5.844e-08} & {-}\\[1ex]%&{2.8}\\
{} &{$\frac{1}{400}$}& {1.222e-07}&{2.91} &{7.758e-09} & {2.91}\\[1ex] %&{4.3} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
{} &{$\frac{1}{800}$}& {1.574e-08}&{2.96} &{9.992e-10} &{2.96} \\[1ex]%\hline
{} &{$\frac{1}{1600}$}& {1.996e-09}&{2.98} &{1.268e-10} &{2.98} \\
%\multirow{4}{*}{3rd-LI-EPS} &{$\frac{1}{200}$}& {8.414e-05}&{-} &{5.531e-05} & {-}\\[1ex]%&{2.8}\\
% {} &{$\frac{1}{400}$}& {1.058e-05}&{2.99} &{6.816e-06} & {3.02}\\[1ex] %&{4.3} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
% {} &{$\frac{1}{800}$}& {1.328e-06}&{2.99} &{8.455e-07} &{3.01} \\[1ex]%\hline
% {} &{$\frac{1}{1600}$}& {1.662e-07}&{3.00} &{1.053e-07} &{3.01} \\\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{4th-LI-EI} &{$\frac{1}{200}$}& {1.935e-07}&{-} &{1.229e-08} & {-}\\[1ex]%&{2.8}\\
{} &{$\frac{1}{400}$}& {1.227e-08}&{3.98} &{7.793e-10} & {3.98}\\[1ex] %&{4.3} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
{} &{$\frac{1}{800}$}& {7.722e-10}&{3.99} &{4.906e-11} &{3.99} \\[1ex]%\hline
{} &{$\frac{1}{1600}$}& {4.868e-11}&{3.99} &{3.135e-12} &{3.97} \\\hline
%\multirow{4}{*}{4th-FI-EI} &{$\frac{1}{200}$}& {2.390e-07}&{-} &{3.803e-08} & {-}\\[1ex]%&{2.8}\\
% {} &{$\frac{1}{400}$}& {9.440e-10}&{} &{9.033e-10} & {}\\[1ex] %&{4.3} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
% {} &{$\frac{1}{800}$}& { 5.900e-11}&{4.00} &{ 5.645e-11} &{4.00} \\[1ex]%\hline
% {} &{$\frac{1}{1600}$}& {3.687e-12}&{4.00} &{3.511e-12} &{4.00} \\%\hline
%\multirow{4}{*}{4th-LI-EPS} &{$\frac{1}{200}$}& {3.276e-06}&{-} &{2.557e-06} & {-}\\[1ex]%&{2.8}\\
% {} &{$\frac{1}{400}$}& {2.069e-07}&{3.99} &{1.614e-07} & {3.99}\\[1ex] %&{4.3} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
% {} &{$\frac{1}{800}$}& {1.299e-08}&{3.99} &{1.012e-08} &{4.00} \\[1ex]%\hline
% {} &{$\frac{1}{1600}$}& {8.132e-10}&{4.00} &{6.332e-10} &{4.00} \\\hline
%\multirow{4}{*}{4th-Gauss-M} &{$\frac{1}{100}$}& {2.164e-07}&{-} &{2.557e-06} & {-}\\[1ex]%&{2.8}\\
% {} &{$\frac{1}{200}$}& {2.233e-08}&{4.00} &{1.353e-08} & {4.00}\\[1ex] %&{4.3} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
% {} &{$\frac{1}{400}$}& {1.396e-09}&{4.00} &{8.459e-10} &{4.00} \\[1ex]%\hline
% {} &{$\frac{1}{800}$}& {8.725e-11}&{4.00} &{5.287e-11} &{4.00} \\\hline%\hline
\end{tabular*}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{minipage}{0.48\linewidth}
\centerline{\includegraphics[height=5.6cm,width=0.87\textwidth]{3d_NLS_fig1}}
\centerline{ \footnotesize ~~ (a) 3rd-LI-EI}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.48\linewidth}
\centerline{\includegraphics[height=5.6cm,width=0.87\textwidth]{3d_NLS_fig2}}
\centerline{\footnotesize ~~~ (b) 4rd-LI-EI}
\end{minipage}
% \setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{-1mm}
\caption{\footnotesize The relative residuals on three discrete conservation laws using the proposed numerical schemes with the parameter $\beta=-1$, the time step $\tau=0.005$ and the Fourier node $16\times 16\times 16$, respectively, for the 3D Schr\"odinger equation \eqref{NLS-equation}.}\label{LI-EI-1d-scheme:fig:3}
\end{figure}
Finally, we study the dynamics of the three dimensional (3D) nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation~\eqref{NLS-equation2} (i.e., $d=3$). Inspired by \cite{antoine15,Kobay}, the initial data is chosen to be associated with a superfluid with a uniform density and a random phase. Following \cite{antoine15,Kobay}, we take the parameter $\beta=0.001$ and the computational domain $\Omega=[-2,2]^3$ with a periodic boundary condition.
%In the simulation, we choose the time step $\tau=0.001$ and Fourier node $128\times 128\times 128$ and set and .
The contour plots of the density function $|\phi|^2$ are computed by 4th-LI-EI for the formation of a 3D turbulent phenomenon and presented in Fig.~\ref{fig6.006}, which shows the vortices filamentation forms gradually during the time evolution. In particular, at time$t=0.8$, we can clearly see that the massive vortices filamentation filled to the whole spatial domain, which is consistent with the numerical results presented in~\cite{antoine15}. The corresponding residuals of on the three conservation laws provided by the proposed numerical scheme are displayed in Fig. \ref{fig6.007}. As is illustrated in the figure, the proposed scheme can preserve the modified energy exactly and conserves the discrete mass and Hamiltonian energy well.
%
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=4.5cm,width=0.3\linewidth]{ex42_t004}
\includegraphics[height=4.5cm,width=0.3\linewidth]{ex42_t006}
\includegraphics[height=4.5cm,width=0.3\linewidth]{ex42_t050}\\
\includegraphics[height=4.5cm,width=0.3\linewidth]{ex42_t060}
\includegraphics[height=4.5cm,width=0.3\linewidth]{ex42_t080}
\includegraphics[height=4.5cm,width=0.3\linewidth]{ex42_t100}
%\setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{-0.1mm}
\caption{\small Contour plots of the density function $|\phi|^2$ for the dynamics of a 3D turbulence superfluid with the parameter $\beta=0.001$, the time step $\tau=0.001$ and the Fourier node $128\times 128\times 128$ at different times $t=0.04,0.06,0.5,0.6,0.8,1.0$ (in order from left to right and from top to bottom).}
\label{fig6.006}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{minipage}{0.48\linewidth}
\centerline{\includegraphics[height=5.6cm,width=0.87\textwidth]{ex4_2_LI_EI_3_order_3d_errors}}
\centerline{ \footnotesize ~~ (a) 3rd-LI-EI}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.48\linewidth}
\centerline{\includegraphics[height=5.6cm,width=0.87\textwidth]{LI_EI_4rd_3d_errors}}
\centerline{\footnotesize ~~~ (b) 4rd-LI-EI}
\end{minipage}
% \setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{-1mm}
\caption{\footnotesize Relative residuals of three discrete conservation laws using the two proposed numerical schemes with the parameter $\beta=0.001$, the time step $\tau=0.001$ and the Fourier node $128\times 128\times 128$ for 3D case. }
\label{fig6.007}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}\label{Sec:LI-EP:5}
In this paper, based on the Lawson transformation and the idea of the SAV approach, we develop a novel class of
high-order linearly implicit energy-preserving exponential integrators for the nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation. The proposed scheme can reach high-order accuracy in time and inherit the advantage of the ones provided by the classical SAV approach. Extensive numerical examples are addressed to illustrate
the efficiency and accuracy of our new schemes. Compared with the existing linearly implicit high-order mass-preserving scheme, the proposed scheme shows remarkable efficiency.
%Last but not least, the presented strategy can be directly extended to propose high-order linearly implicit
%energy-preserving exponential integrators for the Hamiltonian PDEs given by
% For more details, please refer to appendix.
However, we should note that the proposed schemes can not preserve the discrete mass conservation, thus, a very
interesting question is whether it is possible to construct high-order ones which can preserve both mass and the modified energy. Furthermore, another interesting question is whether it is possible to construct linearly implicit schemes which can preserve Hamiltonian energy (not a modified energy) and only need to solve a constant coefficient matrix at each time step. These questions will be an interesting topic for future studies.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
Chaolong Jiang's work is partially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 11901513), and the Yunnan Province Basic Research Project (No.202001AT070066) and the Science and Technology Innovation Team on Applied Mathematics in Universities of Yunnan. Jin Cui's work is partially supported by the High Level Talents Research Foundation Project of Nanjing Vocational College of Information Technology (Grant No. YB20200906) and the Foundation of Jiangsu Key Laboratory for Numerical Simulation of Large Scale Complex Systems (Grant No. 202102). Xu Qian's work is partially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 11971481).
%\section{Appendix}
%\begin{appendices}
% For the purpose of illustration, we assume the energy is given by the following
% \begin{align}\label{H-energy:2.1}
% \mathcal{E}=\frac{1}{2}(z,\mathcal{L}z) + \big(F(z),1\big),
% \end{align}
% where $\mathcal{L}$ is a linear, self-adjoint, positive definite operator, and {$F^{'}(z): \mathbb{R}^{m}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is differentiable and bounded from below for all $z({\bf x},t)\ {\bf x}\in\Omega$.} Here, $(\cdot,\cdot)$ represents the inner product defined by $(f,g)=\int_{\Omega}fgd{\bf x}$ for $f,g\in L^2(\Omega)$ and denote $\|\cdot\|$ as the $L^2({\Omega})$-norm, i.e., $\|f\|^2=(f,f)$.
%
%
%
%We denote
%\begin{align*}
%p:=p(t)=\sqrt{2(F(z),1)+2C_0},
%\end{align*}
% and rewrite the energy functional \eqref{H-energy:2.1} as
% \begin{align}\label{H-energy:2.2}
% \mathcal{E}=\frac{1}{2}(z,\mathcal{L}z)+\frac{1}{2}p^2-C_0,
% \end{align}
% where $C_0$ is a constant large enough to make $p$ well defined for all $z({\bf x},t),\ {\bf x}\in\Omega$.
%
%On the basis of the energy-variational principle, the system \eqref{Hamiltionian-orginal-system} can be reformulated into
% \begin{align}\label{IEQ-Formulation}
% \left\lbrace
% \begin{aligned}
%&\partial_t z = \mathcal{D}\Big(\mathcal{L}z + \frac{F^{'}(z)}{\sqrt{2\Big(F(z),1\Big)+2C_0}} p\Big),\\
%&\partial_t p = \frac{\Big(F^{'}(z),\partial_t z\Big)}{\sqrt{2\Big(F(z),1\Big)+2C_0}},
% \end{aligned}\right.
% \end{align}
% with the consistent initial conditions
% \begin{align}\label{initial-condition}
%z({\bf x},0)=z_0({\bf x}),\ p(0)=\sqrt{2(F(z_0({\bf x})),1)+2C_0}.
% \end{align}
% \begin{thm} The SAV-reformulation \eqref{IEQ-Formulation} preserve the following quadratic energy
% \begin{align}\label{Q-energy-conservetion-law}
% \frac{d}{dt} \mathcal{E}=0,\ \mathcal{E}=\frac{1}{2}(z,\mathcal{L}z)+\frac{1}{2}p^2-C_0.
% \end{align}
% \end{thm}
% \begin{prf} It is easy to obtain
% \begin{align*}
% \frac{d}{dt} \mathcal{E}&=(\partial_tz,\mathcal{L}z)+p\partial_tp\\
% &=\Big(\mathcal{D}\Big(\mathcal{L}z + \frac{F^{'}(z)}{\sqrt{2\Big(F(z),1\Big)+2C_0}} p\Big),\mathcal{L}z\Big)+\frac{\Big(F^{'}(z),\partial_t z\Big)}{\sqrt{2\Big(F(z),1\Big)+2C_0}}p\\
% &=\frac{p}{\sqrt{2\Big(F(z),1\Big)+2C_0}}\Big(F^{'}(z),\partial_tz-\mathcal{D}\mathcal{L}z\Big)\\
% &=\frac{p}{\sqrt{2\Big(F(z),1\Big)+2C_0}}\Big(F^{'}(z),\mathcal{D}F^{'}(z)\Big)=0.
% \end{align*}
% This completes the proof. \qed
% \end{prf}
%
%
% \begin{align}\label{IEQ-Formulation}
% \left\lbrace
% \begin{aligned}
%&\partial_t z = \mathcal{D}\Big(\mathcal{L}z + \frac{F^{'}(z_i^{*})}{\sqrt{2\Big(F(z_i^{*}),1\Big)+2C_0}} p\Big),\\
%&\partial_t p = \frac{\Big(F^{'}(z_i^{*}),\partial_t z\Big)}{\sqrt{2\Big(F(z_i^{*}),1\Big)+2C_0}},
% \end{aligned}\right.
% \end{align}
%
%
% For given $(z^n,p^n)$, $(z^{n+1}, p^{n+1})$ is calculated by the following two steps
% For given $(z^n,p^n)$, the intermediate variables are first calculated as follows
%\begin{align}\label{LIE-EPS3.5}
%&z_i=\exp(\mathcal{D}\mathcal{L}c_i\tau)z^n+\tau\sum_{j=1}^{s}a_{ij}\exp(\mathcal{D}\mathcal{L}(c_i-c_j)\tau)k_j,\ p_i=p^n+\tau\sum_{j=1}^{s}a_{ij}l_j,\\\label{LIE-EPS3.6}
%&k_i=\mathcal{D}\frac{F^{'}(z_i^{*})}{\sqrt{2\Big(F(z_i^{*}),1\Big)+2C_0}}p_i,\\\label{LIE-EPS3.7}
%&l_i = \frac{\Big(F^{'}(z_i^{*}),\mathcal{D}\mathcal{L}z_i\Big)}{\sqrt{2\Big(F(z_i^{*}),1\Big)+2C_0}}.
%\end{align}
%Then $(z^{n+1},p^{n+1})$ are updated by
%\begin{align}\label{LIE-EPS3.8}
%&z^{n+1}=\exp(\mathcal{D}\mathcal{L}\tau)z^n+\tau\sum_{i=1}^{s}b_i\exp(\mathcal{D}\mathcal{L}(1-c_i)\tau)k_i,\ p^{n+1}=p^n+\tau\sum_{i=1}^{s}b_{i}l_i,
%\end{align}
%
% \end{appendices}
%{We then test the superposition of two solitons, a slower one ahead of a faster one, such that initially they are well separated, for the 1D nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation \eqref{NLS-equation}.
%The initial profile is given by \cite{HV2003}
%\begin{align}
%u_0(x)=\sqrt{\frac{2\alpha}{\beta}}e^{\text{i}\frac{1}{2}c_1x}\text{sech}(\sqrt{\alpha}x)+e^{\text{i}\frac{1}{2}c_2(x-\delta)}\text{sech}(\sqrt{\alpha}(x-\delta)),\ x\in\Omega
%\end{align}
%with $\alpha=\frac{1}{2},\ \beta=1,\ c_1=1,\ c_2=\frac{1}{10}$ and $\delta=25$.} We take the space interval $\Omega=[-20,80]$ with a periodic boundary and the superposition of two solitons is showed in Fig. \ref{1d-scheme:fig-3}. {As illustrated in Fig. (a), the collision between two solitons seems quite elastic, and the solitary waves propagate in their original directions with the same velocities, which can be verified in Fig. (b) again. The simulated solutions are precisely consistent with the existing results in Ref. \cite{HV2003}.} In Fig. \ref{1d-scheme:fig:4}, we present the residuals in the discrete quadratic energy \eqref{IFD-energy-conservation-law} over the time interval $t\in[0,44]$ calculated
% by different numerical methods, which shows that all methods can preserve the quadratic energy exactly. {It is remarked that, when fixing the spatial step and enlarging the time step (e.g., $\tau=0.004$), we find that the numerical results provided by the explicit methods are wrong, this is because, for some explicit methods, some bounds on the step size could be necessary
%to control high order harmonics.}
%In the previous sections, we present a class of high-order linearly implicit energy-preserving exponential
%integrators for general Hamiltonian PDEs with constant structure matrix. In this section, we apply the proposed schemes to solve two benchmark Hamiltonian PDE systems, the nonlinear Schr\"odinger (NLS) equation and the sine-Gordon (SG) equation, respectively, where the periodic boundary condition is considered. {For the spatial discretization, we shall pay special attention to the following three aspects: } {\begin{itemize}
%\item preserve the skew-adjoint property of the operator $\mathcal{G}(\Phi)$ and the self-adjoint, positive definite property of the operator $\mathcal{L}$, respectively;
%\item preserve the discrete integration-by-parts formulae \cite{DO11};
%\item is high-order accuracy which is comparable to that of the time-discrete method.
%\end{itemize}
%Based on these statements and the periodic boundary condition, in this paper, the standard Fourier pseudo-spectral method is employed which is omitted here due to space limitation. Interested readers are referred to Refs. \cite{CQ01,ST06} for details.}
%\subsection{Nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation}\label{sec:4.1}
%\subsection{Nonlinear sine-Gordon equation} \label{sec:4.2}
%In this subsection, we focus on the nonlinear sine-Gordon equation given
%as follows
%\begin{align}\label{sine-gordon-equation}
%\left\lbrace
% \begin{aligned}
%&\partial_{tt}\phi({\bf x},t)-\Delta \phi({\bf x},t)+\sin(\phi({\bf x},t))=0,\ ({\bf x},t)\in\mathbb{R}^d\times\mathbb{R},\\
%&\phi({\bf x},0)=\phi_0({\bf x}),\ \partial_t\phi({\bf x},0)=\phi_1({\bf x}),\ {\bf x}\in\mathbb{R}^2,
%\end{aligned}\right.
% \end{align}
% where $t$ is the time variable, ${\bf x}$ is the spatial variable, $\phi:=\phi({\bf x},t)$ is a real-valued function, $\Delta$ is the usual Laplace operator and $\phi_0({\bf x})$ and $\phi_1({\bf x}) $ are two given real-value initial data.
%
%The Hamiltonian energy functional of \eqref{sine-gordon-equation} is given by
%\begin{align}\label{sine-gordon-equation-Hamiltonian-energy}
%\mathcal{E}=\frac{1}{2}\big(\|\phi_t\|^2+(\phi,-\Delta \phi)+2(1-\cos(\phi),1)\big).
%\end{align}
%
%We let $p:=p(t)=\sqrt{2\Big((1-\cos(\phi),1)+C_0\Big)}$, and rewrite the Hamiltonian energy functional as
% \begin{align}\label{IEQ-energy}
%\mathcal{E}=\frac{1}{2}\big(\|\phi_t\|^2+(\phi,-\Delta \phi)+{p^2}\big)-C_0.
%\end{align}
%According to the idea of the SAV approach, we obtain the following reformulated system
%%\begin{align}\label{HP:eq:5.2}
%%\left\lbrace
%% \begin{aligned}
%%&\partial_t u=v,\\
%%&\partial_t v=\Delta u-\sin(u),
%%\end{aligned}\right.
%% \end{align}
%%which is equivalent to the Hamiltonian system \eqref{Hamiltionian-system}
%%and
%%
%%%Since $\mathcal{H}$ is not quadratic, we first reformulate the energy into an quadratic invariant.
%%
%%and then we obtain
% \begin{align}\label{sine-Gordon-eqaution-IEQ-equation}
%\left\lbrace
% \begin{aligned}
% &\partial_t\phi=v,\\
% &\partial_t v=\Delta \phi-\frac{\sin(\phi)p}{\sqrt{2\Big((1-\cos(\phi),1)+C_0\Big)}},\\
% &\partial_tp=\frac{(\sin(\phi),v)}{\sqrt{2\Big((1-\cos(\phi),1)+C_0\Big)}},
% \end{aligned}\right.\ \ %\label{LSP-SG:2.3}
% \end{align}
% with the consistent initial conditions
% \begin{align}\label{sine-Gordon-eqaution-initial}
%\left\lbrace
% \begin{aligned}
% &\phi({\bf x},0)=\phi_0({\bf x}),\ {\partial_t\phi({\bf x},0)=\phi_1({\bf x})},\\
% &p({\bf x},0)=\sqrt{2\Big((1-\cos(\phi_0({\bf x})),1)+C_0\Big)}.
% \end{aligned}\right.\ \ %\label{LSP-SG:2.3}
% \end{align}
%
%Supposing $\Psi=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}
% \phi \\
% v
% \end{array}\right]$, then the system \eqref{sine-Gordon-eqaution-IEQ-equation} can be reformulated into
%\begin{align}\label{sine-Gordon-eqaution-SAV-equation1}
%\left\lbrace
% \begin{aligned}
% &\partial_t\Psi=\mathcal D\mathcal L\Psi+\mathcal Df(\Psi,p),\\
% &\partial_tp=\frac{(\sin(\phi),v)}{\sqrt{2\Big((1-\cos(\phi),1)+C_0\Big)}},
% \end{aligned}\right.\ \ %\label{LSP-SG:2.3}
% \end{align}
% with
%\begin{align*}
%\mathcal{D}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
% 0& 1 \\
% -1& 0\\
% \end{array}
%\right), \ \mathcal{L}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
% -\Delta& \ \\
% \ & 1\\
% \end{array}
%\right),\ f(\Psi,p)= \left(\begin{array}{cc}
% \frac{\sin(\phi)p}{\sqrt{2\Big((1-\cos(\phi),1)+C_0\Big)}} \\
% 0\\
% \end{array}
%\right).
%\end{align*}
%
% \begin{align}\label{sine-Gordon-eqaution-SAV-equation2}
%\left\lbrace
% \begin{aligned}
% &\partial_t\Phi=\exp(-\mathcal D\mathcal Lt)\mathcal Df(\Psi,p),\\
% &\partial_tp=\frac{(\sin(\phi),v)}{\sqrt{2\Big((1-\cos(\phi),1)+C_0\Big)}},
% \end{aligned}\right.\ \ %\label{LSP-SG:2.3}
% \end{align}
%
%
%%\begin{align*}
%%\mathcal{G}(\Phi) = \left[\begin{array}{ccc}
%%0 &1&0\\
%%-1&0&\frac{-\sin(u)}{\sqrt{2\Big((1-\cos(u))+\frac{C_0}{|\Omega|}\Big)}}\\
%%0&\frac{\sin(u)}{\sqrt{2\Big((1-\cos(u))+\frac{C_0}{|\Omega|}\Big)}}&0\\
%%\end{array}
%%\right].%\left(\begin{array}{cc}
%%%0&1 \\
%%%-1&0\\
%%%\end{array}
%%%\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
%%%1 &0&\frac{\sin(u)}{\sqrt{2\Big((1-\cos(u))+\frac{C_0}{|\Omega|}\Big)}}\\
%%%0&1&0\\
%%%\\
%%%\end{array}
%%%\right).
%%\end{align*}
%
%Applying \textbf{Method \ref{LMEM-Method-3-1}} to the system \eqref{sine-Gordon-eqaution-IEQ-equation}, we have
%\begin{shm}\label{scheme-sG-equation} For given $(\Psi^n,p^n)$, $(\Psi^{n+1}, p^{n+1})$ is calculated by the following two steps:
%\begin{align}\label{sG-LIE-EPS3.5}
%&\Psi_i=\exp(\mathcal{D}\mathcal{L}c_i\tau)\Psi^n+\tau\sum_{j=1}^{s}a_{ij}\exp(\mathcal{D}\mathcal{L}(c_i-c_j)\tau){\bf k}_j,\ p_i=p^n+\tau\sum_{j=1}^{s}a_{ij}l_j,\\\label{LIE-EPS3.6}
%&{\bf k}_i=\mathcal{D}f(\Psi_i^{*},p_i),\\\label{sG-LIE-EPS3.7}
%&l_i = \frac{\Big(\sin(\phi_i^{*}),v_i\Big)}{\sqrt{2\Big(1-\cos(\phi_i^{*}),1\Big)+2C_0}}.
%\end{align}
%Then $(\Psi^{n+1},p^{n+1})$ are updated by
%\begin{align}\label{sG-LIE-EPS3.8}
%&\Psi^{n+1}=\exp(\mathcal{D}\mathcal{L}\tau)\Psi^n+\tau\sum_{i=1}^{s}b_i\exp(\mathcal{D}\mathcal{L}(1-c_i)\tau){\bf k}_i,\ p^{n+1}=p^n+\tau\sum_{i=1}^{s}b_{i}l_i.
%\end{align}
%\end{shm}
%Denote
%\begin{align*}
%&\exp(\mathcal D\mathcal Lc_i\tau)=\Bigg(\begin{matrix}
% \exp_i^{11}&\exp_i^{12} \\
% \exp_i^{21}&\exp_i^{22} \\
% \end{matrix}
%\Bigg),\ \exp(\mathcal D\mathcal L(c_i-c_j)\tau)=\Bigg(\begin{matrix}
% \widetilde\exp_{ij}^{11}&\widetilde\exp_{ij}^{12} \\
% \widetilde\exp_{ij}^{21}&\widetilde\exp_{ij}^{22}\\
% \end{matrix}
%\Bigg),\\
%&\exp(\mathcal D\mathcal L\tau)=\Bigg(\begin{matrix}
% \exp_{11}&\exp_{12} \\
% \exp_{21}&\exp_{22} \\
% \end{matrix}
%\Bigg),\ \exp(\mathcal D\mathcal L(1-c_i)\tau)=\Bigg(\begin{matrix}
% \widehat\exp_i^{11}&\widehat\exp_i^{12}\\
% \widehat\exp_i^{21}&\widehat\exp_i^{22} \\
% \end{matrix}
%\Bigg)
%\end{align*}
%
%\begin{align*}
%&\phi_i=\exp_i^{11}\phi^n+\exp_i^{12}v^n+\tau\sum_{j=1}^sa_{ij}\widetilde\exp_{ij}^{12}k_j,\\
%&v_i=\exp_{i}^{21}\phi^n+\exp_{i}^{22}v^n+\tau\sum_{j=1}^sa_{ij}\widetilde\exp_{ij}^{22}k_j,\\
%&p_i=p^n+\tau\sum_{j=1}^sa_{ij}l_j,\\
%&k_i=-\frac{\sin(\phi_{i}^{*})p_i}{\sqrt{2\Big((1-\cos(\phi_{i}^{*}),1)+C_0\Big)}},\ l_i=\Bigg(\frac{\sin(\phi_i^{*})}{\sqrt{2\Big(1-\cos(\phi_i^{*}),1\Big)+2C_0}},v_i\Bigg),\\
%&\phi^{n+1}=\exp_{11}\phi^n+\exp_{12}v^n+\tau\sum_{i=1}^sb_{i}\widehat\exp_i^{12}k_i,\\
%&v^{n+1}=\exp_{21}\phi^n+\exp_{22}v^n+\tau\sum_{i=1}^sb_{i}\widehat\exp_i^{22}k_i.
%\end{align*}
%
%
%
%\begin{rmk}\label{ESAV-rk-4.2} On the one hand, $\exp(\tau\mathcal D\mathcal L)$ can be efficiently implemented via the fast Fourier transform since the calculation of exponentials is time-consuming in general. Actually, It holds\cite{Jiang2020jcp}
%\begin{align*}
%\exp(\tau\mathcal D\mathcal L)=\Bigg(\begin{matrix}
% F^H\cosh(\tau\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})F&\ F^H(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})^{-1}\sinh(\tau\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})F \\
% F^H\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}}\sinh(\tau\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})F &F^H\cosh(\tau\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})F\\
% \end{matrix}
%\Bigg).
%\end{align*}
%where
%\begin{align*}
%&\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}}=\text{diag}\Big[{\lambda^{\frac{1}{2}}_{0}},{\lambda^{\frac{1}{2}}_{1}},\cdots,{\lambda^{\frac{1}{2}}_{N-1}}\Big],\ (\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})^{-1}\sinh(\tau\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})=\text{\rm diag}\Bigg[\tau,\frac{\sinh(\tau\lambda_1^{\frac{1}{2}})}{\lambda_1^{\frac{1}{2}}},
%\cdots,\frac{\sinh(\tau\lambda_{N-1}^{\frac{1}{2}})}{\lambda_{N-1}^{\frac{1}{2}}}\Bigg]. %&(\tau\Lambda)^{-1}(\cosh(\tau\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})-I)=\text{\rm diag}\Big[\frac{\tau}{2},\frac{\cosh(\tau\lambda_1^{\frac{1}{2}})-1}{\tau\lambda_1}, \cdots,\frac{\cosh(\tau\lambda_{N-1}^{\frac{1}{2}})-1}{\tau\lambda_{N-1}}\Big].
%\end{align*}
%On the other hand, small modifications would allow us to efficiently implement $\exp(\tau\mathcal D\mathcal L)$ in two dimensional case.
%\end{rmk}
%For simplicity of notations, we shall introduce the discrete quadratic invariant in
%one space dimension, i.e. $d=1$ in \eqref{NLS-equivalent-equation} and Section \ref{sec:4.2}. Generalizations to $d=2$ are straightforward. Choose the spatial domain $\Omega=[a,b]$ and the mesh size $h=(b-a)/N$, where $N$ is an even positive integer, and denote the grid points by $x_{j}=jh$ for $j=0,1,2,\cdots,N$; let $P_{j}^n$ and $Q_{j}^n$ be the numerical approximations of $p(x_j,t_n)$ and $q(x_j,t_n)$ for $n=0,1,2,\cdots,M$ and $j=0,1,2,\cdots,N$, and $P^n:=[p_0^n,p_1^n,\cdots,p_{N-1}^n]^T$, $Q^n:=[q_0^n,q_1^n,\cdots,q_{N-1}^n]^T$ be the numerical solution vectors. In addition, for any grid function vectors $U^n$ and $V^n\in\mathbb{R}^{N}$, we define the discrete inner product and $L^2$-norm as follows
%\begin{align*}
%&\langle U^n,V^n\rangle_{h}=h\sum_{j=0}^{N-1}U^n_{j}V^n_{j},\ ||U^n||_{h}^2=h\sum_{j=0}^{N-1}(U^n_{j})^2.
%%h_{\Delta}\sum_{j_1=0}^{N_1-1}\sum_{j_2=0}^{N_2-1}\sum_{j_3=0}^{N_3-1}U_{j_1,j_2,j_3}\overline{V}_{j_1,j_2,j_3}=
%\end{align*} According to Theorem \ref{thm-3.1}, {\bf Method 3.1} preserves the following discrete mass conservation law
%{\begin{align}\label{IFD-energy-conservation-law}
%H^{n}=\frac{1}{2}\big(\|P^n\|_h^2+\|Q^n\|_h^2\big),\ \ n=0,1,\cdots,M.
%\end{align}
%In order to quantify the residual of the discrete mass conservation law, we use the relative mass residual between the discrete mass at $t=t_n$ (i.e., ${H}^n$) and the initial discrete value, respectively, as
%\begin{align}
%RM^n=\Big|\frac{{H}^n-{H}^0}{{H}^0}\Big|,\ n=0,1,2,\cdots,M.
%\end{align}}
%
%\begin{rmk}\label{rmk:4.1} {Since the original energy is quadratic, {\bf Method 4.1} can preserve the discrete energy in the original variables.}
%\end{rmk}
%
%First of all, we present the time mesh refinement tests to show the order of accuracy of the proposed method. Also, the following high-order methods for preserving the discrete quadratic energy are chosen for comparisons:
%\begin{itemize}
%\item 4th-order GM: the 2-stage Gauss method described in Refs. \cite{Sanz-Sernabit88,SCbook94};
%\item 4th-order PM: the incremental
%direction projection method for quadratic invariants proposed in Refs. \cite{CHMR06,ZhangQYS19};
%\item {DOPRI5(4): we replace the explicit RK4 method (see Remark \ref{rmk:3.5}) with the well known DOPRI5(4) of Dormand-Prince in Ref. \cite{DP80jcam} at each time level. Note that, in our computations, we implement DOPRI5(4) by the matlab library function {\it ode45.m}.}
%\end{itemize}
%As a summary, the properties of these methods are displayed in Tab. \ref{Tab-IPs:1}.
%\begin{table}[H]
%\tabcolsep=6pt
%\small
%\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.12}
%\centering
%\caption{Comparisons of properties of different numerical methods}\label{Tab-IPs:1}
%\begin{tabular*}{\textwidth}[h]{@{\extracolsep{\fill}}c c c c c c c c c }\hline %% µÚ1 ÐÐ
% \diagbox{Property}{Scheme}& 4th-order GM& 4th-order PM& The proposed method \\\hline
% Conserving quadratic energy& Yes& Yes &Yes \\[1ex]
% Temporal accuracy& 4th&4th&4th \\[1ex]
% Explicit &No&Yes&Yes\\
%\hline
%\end{tabular*}
%\end{table}
\bibliographystyle{plain}
\bibliography{ref}
\end{document}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
%\includegraphics[width=60mm]{1d_example2_error.eps}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{1d_example2_3.eps}
\caption*{(a)}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{1d_example2_1.eps}
\caption*{(b)}
\end{minipage}
\caption{ {Time evolution of the soliton collision using the proposed method with the time step $\tau=0.001$ and the Fourier node 1024, respectively: (a) the profile of $|u|$ over the time interval $t\in[0,44]$ and (b) snapshots of $|u|$ at times $t=0,\ 23$ and $44$, respectively.} }\label{1d-scheme:fig-3}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\begin{minipage}[t]{65mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{1d-NLS-example2-error.eps}
\end{minipage}
\caption{{The relative energy residuals using the different numerical methods for the collision of two solitons with the time step $\tau=0.001$ and the Fourier node 1024 for the 1D Schr\"odinger equation \eqref{NLS-equation}.}}\label{1d-scheme:fig:4}
\end{figure}
Finally, we test the two dimensional (2D) nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation \eqref{NLS-equation} which possesses the following analytical solution
\begin{align}\label{NLS-AS}
u(x,y,t)=A\exp(\text{i}(k_1x+k_2y-\omega t)),\ \omega=k_1^2+k_2^2-\beta|A|^2,(x,y)\in\Omega,t\ge0.
\end{align}
Here we set the space computational interval $\Omega=[0,2\pi]^2$ with a periodic boundary and choose parameters $A=1,\ k_1=k_2=1$ and $\beta=-2$.
To test the temporal discretization errors of the different numerical methods, we fix the Fourier node $16\times 16$ such that the spatial discretization errors are negligible. The $L^2$ errors and $L^{\infty}$ errors in numerical solution of $u$ in long time (i.e., $t=50$) are calculated using three different numerical methods with various
time steps {$\tau=0.005, 0.0025, 0.00125$ and $0.000625$}, and the results are displayed in Fig. \ref{scheme:fig:1}. In Fig. \ref{scheme:fig:2}, we show the global $L^2$ errors and $L^{\infty}$ errors of $u$ versus the CPU time using the different numerical methods at $t=50$. It is clear to see that the observations obtained from Figs. \ref{scheme:fig:1} and \ref{scheme:fig:2} behave similarly
as those given in Figs. \ref{1d-scheme:fig:1} and \ref{1d-scheme:fig:2}. %we can draw the following observations: (i) all methods have fourth order accuracy in time; (ii) the error provided by the 4th-order GM is smallest, and the one provided by the proposed scheme has the same order of magnitude as the one of the 4th-order PM; (iii) for a given global error, the cost of 4th-order GM is most expensive while the one of our scheme is cheapest.
To further investigate the energy-preservation
of the selected methods, we provide the relative energy residuals using the different numerical methods for the 2D Schr\"odinger equation \eqref{NLS-equation} over the time interval $t\in[0,1000]$ in Fig. \ref{scheme:fig:3}, which shows that all methods can preserve the quadratic invariant \eqref{IFD-energy-conservation-law} exactly.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{2d-NLS-L2_error.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{2d-L-infty-error.eps}
\end{minipage}
\caption{ Time step refinement tests using the different numerical methods for the 2D Schr\"odinger equation \eqref{NLS-equation}.}\label{scheme:fig:1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{2d-NLS-Cpu-L2.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{2d-NLS-Cpu-L-infty.eps}
\end{minipage}
\caption{ The numerical errors versus the CPU time using the different numerical methods for the 2D Schr\"odinger equation \eqref{NLS-equation}.}\label{scheme:fig:2}
\end{figure}
%\begin{figure}[H]
%\centering
%\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
%\includegraphics[width=60mm]{eg1-energy-error.eps}
%\end{minipage}
%\caption{The relative energy residuals using the three numerical schemes with time step $\tau=0.01$ and spatial step $h=\frac{\pi}{8}$.}\label{scheme:fig:3}
%\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\begin{minipage}[t]{65mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{2d-NLS-energy-error.eps}
\end{minipage}
\caption{The relative energy residuals using the different numerical methods with the time step $\tau=0.01$ and the Fourier node $16\times 16$ for the 2D Schr\"odinger equation \eqref{NLS-equation}.}\label{scheme:fig:3}
\end{figure}
\begin{rmk} {As illustrated in Figs. \ref{1d-scheme:fig:2} and \ref{scheme:fig:2}, the proposed method is more efficient than the 4th-order PM, which also
appears similar results in the following numerical experiments. However, the efficiency improvement of the proposed method
is not even one order of magnitude better than the 4th-order PM since the 4th-order PM is also a fully explicit method.}
\end{rmk}
\subsection{Sine-Gordon equation} \label{sec:4.2}
In this subsection, we focus on the sine-Gordon equation given
as follows
\begin{align}\label{sine-gordon-equation}
\left\lbrace
\begin{aligned}
&\partial_{tt}u({\bf x},t)-\Delta u({\bf x},t)+\sin(u({\bf x},t))=0,\ ({\bf x},t)\in\Omega\times(0,T],\\
&u({\bf x},0)=u_0({\bf x}),\ \partial_tu({\bf x},0)=v_0({\bf x}),\ {\bf x}\in\Omega,
\end{aligned}\right.
\end{align}
where $t$ is the time variable, ${\bf x}$ is the spatial variable, $u:=u({\bf x},t)$ is a real-valued function, $\Delta$ is the usual Laplace operator and $u_0({\bf x})$ and $v_0({\bf x}) $ are two given real-value initial data.
The Hamiltonian energy functional of \eqref{sine-gordon-equation} is given by
\begin{align}\label{sine-gordon-equation-Hamiltonian-energy}
\mathcal{H}=\frac{1}{2}\big(\|u_t\|^2+(u,-\Delta u)+2(1-\cos(u),1)\big).
\end{align}
We let $q:=q({\bf x},t)=\sqrt{2\Big((1-\cos(u))+\frac{C_0}{|\Omega|}\Big)}$, and rewrite the Hamiltonian energy functional as
\begin{align}\label{IEQ-energy}
\mathcal{H}=\frac{1}{2}\big(\|u_t\|^2+(u,-\Delta u)+{\|q\|^2}\big)-C_0.
\end{align}
According to the IEQ reformulation, we obtain the following equivalent system
%\begin{align}\label{HP:eq:5.2}
%\left\lbrace
% \begin{aligned}
%&\partial_t u=v,\\
%&\partial_t v=\Delta u-\sin(u),
%\end{aligned}\right.
% \end{align}
%which is equivalent to the Hamiltonian system \eqref{Hamiltionian-system} with
%\begin{align*}
%z=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
% u \\
% v\\
% \end{array}
%\right), \ \ \mathcal{D}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
% 0& 1 \\
% -1& 0\\
% \end{array}
%\right),
%\end{align*}
%and
%
%%Since $\mathcal{H}$ is not quadratic, we first reformulate the energy into an quadratic invariant.
%
%and then we obtain
\begin{align}\label{sine-Gordon-eqaution-IEQ-equation}
\left\lbrace
\begin{aligned}
&\partial_tu=v,\\
&\partial_t v=\Delta u-\frac{\sin(u)q}{\sqrt{2\Big((1-\cos(u))+\frac{C_0}{|\Omega|}\Big)}},\\
&\partial_tq=\frac{\sin(u)v}{\sqrt{2\Big((1-\cos(u))+\frac{C_0}{|\Omega|}\Big)}},
\end{aligned}\right.\ \ %\label{LSP-SG:2.3}
\end{align}
with the consistent initial conditions
\begin{align}\label{sine-Gordon-eqaution-initial}
\left\lbrace
\begin{aligned}
&u({\bf x},0)=u_0({\bf x}),\ {\partial_tu({\bf x},0)=v_0({\bf x})},\\
&q({\bf x},0)=\sqrt{2\Big((1-\cos(u_0({\bf x})))+\frac{C_0}{|\Omega|}\Big)}.
\end{aligned}\right.\ \ %\label{LSP-SG:2.3}
\end{align}
Supposing $\Phi=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}
u \\
v\\
q\\
\end{array}\right]$, then the system \eqref{sine-Gordon-eqaution-IEQ-equation} is equivalently reformulated into the system \eqref{model-general-field} with a quadratic energy
\begin{align}\label{sG-energy-conserved-law}
\mathcal{H}=\frac{1}{2}(\Phi,\mathcal{L}\Phi),\ \mathcal{L}=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}
-\Delta& \ &\ \\
\ & 1&\ \\
\ &\ &1\\
\end{array}
\right],
\end{align}
and a modified structure matrix
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{G}(\Phi) = \left[\begin{array}{ccc}
0 &1&0\\
-1&0&\frac{-\sin(u)}{\sqrt{2\Big((1-\cos(u))+\frac{C_0}{|\Omega|}\Big)}}\\
0&\frac{\sin(u)}{\sqrt{2\Big((1-\cos(u))+\frac{C_0}{|\Omega|}\Big)}}&0\\
\end{array}
\right].%\left(\begin{array}{cc}
%0&1 \\
%-1&0\\
%\end{array}
%\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
%1 &0&\frac{\sin(u)}{\sqrt{2\Big((1-\cos(u))+\frac{C_0}{|\Omega|}\Big)}}\\
%0&1&0\\
%\\
%\end{array}
%\right).
\end{align*}
Applying \textbf{Method \ref{scheme2}} to the system \eqref{sine-Gordon-eqaution-IEQ-equation}, we have
\begin{shm}\label{scheme-sG-equation} For given $(u^n,v^n,q^n)$, $(u^{n+1}, v^{n+1},q^{n+1})$ is calculated by the following two steps:
\begin{enumerate}
\item {Explicit RK: we compute $(\widetilde{u}^{n+1},\widetilde{v}^{n+1},\widetilde{q}^{n+1})$ by using the explicit RK4 method (see remark \ref{rmk:3.5}) to the system \eqref{sine-Gordon-eqaution-IEQ-equation}.}
%\begin{align}\label{sG-explict-scheme}
%\left\lbrace
% \begin{aligned}
% &U_1=u^n,\ U_i=u^n+\tau\sum_{j=1}^{i-1}a_{ij}k_j,\\
% &V_1=v^n,\ V_i=v^n+\tau\sum_{j=1}^{i-1}a_{ij}l_j,\\
% &Q_1=q^n,\ Q_i=q^n+\tau\sum_{j=1}^{i-1}a_{ij}m_j,\\
% &k_i=V_i,\\
% &l_i=\Delta U_i-\frac{\sin(U_i)Q_i}{\sqrt{2\Big((1-\cos(U_i))+\frac{C_0}{|\Omega|}\Big)}},\\
% &m_i=\frac{\sin(U_i)V_i}{\sqrt{2\Big((1-\cos(U_i))+\frac{C_0}{|\Omega|}\Big)}},\\
% &\tilde{u}^{n+1}=u^n+\tau\sum_{i=1}^sb_ik_i,\\
% &\tilde{v}^{n+1}=v^n+\tau\sum_{i=1}^sb_il_i,\\
% &\tilde{q}^{n+1}=q^n+\tau\sum_{i=1}^sb_im_i,
% \end{aligned}\right.\ \ %\label{LSP-SG:2.3}
% \end{align}
%where $b_i, a_{ij}$ are RK coefficients.
\item Projection: we update $(u^{n+1},v^{n+1},q^{n+1})$ via
\begin{align}\label{sG-explict-projection}
&u^{n+1}=\tilde{u}^{n+1}+\lambda_n\Big(-\Delta\tilde{u}^{n+1}\Big),\\
&v^{n+1}=\tilde{v}^{n+1}+\lambda_n\tilde{v}^{n+1},\\
&q^{n+1}=\tilde{q}^{n+1}+\lambda_n\tilde{q}^{n+1},
\end{align}
where $\lambda_n$ is given by \eqref{lambda-value}.
\end{enumerate}
\end{shm}
{ Let $U_{j}^n$, $V_{j}^n$ and $Q_{j}^n$ be the numerical approximations of $u(x_j,t_n)$, $v(x_j,t_n)$ and $q(x_j,t_n)$ for $n=0,1,2\cdots,M$ and $j=0,1,2,\cdots,N$, respectively, and denote $U^n:=[U_0^n,U_1^n,\cdots,U_{N-1}^n]^T$, $V^n:=[V_0^n,V_1^n,\cdots,V_{N-1}^n]^T$ and $Q^n:=[Q_0^n,Q_1^n,\cdots,Q_{N-1}^n]^T$ be the numerical solution vectors. According to Theorem \ref{thm-DECL2}, {\bf Method 4.2} preserves the following discrete energy conservation law %Choose the spatial domain $\Omega=[a,b]\times [c,d]$ which is uniformly partitioned with mesh sizes and collocation points as Section \ref{sec:4.1}.
\begin{align}\label{sg-IFD-energy-conservation-law}
H^{n}=\frac{1}{2}\big(\|V^n\|_h^2+\langle U^n,-\Delta_h U^n\rangle_h+\|Q^n\|_h^2\big)-C_0,
\end{align}
where $\Delta_h$ represents the Fourier pseudo-spectral matrix.}
%In order to quantify the residuals of the discrete mass conservation law , we use the relative mass residual between the discrete mass (i.e., ${H}^n$) at $t=t_n$ and the initial discrete ones, respectively, as
%\begin{align}
%RM^n=\Big|\frac{{H}^n-{H}^0}{{H}^0}\Big|,\ n=0,1,2,\cdots,M.
%\end{align}}
\begin{rmk} \label{sg-rmk-4.2}{The energy \eqref{sine-gordon-equation-Hamiltonian-energy} is non-quadratic, thus, according to Remark \ref{rmk2.1}, {\bf Method 4.2} can not preserve the following discrete energy in the original variables, i.e.,
\begin{align}\label{sG-equation-Hamiltonian-energy-error}
H_h^{n}=\frac{1}{2}\big(\|V^n\|_h^2+\langle U^n,-\Delta_h U^n\rangle_h+2\langle 1-\cos(U^n),{\bf1}\rangle_h\big),
\end{align}
where ${\bf 1}=[1,1,\cdots,1]^T\in\mathbb{R}^N$.}
\end{rmk}
We repeat the time step refinement test first and choose the parameter $C_0=1$. The 1D sine-Gordon equation \eqref{sine-gordon-equation} admits the analytical solution
\begin{align*}
u(x,t)=4\arctan(t\text{sech}(x)),\ x\in\Omega,\ t\ge0.
\end{align*}
We set the space interval $\Omega=[-50,50]$ with a periodic boundary. The $L^2$ errors and $L^{\infty}$ errors of $u$ { at time $t=10$} using the different numerical methods with the Fourier node 1024 and various time steps { $\tau=0.01, 0.005, 0.0025,$ and $0.00125$, respectively, } are shown in Fig. \ref{1d-sG-scheme-error}. Moreover, we plot the global $L^2$ errors and $L^{\infty}$ errors of $u$ versus the the CPU times {at time $t=10$} using the different methods with the Fourier node 1024 in Fig. \ref{1d-sG-scheme-CPU}. Here we observe similar results, i.e., all methods have fourth order accuracy in time, the error provided by the 4th-order GM is smallest, and our scheme has the same order of magnitude as the one of the 4th-order PM. Analogously, for a given global error, DOPRI5(4) is computationally cheapest and the 4th-order GM is most expensive.
In Fig. \ref{scheme:fig:6}, we display the relative energy residuals of the different methods in the discrete invariants over the time interval $t\in[0,1000]$, which shows that the DOPRI5(4), the 4th-order GM, 4th-order PM and the proposed method can preserve the discrete modified energy \eqref{sg-IFD-energy-conservation-law} exactly, and our method can only preserve the discrete Hamiltonian energy \eqref{sG-equation-Hamiltonian-energy-error} approximately, which is consistent with Remark \ref{sg-rmk-4.2}.
% of
% with $N=32$ at $t=1$
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{1d-sG-L2-error.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{1d-sG-Linfty-error.eps}
\end{minipage}
\caption{ Time step refinement tests using the different numerical methods for the 1D
sine-Gordon equation \eqref{sine-gordon-equation}.}\label{1d-sG-scheme-error}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{1d-sG-Cpu_L2.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{1d-sG-Cpu_L_infty.eps}
\end{minipage}
\caption{The numerical errors versus the CPU time using the different numerical methods for
1D sine-Gordon equation \eqref{sine-gordon-equation}.}\label{1d-sG-scheme-CPU}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\begin{minipage}[t]{65mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{1d-sG-eg1-energy-error.eps}
\end{minipage}
\caption{The relative energy residuals including the discrete quadratic energy \eqref{sg-IFD-energy-conservation-law} using the different numerical methods and the discrete Hamiltonian energy \eqref{sG-equation-Hamiltonian-energy-error} residual provided by the proposed method with the time step $\tau=0.02$ and the Fourier node 256 for
1D sine-Gordon equation \eqref{sine-gordon-equation}.}\label{scheme:fig:6}
\end{figure}
Next, we apply the proposed method to simulate the collision of four ring solitons of the 2D sine-Gordon equation with initial
conditions given as follows \cite{SKV10} %Argyris91,CL81,
\begin{align*}
&u_0(x,y)=4\tan^{-1}\left[\exp\left(\frac{4-\sqrt{(x+3)^{2}+(y+7)^{2}}}{0.436}\right)\right],\ (x,y)\in\Omega,\\
& v_0(x,y)=\frac{4.13}{\cosh\left(\frac{4-\sqrt{(x+3)^{2}+(y+7)^{2}}}{0.436}\right)},\ (x,y)\in\Omega.
\end{align*}
We choose the space interval $\Omega=[-30,10]^2$ and a periodic boundary condition.
The collision precisely among four expanding circular ring solitons is summarized in Fig. \ref{scheme:fig:7}, which shows a strong agreement with the existing results presented in Refs. \cite{CJWS19jcp,SKV10}. Here, one should notice that the numerical solutions includes the extension across $x=-10$ and $y=-10$ by symmetry properties of the problem. The relative energy residuals including the quadratic energy \eqref{sg-IFD-energy-conservation-law} calculated
by the four numerical methods and the discrete Hamiltonian energy \eqref{sG-equation-Hamiltonian-energy-error} provided by the proposed method over the time interval $t\in[0,100]$ are shown in Fig. \ref{scheme:fig:8}, which behaves similarly as that given in Fig. \ref{scheme:fig:6}.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{eg3-fig1.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{eg3-fig6.eps}
\end{minipage}
\centering
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{eg3-fig2.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{eg3-fig7.eps}
\end{minipage}
\centering
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{eg3-fig3.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{eg3-fig8.eps}
\end{minipage}
\centering
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{eg3-fig4.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{eg3-fig9.eps}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{eg3-fig5.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{eg3-fig10.eps}
\end{minipage}
\caption{The profile of $\sin(u/2)$ provided by the proposed method at times $t=0,2.5,5,7.5$ and $10$ using the time step $\tau=0.1$ and the Fourier node $200\times 200$, respectively, for
the 2D sine-Gordon equation \eqref{sine-gordon-equation}.}\label{scheme:fig:7}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering%\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
%\includegraphics[width=60mm]{figure/soliton_1.pdf}
%\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{65mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{2d-sG-energy-error.eps}
\end{minipage}
\caption{The relative energy residuals including the discrete quadratic energy \eqref{sg-IFD-energy-conservation-law} using the four numerical methods and the discrete Hamiltonian energy \eqref{sG-equation-Hamiltonian-energy-error} provided by the proposed method with the time step $\tau=0.1$ and the Fourier node $200\times 200$, respectively, for
the 2D sine-Gordon equation \eqref{sine-gordon-equation}.}\label{scheme:fig:8}
\end{figure}
%where
% \begin{align*}
% g_1(u,u_x)=(u+\frac{1}{2})^2(u^2+u_x^2),\ g_2(u,u_x)=u^2(u^2+u_x^2).
% \end{align*}
%\begin{thm} The system \eqref{NKGEs:eq:2.2} possesses the following modified energy.
%\begin{align}\label{NKGEs:eq:2.3}
%E(t)=\int_{\mathbb{R}^d}\Big[\frac{1}{2}|v|^2+\frac{\omega^2}{2}|\nabla u|^2\Big]d{\bm x}+q^2=E(0),\ t\ge 0.
%\end{align}
%\end{thm}
%\section{Numerical results}\label{Sec:PM:6}
%In the previous section, we present some high-order explicit energy-preserving schemes for the nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation and the sine-Gordon equation, respectively. In this section, we report the numerical performance of the proposed schemes \ref{scheme-NLS-equation} and \ref{scheme-sG-equation}, which are further discretized in space via the standard Fourier pseudo-spectral method because of the high order accuracy and the FFT \cite{CQ01,ST06}. Theoretically, the newly proposed high-order schemes \ref{scheme-NLS-equation} and \ref{scheme-sG-equation} could reach arbitrarily high-order accuracy in time when a arbitrarily high-order explicit R-K method is applied, and they all can exactly preserve the corresponding discrete quadratic invariants.
%{\bf Example 1: Nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation}
%The following numerical experiments for the NLS equation \eqref{HP-NLS} are investigated. To test the accuracy, taking $\beta=2$, the NLS equation \eqref{HP-NLS} possesses the following analytical solution
%\begin{align}\label{NLS-AS}
%u(x,t)=sech(x-4t)\exp(2ix-3it),\ x\in\mathbb{R}.
%\end{align}
%We set the computational domain $\Omega=(-50,50)$ and the analytical solution of \eqref{NLS-AS} at $t=0$ on $\bar{\Omega}$ as the
%initial condition.
%
%To test the temporal discretization errors of the three numerical methods, we fix $N=512$ such that the spatial discretization errors are negligible. Tab. \ref{Tab:PM:2} shows the temporal errors and convergence rates for the three numerical methods under different time steps at $t=1$. Fig. \ref{PM:fig:1} displays the numerical error versus the CPU time of the three methods under $N=512$ at $t=1$. From Tab. \ref{Tab:PM:2} and Fig. \ref{PM:fig:1}, we can draw the following observations: (i) all methods have fourth order accuracy in
%time errors; (ii) the error provided by the proposed method has the same order of magnitude as
%the one provided by 4th-order PM; (iii) the costs of 4th-order GM is most expensive
%while the one of our method is cheapest.
%
%Fig. \ref{PM:fig:2} provides the numerical results obtained using the three methods with $N=256$ and $\tau=0.01$. From Fig. \ref{PM:fig:2}(a), it is clear to see that the propagation of solitary wave over the time interval $[0,10]$ is traveling from left to right as required and the shape of the solutions is preserved accurately, which implies that the proposed scheme can simulate the solitary wave well. In Fig. \ref{PM:fig:2}(b), we observe that all three method can exactly preserve the quadratic invariant \eqref{HE-eq:4.3} and our method admit smallest errors.
%\begin{table}[H]
%\tabcolsep=9pt
%\footnotesize
%\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.1}
%\centering
%\caption{{Numerical error and convergence rate for different numerical schemes under different time steps and $N=512$ at $t=1$.}}\label{Tab:PM:2}
%\begin{tabular*}{\textwidth}[h]{@{\extracolsep{\fill}} c c c c c c}\hline
%{Method\ \ } &{$\tau$} &{$e_{h,2}$} &{order}& {$e_{h,\infty}$}&{order} \\ %% µÚ1ÐÐ
%\hline
% \multirow{3}{*}{The proposed method} &{$\frac{1}{100}$}& {2.458e-06}&{-} &{1.591e-06} & {-}\\[1ex]%&{2.8}\\
% {} &{$\frac{1}{200}$}& {1.533e-07}&{4.00} &{9.792e-08} & {4.02}\\[1ex] %&{4.3} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
% {} &{$\frac{1}{400}$}& {9.569e-09}&{4.00} &{6.049e-09} &{4.02} \\\hline
% % {} &{$\frac{1}{800}$}& {6.043e-010}&{3.98} &{4.085e-010} &{3.89} \\\hline
% \multirow{3}{*}{4th-order GM} &{$\frac{1}{100}$}& {3.570e-07}&{-} &{2.164e-07} & {-}\\[1ex]%&{2.8}\\
% {} &{$\frac{1}{200}$}& { 2.233e-08}&{4.00} &{1.355e-08} & {4.00}\\[1ex] %&{4.3} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
% {} &{$\frac{1}{400}$}& {1.399e-09}&{4.00} &{8.612e-010} &{3.98} \\\hline
% % {} &{$\frac{1}{800}$} & {1.251e-010}&{3.48}&{7.763e-011} & {3.47}\\\hline
% \multirow{3}{*}{4th-order PM} &{$\frac{1}{100}$}& {2.451e-06}&{-} &{1.594e-06} & {-}\\[1ex]%&{2.8}\\
% {} &{$\frac{1}{200}$}& {1.531e-07}&{4.00} &{9.800e-08} & {4.02}\\[1ex] %&{4.3} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
% {} &{$\frac{1}{400}$}& {9.562e-09}&{4.00} &{6.057e-09} &{4.02} \\\hline
% %{} &{$\frac{1}{800}$}& {1.725e-05}&{2.00} &{1.638e-05} &{2.00} \\\hline%\hline
%\end{tabular*}
%\end{table}
%
%\begin{figure}[H]
%\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{70mm}
%\includegraphics[width=70mm]{figure/cpu_time1.pdf}
%\end{minipage}
%\caption{The numerical error versus the CPU time with $N=512$ at $t=1$.}\label{PM:fig:1}
%\end{figure}
%
%\begin{figure}[H]
%\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
%\includegraphics[width=60mm]{figure/soliton_1.pdf}
%\caption*{(a)}
%\end{minipage}
%\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
%\includegraphics[width=60mm]{figure/fig1.pdf}
%\caption*{(b)}
%\end{minipage}
%\caption{Numerical results: (a) Propagation of solitary wave $|u|$ obtained by our method; (b) Energy deviation.}\label{PM:fig:2}
%\end{figure}
%{\bf Example 2: sine-Gordon equation}
\section{Concluding remarks}\label{Sec:PM:7}
In this paper, we have presented a new systematic and unified way to develop explicit high-order energy-preserving methods for general Hamiltonian PDEs by combining the orthogonal projection method with the explicit RK methods. Numerical examples
are addressed to illustrate the accuracy, CPU time and invariants-preservation of the proposed
method. Compared with the two existing energy-preserving methods of same order, the proposed high-order method shows remarkable efficiency.
We conclude this paper with some remarks. First, compared with the incremental direction projection method proposed in Ref. \cite{CHMR06}, the proposed method cannot preserve both linear invariants and affine invariants, and also requires us to provide an analytical expression of the
gradient $\frac{\delta\mathcal{H}}{\delta \Phi}$, but the gradient of a quadratic invariant is easily obtained and numerical results show the computation cost of the proposed method is much cheaper. In addition, the expression of the Lagrange multiplier $\lambda_n$ (see \eqref{lambda-value}) is more concise. Second, the proposed method might not work well for highly unstable systems, thus, implicit projections (e.g., see Ref. \cite{BIT12siam}) become necessary. However, such trade-offs among methods should be further investigated. Finally, for several invariants, the Lagrange multiplier of the proposed projection method can not be explicitly obtained. Thus, a possible future work is to develop explicit high-order multiple invariants-preserving methods.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
Chaolong Jiang's work is partially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 11901513), the Yunnan Provincial Department of Education Science Research Fund Project (Grant No. 2019J0956), the Foundation of Jiangsu Key Laboratory for Numerical Simulation of Large Scale Complex Systems (Grant No. 201905) and the Science and Technology Innovation Team on Applied Mathematics in Universities of Yunnan. Yushun Wang's work is partially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 11771213). Yuezheng Gong's work is partially supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province
(Grant No. BK20180413), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 11801269) and the Foundation of Jiangsu Key Laboratory for Numerical Simulation of Large Scale Complex
Systems (Grant No. 202002).
\begin{thebibliography}{10}
\bibitem{BCMR12}
L.~Brugnano, M.~Calvo, J.~I. Montijano, and L.~R\'andez.
\newblock Energy-preserving methods for {P}oisson systems.
\newblock {\em J. Comput. Appl. Math.}, 236:3890--3904, 2012.
\bibitem{BI16}
L.~Brugnano and F.~Iavernaro.
\newblock {\em Line Integral Methods for Conservative Problems}.
\newblock Chapman et Hall/CRC: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2016.
\bibitem{BIT10}
L.~Brugnano, F.~Iavernaro, and D.~Trigiante.
\newblock Hamiltonian boundary value methods (energy preserving discrete line
integral methods).
\newblock {\em J. Numer. Anal. Ind. Appl. Math.}, 5:17--37, 2010.
\bibitem{BITjcam11}
L.~Brugnano, F.~Iavernaro, and D.~Trigiante.
\newblock A note on the efficient implementation of {H}amiltonian {BVM}s.
\newblock {\em J. Comput. Appl. Math.}, 236:375--383, 2011.
\bibitem{BIT12siam}
L.~Brugnano, F.~Iavernaro, and D.~Trigiante.
\newblock Energy-and quadratic invariants-preserving integrators based upon
{G}auss collocation formulae.
\newblock {\em SIAM J. Numer. Anal.}, 50:2897--2916, 2012.
\bibitem{BM02jcam}
N.~Del Buono and C.~Mastroserio.
\newblock Explicit methods based on a class of four stage fourth order
{R}unge-{K}utta methods for preserving quadratic laws.
\newblock {\em J. Comput. Appl. Math.}, 140:231--243, 2002.
\bibitem{CS19jcp}
J.~Cai and J.~Shen.
\newblock Two classes of linearly implicit local energy-preserving approach for
general multi-symplectic {H}amiltonian {PDE}s.
\newblock {\em J. Comput. Phys.}, 401:108975, 2020.
\bibitem{CJWS19jcp}
W.~Cai, C.~Jiang, Y.~Wang, and Y.~Song.
\newblock Structure-preserving algorithms for the two-dimensional sine-{G}ordon
equation with {N}eumann boundary conditions.
\newblock {\em J. Comput. Phys.}, 395:166--185, 2019.
\bibitem{CHMR06}
M.~Calvo, D.~Hern\'andez-Abreu, J.~I. Montijano, and L.~R\'andez.
\newblock On the preservation of invariants by explicit {R}unge-{K}utta
methods.
\newblock {\em SIAM J. Sci. Comput.}, 28:868--885, 2006.
\bibitem{CIZ97}
M.~Calvo, A.~Iserles, and A.~Zanna.
\newblock Numerical solution of isospectral flows.
\newblock {\em Math. Comp.}, 66:1461--1486, 1997.
\bibitem{CLMR15}
M.~Calvo, M.P. Laburta, J.I. Montijano, and L.~R\'andez.
\newblock Runge-kutta projection methods with low dispersion and dissipation
errors.
\newblock {\em Adv. Comput. Math.}, 41:231--251, 2015.
\bibitem{CGM12}
E.~Celledoni, V.~Grimm, R.~I. McLachlan, D.~I. McLaren, D.~O'Neale, B.~Owren,
and G.~R.~W. Quispel.
\newblock Preserving energy resp. dissipation in numerical {PDE}s using the
``{A}verage {V}ector {F}ield" method.
\newblock {\em J. Comput. Phys.}, 231:6770--6789, 2012.
\bibitem{CMMOQWesiam09}
E.~Celledoni, R.~I. McLachlan, D.~I. McLaren, B.~Owren, G.~R.~W. Quispel, and
W.~M. Wright.
\newblock Energy-preserving {R}unge-{K}utta methods.
\newblock {\em ESAIM: M2AN}, 43:645--649, 2009.
\bibitem{CQ01}
J.~Chen and M.~Qin.
\newblock Multi-symplectic {F}ourier pseudospectral method for the nonlinear
{S}chr\"{o}dinger equation.
\newblock {\em Electr. Trans. Numer. Anal.}, 12:193--204, 2001.
\bibitem{CH11bit}
D.~Cohen and E.~Hairer.
\newblock Linear energy-preserving integrators for {P}oisson systems.
\newblock {\em BIT}, 51:91--101, 2011.
\bibitem{Cooper87}
G.~J. Cooper.
\newblock Stability of {R}unge-{K}utta methods for trajectory problems.
\newblock {\em IMA J. Numer. Anal.}, 7:1--13, 1987.
\bibitem{DO11}
M.~Dahlby and B.~Owren.
\newblock A general framework for deriving integral preserving numerical
methods for {PDE}s.
\newblock {\em SIAM J. Sci. Comput.}, 33:2318--2340, 2011.
\bibitem{DP80jcam}
J.~R. Dormand and P.~J. Prince.
\newblock A family of embedded {R}unge-{K}utta formulae.
\newblock {\em J. Comp. Appl. Math.}, 6:19--26, 1980.
\bibitem{ELS19}
S.~Eidnes, L.~Li, and S.~Sato.
\newblock Linearly implicit structure-preserving schemes for {H}amiltonian
systems.
\newblock {\em arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.03573}, 2019.
\bibitem{Furihata01}
D.~Furihata.
\newblock Finite-difference schemes for nonlinear wave equation that inherit
energy conservation property.
\newblock {\em J. Comput. Appl. Math.}, 134:37--57, 2001.
\bibitem{FM2011}
D.~Furihata and T.~Matsuo.
\newblock {\em Discrete Variational Derivative Method: A Structure-Preserving
Numerical Method for Partial Differential Equations}.
\newblock Chapman \& Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, 2011.
\bibitem{GCW14b}
Y.~Gong, J.~Cai, and Y.~Wang.
\newblock Some new structure-preserving algorithms for general multi-symplectic
formulations of {H}amiltonian {PDE}s.
\newblock {\em J. Comput. Phys}, 279:80--102, 2014.
\bibitem{GZYW18}
Y.~Gong, J.~Zhao, X.~Yang, and Q.~Wang.
\newblock Fully discrete second-order linear schemes for hydrodynamic phase
field models of binary viscous fluid flows with variable densities.
\newblock {\em SIAM J. Sci. Comput.}, 40:B138--B167, 2018.
\bibitem{Hairer00bit}
E.~Hairer.
\newblock Symmetric projection methods for differential equations on manifolds.
\newblock {\em BIT}, 40:726--734, 2000.
\bibitem{H10}
E.~Hairer.
\newblock Energy-preserving variant of collocation methods.
\newblock {\em J. Numer. Anal. Ind. Appl. Math.}, 5:73--84, 2010.
\bibitem{ELW06}
E.~Hairer, C.~Lubich, and G.~Wanner.
\newblock {\em Geometric Numerical Integration: Structure-Preserving Algorithms
for Ordinary Differential Equations}.
\newblock Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2nd edition, 2006.
\bibitem{HV2003}
W.~Hunddorfer and J.~G. Verwer.
\newblock {\em Numerical solution of Time-Dependent
Advection-Diffusion-Reaction Equations}.
\newblock Springer Series in Computational Mathematics, vol. 33, Springer,
Berlin, 2003.
\bibitem{JCW19jsc}
C.~Jiang, W.~Cai, and Y.~Wang.
\newblock A linearly implicit and local energy-preserving scheme for the
sine-{G}ordon equation based on the invariant energy quadratization approach.
\newblock {\em J. Sci. Comput.}, 80:1629--1655, 2019.
\bibitem{JGCW19}
C.~Jiang, Y.~Gong, W.~Cai, and Y.~Wang.
\newblock A linearly implicit structure-preserving scheme for the
{C}amassa-{H}olm equation based on multiple scalar auxiliary variables
approach.
\newblock {\em J. Sci. Comput.}, 83:166--185, 2020.
\bibitem{JWG19}
C.~Jiang, Y.~Wang, and Y.~Gong.
\newblock Arbitrarily high-order energy-preserving schemes for the
{C}amassa-{H}olm equation.
\newblock {\em Appl. Numer. Math.}, 151:85--97, 2020.
\bibitem{Kojima16bit}
H.~Kojima.
\newblock Invariants preserving schemes based on explicit {R}unge-{K}utta
methods.
\newblock {\em BIT}, 56:1317--1337, 2016.
\bibitem{LWQ14}
H.~Li, Y.~Wang, and M.~Qin.
\newblock A sixth order averaged vector field method.
\newblock {\em J. Comput. Math.}, 34:479--498, 2016.
\bibitem{LQ95}
S.~Li and L.~Vu-Quoc.
\newblock Finite difference calculus invariant structure of a class of
algorithms for the nonlinear {K}lein-{G}ordon equation.
\newblock {\em SIAM. J. Numer. Anal.}, 32:1839--1875, 1995.
\bibitem{LW16b}
Y.~Li and X.~Wu.
\newblock Exponential integrators preserving first integrals or {L}yapunov
functions for conservative or dissipative systems.
\newblock {\em SIAM J. Sci. Comput.}, 38:A1876--A1895, 2016.
\bibitem{Matsuo03}
T.~Matsuo.
\newblock High-order schemes for conservative or dissipative systems.
\newblock {\em J. Comput. Appl. Math.}, 152:305--317, 2003.
\bibitem{MF01jcp}
T.~Matsuo and D.~Furihata.
\newblock Dissipative or conservative finite-difference schemes for
complex-valued nonlinear partial differential equations.
\newblock {\em J. Comput. Phys.}, 171:425--447, 2001.
\bibitem{MQR99}
R.~I. McLachlan, G.~R.~W. Quispel, and N.~Robidoux.
\newblock Geometric integration using discrete gradients.
\newblock {\em Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A}, 357:1021--1045, 1999.
\bibitem{MB16}
Y.~Miyatake and J.~C. Butcher.
\newblock A characterization of energy-preserving methods and the construction
of parallel integrators for {H}amiltonian systems.
\newblock {\em SIAM J. Numer. Anal.}, 54:1993--2013, 2016.
\bibitem{QM08}
G.~R.~W. Quispel and D.~I. McLaren.
\newblock A new class of energy-preserving numerical integration methods.
\newblock {\em J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.}, 41:045206, 2008.
\bibitem{Sanz-Sernabit88}
J.~M. Sanz-Serna.
\newblock Runge-{K}utta schemes for {H}amiltonian systems.
\newblock {\em BIT}, 28:877--883, 1988.
\bibitem{SCbook94}
J.~M. Sanz-Serna and M.~Calvo.
\newblock {\em Numerical Hamiltonian Problems}.
\newblock Chapman \& Hall, London, 1994.
\bibitem{ST06}
J.~Shen and T.~Tang.
\newblock {\em Spectral and High-Order Methods with Applications}.
\newblock Science Press, Beijing, 2006.
\bibitem{SXY18}
J.~Shen, J.~Xu, and J.~Yang.
\newblock The scalar auxiliary variable {(SAV)} approach for gradient.
\newblock {\em J. Comput. Phys.}, 353:407--416, 2018.
\bibitem{SXY19siamrev}
J.~Shen, J.~Xu, and J.~Yang.
\newblock A new class of efficient and robust energy stable schemes for
gradient flows.
\newblock {\em SIAM Rev.}, 61:474--506, 2019.
\bibitem{SKV10}
Q.~Sheng, A.~Q.~M. Khaliq, and D.~A. Voss.
\newblock Numerical simulation of two-dimensional sine-{G}ordon solitons via a
split cosine scheme.
\newblock {\em Math. Comput. Simulation}, 68:355--373, 2005.
\bibitem{TS12}
W.~Tang and Y.~Sun.
\newblock Time finite element methods: a unified framework for numerical
discretizations of {ODE}s.
\newblock {\em Appl. Math. Comput.}, 219:2158--2179, 2012.
\bibitem{WWpla12}
B.~Wang and X.~Wu.
\newblock A new high precision energy-preserving integrator for system of
oscillatory second-order differential equations.
\newblock {\em Phys. Lett. A}, 376:1185--1190, 2012.
\bibitem{WWQ08}
Y.~Wang, B.~Wang, and M.~Qin.
\newblock Local structure-preserving algorithms for partial differential
equations.
\newblock {\em Sci. China Ser. A}, 51:2115--2136, 2008.
\bibitem{YZW17}
X.~Yang, J.~Zhao, and Q.~Wang.
\newblock Numerical approximations for the molecular beam epitaxial growth
model based on the invariant energy quadratization method.
\newblock {\em J. Comput. Phys.}, 333:104--127, 2017.
\bibitem{ZhangQSaml19}
H.~Zhang, X.~Qian, and S.~Song.
\newblock Novel high-order energy-preserving diagonally implicit
{R}unge-{K}utta schemes for nonlinear {H}amiltonian {ODE}s.
\newblock {\em Appl. Math. Lett.}, 102:106091, 2020.
\bibitem{ZhangQYS19}
H.~Zhang, X.~Qian, J.~Yan, and S.~Song.
\newblock Highly efficient invariant-conserving explicit {R}unge-{K}utta
schemes for the nonlinear {H}amiltonian differential equations.
\newblock {\em J. Comput. Phys.}, 418:109598, 2020.
\bibitem{ZYGW17}
J.~Zhao, X.~Yang, Y.~Gong, and Q.~Wang.
\newblock A novel linear second order unconditionally energy stable scheme for
a hydrodynamic-tensor model of liquid crystals.
\newblock {\em Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg.}, 318:803--825, 2017.
\end{thebibliography}
\end{document}
\section{Numerical examples}\label{Sec:NKGEs:5}
In this section, we report the numerical performance, accuracy, CPU time and
energy preservation of the proposed scheme \eqref{NKGEs:eq:3.8}-\eqref{NKGEs:eq:3.9} (denoted by ESAVS). In addition, the following exponential structure-preserving schemes are chosen for comparisons:
\begin{itemize}
\item EAVFS: the exponential energy-preserving scheme described in Ref. \cite{LW16b};
\item ESAVS: the exponential energy-preserving scheme proposed in this paper.
\item ESS: the exponential symplectic scheme stated in Ref. .
\end{itemize}
As a summary, a detailed table on the properties of each scheme has been given in Tab. \ref{Tab-NKGEs:1}.
In our computation, the standard fixed-point iteration is used for the fully
implicit schemes and the iteration
will terminate if the infinity norm of the error between two adjacent iterative steps is less
than $10^{-14}$. In order to quantify the numerical solution, we use the $l^2$- and $l^{\infty}$-norms of the error between the numerical solution $u_j^n$ and the exact solution
$u(x_j,t_n)$, respectively, as
\begin{align*}
e_{h,2}^2(t_n)=h\sum_{j=0}^{N-1}|u_{j}^n-u(x_j,t_n)|^2,\ e_{h,\infty}(t_n)=\max\limits_{0\le j\le N-1}|u_{j}^n-u(x_j,t_n)|,\ n\ge 0.
\end{align*}
In addition, in what follows $C_0$ is chosen as $C_0=1$ for 1D case and $C_0=0$ for 2D case.
%We also remark
%that the FFT is also adopt as the solver of linear
%systems given by the fully implicit schemes for each fixed-point iteration and
%In order to quantify the invariants, we use the
\begin{table}[H]
\tabcolsep=6pt
\small
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.12}
\centering
\caption{Comparison of properties of different numerical schemes}\label{Tab-NKGEs:1}
\begin{tabular*}{\textwidth}[h]{@{\extracolsep{\fill}}c c c c c c c c c }\hline %% µÚ1 ÐÐ
\diagbox{Property}{Scheme}& ESAVS& EAVFS& ESS \\\hline
Symplectic conservation& No& No &Yes \\[1ex]
Energy conservation& Yes&Yes&No \\[1ex]
Fully implicit&No&Yes&Yes\\[1ex]
Linearly implicit&Yes&No&No\\[1ex]
%Temporal accuracy& 2nd&2nd&2nd&2nd \\
% Spatial accuracy&2nd&2nd&2nd&2nd\\
\hline
\end{tabular*}
\end{table}
% For the convergence rate, we use the formula
%\begin{align*}
%\text{Rate}=\frac{\ln( error_{1}/error_{2})}{\ln (\tau_{1}/\tau_{2})},
%\end{align*}
%where $\tau_{l}, error_{l}, (l=1,2)$ are step sizes and errors with the step size $\tau_{l}$, respectively.
{\bf Problem 1.} We first consider the nonlinear sine-Gordon equation in one dimension
\begin{align}\label{NKGEs-4.1}
\left\lbrace
\begin{aligned}
&\partial_{tt}u-\partial_{xx}u+\sin(u)=0,\ -20<x<20,\ t>0,\\
&u(x,0)=0,\ u_t(x,0)=4\text{sech}(x),\ \ -20\le x\le20,\\
&u(-20,t)=u(20,t),\ \partial_x u(-20,t)=\partial_x u(20,t),\ t\ge 0.
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{align}
Equation \eqref{NKGEs-4.1} possesses the analytical solution
\begin{align*}
u(x,t)=4\arctan(t\text{sech}(x)).
\end{align*}
The error and convergence order of EAVFS, ESAVS and ESS at time $t=1$ are given in Tab. \ref{Tab:NKGEs:2}. From the Table, we can draw that
all schemes have second order accuracy in time and space errors and the error provided by ESAVS has the same order of magnitude as the ones provided by ESAVS and ESS. Besides, we carry out comparisons on the computational costs among the two schemes by refining the mesh size gradually, which shows that
the cost of EAVFS is most expensive while the one of ESAVS is cheapest. Moreover, as the refinement of mesh sizes, the advantage of ESAVS emerges, which implies that our scheme shows the remarkable performance in the efficiency. The long energy deviations are plotted in Fig. \ref{Fig_NKGEs:2}. It is clear to see that ESAVS and EAVFS can exactly preserve the energy conservation law, while ESS can only preserve the energy approximately.
\begin{table}[H]
\tabcolsep=9pt
\footnotesize
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.1}
\centering
\caption{{Numerical error and convergence rate for different numerical schemes under different grid steps at $t=1$.}}\label{Tab:NKGEs:2}
\begin{tabular*}{\textwidth}[h]{@{\extracolsep{\fill}} c c c c c c}\hline
{Scheme\ \ } &{$(h,\tau)$} &{$e_{h,2}$} &{order}& {$e_{h,\infty}$}&{order} \\ %% µÚ1 ÐÐ
\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{ESAVS} &{$(\frac{1}{10},\frac{1}{100})$}& {1.287e-03}&{-} &{1.367e-03} & {-}\\[1ex]%&{2.8}\\
{} &{$(\frac{1}{20},\frac{1}{200})$}& {3.217e-04}&{2.00} &{3.413e-04} & {2.00}\\[1ex] %&{4.3} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
{} &{$(\frac{1}{40},\frac{1}{400})$}& {8.044e-05}&{2.00} &{8.531e-05} &{2.00} \\[1ex]%\hline
{} &{$(\frac{1}{80},\frac{1}{800})$}& {2.011e-05}&{2.00} &{2.133e-05} &{2.00} \\\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{ESS} &{$(\frac{1}{10},\frac{1}{100})$}& {1.097e-03}&{-} &{1.035e-03} & {-}\\[1ex]%&{2.8}\\
{} &{$(\frac{1}{20},\frac{1}{200})$}& {2.742e-04}&{2.00} &{2.584e-04} & {2.00}\\[1ex] %&{4.3} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
{} &{$(\frac{1}{40},\frac{1}{400})$}& {6.855e-05}&{2.00} &{6.457e-05} &{2.00} \\[1ex]%\hline
{} &{$(\frac{1}{80},\frac{1}{800})$} & {1.714e-05}&{2.00}&{1.614e-05} & {2.00}\\\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{EAVFS} &{$(\frac{1}{10},\frac{1}{100})$}& {1.104e-03}&{-} &{1.050e-03} & {-}\\[1ex]%&{2.8}\\
{} &{$(\frac{1}{20},\frac{1}{200})$}& {2.761e-04}&{2.00} &{2.621e-04} & {2.00}\\[1ex] %&{4.3} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
{} &{$(\frac{1}{40},\frac{1}{400})$}& {6.902e-05}&{2.00} &{6.551e-05} &{2.00} \\[1ex]%\hline
{} &{$(\frac{1}{80},\frac{1}{800})$}& {1.725e-05}&{2.00} &{1.638e-05} &{2.00} \\\hline%\hline
%\multirow{4}{*}{LICNS} &{$\frac{L}{200}$}& {8.884e-04}&{-} &{6.690e-04} & {-}\\[1ex]%&{2.8}\\
% {} &{$\frac{L}{400}$}& {2.213e-04}&{2.01} &{1.668e-04} & {2.00}\\[1ex] %&{4.3} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
% {} &{$\frac{L}{800}$}& {5.532e-05}&{2.00} &{4.171e-05} &{2.00} \\[1ex]%\hline
% {} &{$\frac{L}{1600}$}& {1.385e-05}&{2.00} &{1.042e-05} &{2.00} \\\hline%\hline
% \multirow{4}{*}{LILFS} &{$\frac{L}{200}$}& {4.447e-04}&{-} &{3.382e-04} & {-}\\[1ex]%&{2.8}\\
% {} &{$\frac{L}{400}$}& {1.111e-04}&{2.00} &{8.451e-05} & {2.01}\\[1ex] %&{4.3} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
% {} &{$\frac{L}{800}$}& {2.774e-05}&{2.00} &{2.110e-05} &{2.00} \\[1ex]%\hline
%{} &{$\frac{L}{1600}$}& {6.903e-06}&{2.00} &{5.240e-06} &{2.00} \\\hline%\hline
\end{tabular*}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\begin{minipage}[t]{65mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{ESAV-figure.eps}
\caption{CPU time of the three
schemes for the soliton with
different mesh sizes till $t=10$
under $\tau=0.001$. The computation
is carried out via Matlab 7.0 with
AMD A8-7100 and RAM 4GB}\label{Fig_NKGEs:1}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{65mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{ESAV-figure1.eps}
\caption{The energy deviation with $h=0.05$ and $\tau=0.1$ over the time interval $t\in[0,1000]$.}\label{Fig_NKGEs:2}
\end{minipage}\
\end{figure}
{\bf Problem 2.} We then consider the nonlinear sine-Gordon equation in two dimensions
\begin{align}\label{NKGEs-4.1}
\left\lbrace
\begin{aligned}
&\partial_{tt}u-\partial_{xx}u-\partial_{yy}u+\sin(u)=0,\ -30< x,y< 10,\ t>0,\\
&u(x,y,0)=4\tan^{-1}\left[\exp\left(\frac{4-\sqrt{(x+3)^{2}+(y+7)^{2}}}{0.436}\right)\right],\\
& u_t(x,y,0)=\frac{4.13}{\cosh\left(\frac{4-\sqrt{(x+3)^{2}+(y+7)^{2}}}{0.436}\right)},\ -30\le x,y\le 10,
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{align}
with periodic boundary conditions.
In Fig. \ref{Fig_NKGEs-cpu}, we carry out comparisons on the computational costs
among the three schemes by refining the mesh size gradually. It is clear to see that the cost of EAVFS is most expensive while the one of ESAVS is cheapest.
Moreover, as the refinement of mesh sizes, the advantage of ESAVS emerges, which implies that our scheme is more preferable for large scale simulations than the exponential structure-preserving schemes EAVFS and ESS.
Fig. \ref{KGNEs:3} shows the collision precisely among four expanding circular ring solitons, which are in good agreement with those given in Refs. \cite{ADK91,DPT95}. Here, the solution shown includes the extension across $x=-10$ and $y=-10$ by symmetry properties of the problem. Moverover, we also calculate the energy deviations for the three schemes over the time interval $t\in[0,100]$ and plot it in Fig. \ref{KGNEs:4}. As is clear, our scheme
shows a remarkable performance in the energy preservation over ESS and is comparable with the energy-preserving scheme EAVFS.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\begin{minipage}[t]{80mm}
\includegraphics[width=80mm]{ESAV-cpu.eps}
\end{minipage}
\caption{CPU time of the three
schemes for the soliton with
different mesh sizes till $t=1$
under $\tau=0.01$. The computation
is carried out via Matlab 7.0 with
AMD A8-7100 and RAM 4GB}\label{Fig_NKGEs-cpu}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{f3_1.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{f3_6.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{f3_2.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{f3_7.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{f3_3.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{f3_8.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{f3_4.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{f3_9.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{f3_5.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{f3_10.eps}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Collision of four ring solitons in terms of $\sin(u/2)$ at times $t=0,2.5,5,7.5$ and $t=10$
with $h=0.2$ and $\tau=0.1$.}\label{KGNEs:3}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{70mm}
\includegraphics[width=70mm]{f3_err.eps}
\end{minipage}
\caption{ The energy deviation over the time interval $t\in[0,100]$
with $h=0.2$ and $\tau=0.1$.}\label{KGNEs:4}
\end{figure}
{\bf Problem 2.} We consider the nonlinear Klein-Gordon equation in two dimensions
\begin{align}\label{NKGEs-4.2}
\left\lbrace
\begin{aligned}
&\partial_{tt}u-\partial_{xx}u-\partial_{yy}u+u^3=0,\ -10< x,y< 10,\ t>0,\\
&u(x,y,0)=2\text{sech}(\cosh(x^2+y^2)),\ u_t(x,y,0)=0,\ -10\le x,y\le 10,
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{align}
with the periodic boundary conditions.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{f4_1.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{f4_2.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{f4_3.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{f4_4.eps}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{f4_5.eps}
\end{minipage}
\caption{The Snapshots of numerical solution at times $t=0,3,7$ and $t=8$
with $h=0.1$ and $\tau=0.1$.}\label{KGNEs:5}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{70mm}
\includegraphics[width=70mm]{f4_err.eps}
\end{minipage}
\caption{ The energy deviation over the time interval $t\in[0,100]$
with $h=0.1$ and $\tau=0.1$.}\label{KGNEs:6}
\end{figure}
Fig. \ref{KGNEs:5} presents the initial condition as well as numerical solutions at different times, which shows the expansion and propagation of the initial soliton to the whole domain until getting the boundary at $t=8$. The long time energy deviations of the three schemes are displayed in Fig. \ref{KGNEs:6}, which behaves similarly as that of Fig. \ref{KGNEs:4}. Here, we omit the comparisons of the three schemes for the CPU times. This is due to the fact that the obtained results behave similarly as that of Fig. \ref{Fig_NKGEs-cpu}.
\section{Concluding remarks}\label{Sec:NKGEs:6}
In this paper, combining the ideas of the exponential integrator with the SAV strategy, we derived and analyzed a novel exponential scheme. The proposed scheme is proven to preserve the discrete energy and enjoys the same computational advantages as the schemes obtained by the classical SAV approach. Several numerical examples are presented to illustrate
the efficiency of our numerical scheme. Comparing with some existing exponential structure-preserving schemes, our scheme shows remarkable efficiency.
The linearization idea is rather general and
useful so that it can be applied to study a broad class of conservative systems, such as the KdV equation, the nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation, etc.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 11771213, 61872422, 11801269),
the National Key Research and Development Project of China (Grant Nos. 2016YFC0600310, 2018YFC0603500, 2018YFC1504205),
the Major Projects of Natural Sciences of University in Jiangsu Province of China (Grant Nos. 15KJA110002, 18KJA110003), the
Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province (Grant no. BK20180413 ), the Priority Academic Program Development of
Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions and the Foundation of Jiangsu Key Laboratory for Numerical Simulation
of Large Scale Complex Systems (201905).
%We then consider the nonlinear Klein-Gordon equation
%\begin{align}\label{NKGEs:4.1}
%\left\lbrace
% \begin{aligned}
%&\partial_{tt}u-\partial_{xx}u+u+u^3=0,\ 0<x<1.28,\ t>0,\\
%&u(x,0)=A(1+\cos\big(\frac{2\pi}{1.28}x)\big),\ u_t(x,0)=0,\ 0\le x\le1.28,\\
%&u(0,t)=u(1.28,t),\ \partial_x u(0,t)=\partial_x u(1.28,t),\ t\ge 0,
%\end{aligned}
%\right.
%\end{align} where $A$ is the amplitude.
%where $\lambda=\sqrt{\frac{\omega}{\omega^2-c^2}}$ and $\omega, b, \omega^2-b^2>0$. Equation \eqref{NKGEs:4.1} possesses the analytical solution
%\begin{align*}
%u(x,t)=\sqrt{\frac{2\omega}{b}}\text{sech}(\lambda(x-ct)).
%\end{align*}
%Following \cite{WW-ANM-19} , we consider the parameters $\omega=0.3,\ b=1$ and $c=0.25$.
%
%
%Tab. \ref{Tab:NKGEs:1}, shows the numerical errors and convergence rates for different numerical schemes under different time steps at $t=1$.
%Fig. \ref{Fig:ch:1} shows the CPU times of the six schemes for the smooth solution under different grid points till
%$t=1$ with $\tau$=1e-03. From Tab. \ref{Tab:NKGEs:2} and Fig. \ref{Fig:NKGEs:1}, we can draw the following observations: (i) All schemes have second order accuracy in time errors; (ii) The error provided by SAV-LCNS has the same order of magnitude as the ones provided by IEQ-LCNS and LICNS. (iii) the costs of EPFPS is
%most expensive while the one of SAV-LCNS is cheapest.% Moreover, as the refinement of
%%mesh sizes, the advantage of SAV-LCNS emerges, which implies that our scheme is more
%%preferable for large scale simulations than the other five structure-preserving schemes.
%Fig. \ref{Fig:ch:2} shows the errors of the invariants under $N$=32 and $\tau$=0.0082 over the time interval $t\in[0,656]$. From Fig. \ref{Fig:ch:2} (a)-(c), we make the following observations: (i) EPFPS can exactly preserve the energy and the energy errors of others are remained around a small order of magnitude. (ii) LICNS and LILFS can exactly preserve the momentum and SAV-LCNS, IEQ-LCNS, EPFPS and MSFPS can preserve the momentum approximately. (iii) SAV-LCNS, IEQ-LCNS, EPFPS and MSFPS can preserve the mass to round-of errors while LICNS and LILFS admit large errors. From Fig. \ref{Fig:ch:2} (d), it is clearly demonstrated that the proposed scheme can exactly preserve the discrete modified energy. Similar observations on the errors of the invariants are made in the next three examples and we will omit these details for brevity.
%From Fig. \ref{Fig:ch:2} (c), it is clear to see that all of the schemes can preserve the mass conservation law exactly.
%\begin{table}[H]
%\tabcolsep=9pt
%\footnotesize
%\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.1}
%\centering
%\caption{{Numerical error and convergence rate for different numerical schemes under different time steps at $t=1$.}}\label{Tab:ch:1}
%\begin{tabular*}{\textwidth}[h]{@{\extracolsep{\fill}} c l l l l l}\hline
%{Scheme\ \ } &{$\tau$} &{$e_{h,2}$} &{order}& {$e_{h,\infty}$}&{order} \\ %% µÚ1ÐÐ
%\hline
% %{SAV-LCNS} &{$\frac{L}{100}$} & {8.938e-03}&{-}&{7.441e-03} & {-}\\%&{1.4}\\
% \multirow{4}{*}{ESAV-EPS} &{$\frac{L}{200}$}& {2.132e-03}&{-} &{1.485e-03} & {-}\\[1ex]%&{2.8}\\
% {} &{$\frac{L}{400}$}& {5.309e-04}&{2.01} &{3.717e-04} & {2.00}\\[1ex] %&{4.3} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
% {} &{$\frac{L}{800}$}& {1.327e-04}&{2.00} &{9.318e-05} &{2.00} \\[1ex]%\hline
% {} &{$\frac{L}{1600}$}& {3.322e-05}&{2.00} &{2.334e-05} &{2.00} \\\hline
% %{IEQ-LCNS} &{$\frac{L}{100}$} & {4.336e-03}&{-}&{3.026e-03} & {-}\\%&{1.4}\\
% \multirow{4}{*}{E-EPS} &{$\frac{L}{200}$}& {1.050e-03}&{-} &{7.385e-04} & {-}\\[1ex]%&{2.8}\\
% {} &{$\frac{L}{400}$}& {2.600e-04}&{2.01} &{1.840e-04} & {2.01}\\ [1ex]%&{4.3} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
% {} &{$\frac{L}{800}$}& {6.479e-05}&{2.00} &{4.598e-05} &{2.00} \\[1ex]%\hline
% {} &{$\frac{L}{1600}$} & {1.619e-05}&{2.00}&{1.150e-05} & {2.00}\\\hline
% \multirow{4}{*}{SAV-EPS} &{$\frac{L}{200}$}& {4.005e-04}&{-} &{2.810e-04} & {-}\\[1ex]%&{2.8}\\
% {} &{$\frac{L}{400}$}& {1.002e-04}&{2.00} &{7.034e-05} & {2.00}\\[1ex] %&{4.3} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
% {} &{$\frac{L}{800}$}& {2.504e-05}&{2.00} &{1.759e-05} &{2.00} \\[1ex]%\hline
% {} &{$\frac{L}{1600}$} & {4.396e-06}&{2.00}&{6.239e-06} & {2.00}\\\hline
% \multirow{4}{*}{E-SS} &{$\frac{L}{200}$}& {4.106e-04}&{-} &{2.840e-04} & {-}\\[1ex]%&{2.8}\\
% {} &{$\frac{L}{400}$}& {1.027e-04}&{2.00} &{7.109e-05} & {2.00}\\[1ex] %&{4.3} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
% {} &{$\frac{L}{800}$}& {2.567e-05}&{2.00} &{1.778e-05} &{2.00} \\[1ex]%\hline
% {} &{$\frac{L}{1600}$}& {6.397e-06}&{2.00} &{4.443e-06} &{2.00} \\\hline%\hline
% %\multirow{4}{*}{LICNS} &{$\frac{L}{200}$}& {8.884e-04}&{-} &{6.690e-04} & {-}\\[1ex]%&{2.8}\\
%% {} &{$\frac{L}{400}$}& {2.213e-04}&{2.01} &{1.668e-04} & {2.00}\\[1ex] %&{4.3} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
%% {} &{$\frac{L}{800}$}& {5.532e-05}&{2.00} &{4.171e-05} &{2.00} \\[1ex]%\hline
%% {} &{$\frac{L}{1600}$}& {1.385e-05}&{2.00} &{1.042e-05} &{2.00} \\\hline%\hline
%% \multirow{4}{*}{LILFS} &{$\frac{L}{200}$}& {4.447e-04}&{-} &{3.382e-04} & {-}\\[1ex]%&{2.8}\\
%% {} &{$\frac{L}{400}$}& {1.111e-04}&{2.00} &{8.451e-05} & {2.01}\\[1ex] %&{4.3} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
%% {} &{$\frac{L}{800}$}& {2.774e-05}&{2.00} &{2.110e-05} &{2.00} \\[1ex]%\hline
% %{} &{$\frac{L}{1600}$}& {6.903e-06}&{2.00} &{5.240e-06} &{2.00} \\\hline%\hline
%\end{tabular*}
%\end{table}
\bibliographystyle{plain}
\bibliography{ref}
\end{document}
%\begin{table}[H]
%\tabcolsep=9pt
%\footnotesize
%\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.1}
%\centering
%\caption{{The numerical errors and convergence rates of different high-order schemes with $h=\frac{2\pi}{128}$ and different time steps at $T=1$.}}\label{Tab-ch:2}
%\begin{tabularx}{1.0\textwidth}{XXXXXXXXX}\hline
%{Scheme\ \ }&{$s$} &{$\tau$} &{$L^{\infty}$} &{Rate}\\ %& {CPU}\\%&{CPU (s)} \\ %% µÚ1ÐÐ
%\hline
% {HEQ-GCS}&{2} &{$\frac{1}{30}$} & {2.817e-07}&{-} \\%& {4.3763e-05}\\%&{1.4}\\
% {}&{} &{$\frac{1}{60}$}& {1.765e-08}&{4.00} \\%& {6.4159e-05}\\%&{2.8}\\
% {}&{} &{$\frac{1}{120}$}& {1.104e-09}&{4.00} \\% & {8.2850e-05}\\%&{4.3} \\ %% µÚ2 ÐÐ
% % {}&{} &{$\frac{L}{240}$}& {6.898e-011}&{3.99} \\
% {HEQ-GCS}&{3} &{$\frac{1}{30}$} & {2.231e-010}&{-}\\% & {4.3763e-05}\\%&{1.4}\\
% {}&{} &{$\frac{1}{60}$}& {3.523e-012}&{5.98} \\%& {6.4159e-05}\\%&{2.8}\\
% {}&{} &{$\frac{1}{120}$}& { 5.534e-014}&{5.99} \\% & {8.2850e-05}\\%&{4.3} \\ %% µÚ2 ÐÐ
% {HSAV-GCS}&{2} &{$\frac{1}{30}$} & {2.241e-07}&{-} \\%& {4.3763e-05}\\%&{1.4}\\
% {}&{} &{$\frac{1}{60}$}& {1.404e-08}&{4.00} \\% & {6.4159e-05}\\%&{2.8}\\
% {}&{} &{$\frac{1}{120}$}& {8.777e-010}&{4.00} \\% & {8.2850e-05}\\\hline %&{4.3} \\ %% µÚ2 ÐÐ
% {HSAV-GCS}&{3} &{$\frac{1}{30}$} & { 2.799e-010}&{-} \\%& {4.3763e-05}\\%&{1.4}\\
% {}&{} &{$\frac{1}{60}$}& {4.424e-012}&{5.98} \\% & {6.4159e-05}\\%&{2.8}\\
% {}&{} &{$\frac{1}{120}$}& {7.055e-014}&{5.97} \\\hline% & {8.2850e-05}\\\hline %&{4.3} \\ %% µÚ2 ÐÐ
%\end{tabularx}
%\end{table}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{80mm}
\includegraphics[width=85mm]{figure/cpu.eps}
\end{minipage}
\caption{CPU time (logarithmic scale) of the six schemes for the smooth solution under different mesh points till
$t=6.56$ with $\tau$=6.56e-04. The computation is carried out via Matlab 7.0 with AMD A8-7100 and RAM
4GB.}\label{Fig:ch:1}
\end{figure}
%\begin{figure}[H]
%\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
%\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/2th1.eps}
%\caption*{Hamiltonian energy errors}
%\end{minipage}\ \
%\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
%\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/2th2.eps}
%\caption*{Momentum errors}
%\end{minipage}
%\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
%\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/2th3.eps}
%\caption*{Mass errors}
%\end{minipage}\ \
%\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
%\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/2th4.eps}
%\caption*{Modified energy errors}
%\end{minipage}
%\caption{Errors in invariants with $h=\frac{L}{32}$ and $\tau=\frac{L}{200}$ over the time interval $t\in[0,100L]$.}\label{Fig_GR-KDV:2}
%\end{figure}
%
%
% \bibliographystyle{plain}
%\bibliography{ref}
%
%
%\end{document}
%\begin{figure}[H]
%\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
%\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/fig_H4.eps}
%\caption*{4th Order Gauss Method}
%\end{minipage}\ \
%\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
%\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/fig_H6.eps}
%\caption*{6th Order Gauss Method}
%\end{minipage}
%\caption{Hamiltonian energy errors with $h=\frac{L}{32}$ and $\tau=\frac{L}{20}$ over the time interval $t\in[0,100L]$.}\label{Fig_GR-KDV:2}
%\end{figure}
%
%\begin{figure}[H]
%\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
%\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/fig_M4.eps}
%\caption*{4th Order Gauss Method}
%\end{minipage}\ \
%\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
%\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/fig_M6.eps}
%\caption*{6th Order Gauss Method}
%\end{minipage}
%\caption{Mass errors with $h=\frac{L}{32}$ and $\tau=\frac{L}{20}$ over the time interval $t\in[0,100L]$.}\label{Fig_GR-KDV:2}
%\end{figure}
%\begin{figure}[H]
%\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
%\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/fig_I4.eps}
%\caption*{4th Order Gauss Method}
%\end{minipage}\ \
%\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
%\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/fig_I6.eps}
%\caption*{6th Order Gauss Method}
%\end{minipage}
%\caption{Momentum errors with $h=\frac{L}{32}$ and $\tau=\frac{L}{20}$ over the time interval $t\in[0,100L]$.}\label{Fig_GR-KDV:2}
%\end{figure}
%
%\begin{figure}[H]
%\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
%\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/fig_E4.eps}
%\caption*{4th Order Gauss Method}
%\end{minipage}\ \
%\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
%\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/fig_E6.eps}
%\caption*{6th Order Gauss Method}
%\end{minipage}
%\caption{Modified energy errors with $h=\frac{L}{32}$ and $\tau=\frac{L}{20}$ over the time interval $t\in[0,100L]$.}\label{Fig_GR-KDV:2}
%\end{figure}
%\subsection{Peakon solution}
%We consider periodic peaked traveling waves with the initial condition \cite{XS08}
% \begin{align}\label{ch-eq:Ps}
%u_0(x)=\left\lbrace
% \begin{aligned}
% &\frac{c}{\cosh(a/2)}\cosh(x-x_0),\ |x-x_0|\le a/2,\\%\frac{\frac{\partial F}{\partial {z}}}{\sqrt{2\Bigg(F+\frac{C}{|\Omega|}\Bigg)}}
% &\frac{c}{\cosh(a/2)}\cosh(a-(x-x_0)),\ |x-x_0|> a/2,
% \end{aligned}\right.\ \ %\label{LSP-SG:2.3}
% \end{align}
%where $c$ is the wave speed, $a$ is the period, and $x_0$ is the position of the trough. In the numerical experiment, we set the computation domain $\Omega=[0,a]$ and the periodic
%boundary condition. The parameters are chosen as $c=1$, $a=1$, and $x_0=0$. The errors of invariants are plotted in Fig. \ref{Fig-ch:2}. In Fig. \ref{Fig-ch:2} (a), we can see that SAV-LCNS, EQ-LCNS and MSFPS cannot preserve the Hamiltonian energy exactly and the error provided by SAV-LCNS are largest. In theory, HEQ-GCS and HSAV-GCS also cannot preserve the Hamiltonian energy exactly, but, as can be seen from figure \ref{Fig-ch:2} (b), the resulting errors can be preserve up to the machine accuracy and HEQ-GCS with $s=2,3$ and HSAV-GCS with $s=3$ provide smaller error than the one provided by the energy-preserving scheme (i.e., EPFPS). In addition, compared with HSAV-GCS, HEQ-GCS has the significant advantage in preserving the discrete Hamiltonian energy. In Fig. \ref{Fig-ch:2} (c)-(f), it is clear to see that the errors of momentum are bounded and all of the schemes can preserve the mass conservation law exactly. Fig. \ref{Fig-ch:2} (g)-(h) shows the proposed schemes can preserve the modified energy conservation law exactly, which conforms the theoretical analysis.
%\begin{figure}[H]
%\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{70mm}
%\includegraphics[width=80mm]{figure/example_fig.eps}
%\end{minipage}
%\caption{A periodic peakon computed by HSAV-GCS with $h=\frac{L}{128}$ and $\tau=0.0001$ (Dashed curves are the
%initial data while solid curves are computed results).}\label{Fig-ch:0}
%\end{figure}
%
%
%
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/fig1.eps}
\caption*{(a) Energy}
\end{minipage}\ \
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/fig2.eps}
\caption*{(b) Momentum}
\end{minipage}
% with $h=\frac{L}{128}$ and $\tau=0.0001$ over the time interval $t\in[0,50]$.}%\label{Fig_GR-KDV:2}
\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/fig3.eps}
\caption*{(c) Mass}
\end{minipage}\ \
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/fig4.eps}
\caption*{(d) Modified energy}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Errors in invariants under $N$=32 and $\tau$=0.0082 over the time interval $t\in[0,656]$.}\label{Fig:ch:2}
\end{figure}
%\subsection{Two-peakon interaction}
%In this example, we consider the two-peakon
%interaction of the CH equation with the initial condition \cite{XS08}
%\begin{align}\label{ch-eq:t-Ps1}
%u(x,0)=\phi_1(x)+\phi_2(x),
%\end{align}
%where
%\begin{align}\label{ch-eq:t-Ps2}
%\phi_i(x)=\left\lbrace
% \begin{aligned}
% &\frac{c_i}{\cosh(a/2)}\cosh(x-x_i),\ |x-x_i|\le a/2,\\%\frac{\frac{\partial F}{\partial {z}}}{\sqrt{2\Bigg(F+\frac{C}{|\Omega|}\Bigg)}}
% &\frac{c_i}{\cosh(a/2)}\cosh(a-(x-x_i)),\ |x-x_i|> a/2,\
% \end{aligned} i=1,2.
% \right.\ \ %\label{LSP-SG:2.3}
% \end{align}
%The parameters are $c_1=3,c_2=1,x_1=-8,x_2=0$ and $a=25$, and the computational domain is $\Omega=[0,a]$.
%\begin{figure}[H]
%\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
%\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/HEQ_RK1_two_p0.eps}
%\end{minipage}\ \
%\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
%\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/HEQ_RK1_two_p2.eps}
%\end{minipage}
%\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
%\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/HEQ_RK1_two_p4.eps}
%\end{minipage}\ \
%\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
%\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/HEQ_RK1_two_p6.eps}
%\end{minipage}
%\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
%\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/HEQ_RK1_two_p8.eps}
%\end{minipage}\ \
%\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
%\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/HEQ_RK1_two_p10.eps}
%\end{minipage}
%\caption{The two-peakon interaction of the CH equation \eqref{ch-eq:1.1} computed by 4th order HEQ-GS1 with $h=\frac{L}{2048}$ and $\tau=0.0001$ at different times.}\label{Fig_GR-KDV:2}
%\end{figure}
%
%\begin{figure}[H]
%\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
%\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/fig3_H4.eps}
%\caption*{4th Order Gauss Method}
%\end{minipage}\ \
%\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
%\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/fig3_H6.eps}
%\caption*{6th Order Gauss Method}
%\end{minipage}
%\caption{Hamiltonian energy errors with $h=\frac{L}{2048}$ and $\tau=0.0001$ over the time interval $t\in[0,50]$.}\label{Fig_GR-KDV:2}
%\end{figure}
%
%\begin{figure}[H]
%\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
%\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/fig3_M4.eps}
%\caption*{4th Order Gauss Method}
%\end{minipage}\ \
%\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
%\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/fig3_M6.eps}
%\caption*{6th Order Gauss Method}
%\end{minipage}
%\caption{Mass errors with $h=\frac{L}{2048}$ and $\tau=0.0001$ over the time interval $t\in[0,50]$.}\label{Fig_GR-KDV:2}
%\end{figure}
%\begin{figure}[H]
%\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
%\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/fig3_I4.eps}
%\caption*{4th Order Gauss Method}
%\end{minipage}\ \
%\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
%\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/fig3_I6.eps}
%\caption*{6th Order Gauss Method}
%\end{minipage}
%\caption{Momentum errors with $h=\frac{L}{2048}$ and $\tau=0.0001$ over the time interval $t\in[0,50]$.}\label{Fig_GR-KDV:2}
%\end{figure}
%
%\begin{figure}[H]
%\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
%\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/fig3_E4.eps}
%\caption*{4th Order Gauss Method}
%\end{minipage}\ \
%\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
%\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/fig3_E6.eps}
%\caption*{6th Order Gauss Method}
%\end{minipage}
%\caption{Modified energy errors with $h=\frac{L}{2048}$ and $\tau=0.0001$ over the time interval $t\in[0,50]$.}\label{Fig_GR-KDV:2}
%\end{figure}
\subsection{Two-peakon interaction}
Then, we consider the two-peakon interaction of the CH equation \eqref{ch:eq:1.1} with the initial condition \cite{XS08}
\begin{align*}%\label{ch-eq:t-Ps1}
u_0(x)=\phi_1(x)+\phi_2(x),\ 0\le x\le 25,
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}%\label{ch-eq:t-Ps2}
\phi_i(x)=\left\lbrace
\begin{aligned}
&\frac{c_i}{\cosh(L/2)}\cosh(x-x_i),\ |x-x_i|\le L/2,\\%\frac{\frac{\partial F}{\partial {z}}}{\sqrt{2\Bigg(F+\frac{C}{|\Omega|}\Bigg)}}
&\frac{c_i}{\cosh(L/2)}\cosh(L-(x-x_i)),\ |x-x_i|> L/2,\
\end{aligned} i=1,2.
\right.\ \ %\label{LSP-SG:2.3}
\end{align*}
The parameters are $c_1=3,c_2=1,x_1=-8,x_2=0,L=25$ and the periodic
boundary condition is adopted. Fig. \ref{Fig:ch:3} shows the interaction of two peakons at $t=0,2,4,6,8$ and $10$. We can
see clearly that the taller wave overtakes the shorter one at time $t =4$ and afterwards both waves retain their original shapes and velocities. The errors of invariants under $N$=1024 and $\tau$=0.0001 over the time interval $t\in[0,10]$ are plotted in Fig. \ref{Fig:ch:4}, which behaves similarly as that of Fig. \ref{Fig:ch:2}.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/tp0.eps}
\end{minipage}\ \
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/tp2.eps}
\end{minipage}
\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/tp4.eps}
\end{minipage}\ \
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/tp6.eps}
\end{minipage}
\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/tp8.eps}
\end{minipage}\ \
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/tp10.eps}
\end{minipage}
\caption{The two-peakon interaction of the CH equation \eqref{ch:eq:1.1} under $N$=1024 and $\tau$=0.0001 at $t=0,2,4,6,8$ and $10$.}\label{Fig:ch:3}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/eg2_1.eps}
\caption*{(a) Energy}
\end{minipage}\ \
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/eg2_2.eps}
\caption*{(b) Momentum}
\end{minipage}
% with $h=\frac{L}{128}$ and $\tau=0.0001$ over the time interval $t\in[0,50]$.}%\label{Fig_GR-KDV:2}
\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/eg2_3.eps}
\caption*{(c) Mass}
\end{minipage}\ \
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/eg2_4.eps}
\caption*{(d) Modified energy}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Errors in invariants under $N$=1024 and $\tau$=0.0001 over the time interval $t\in[0,10]$.}\label{Fig:ch:4}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Three-peakon interaction}
Subsequently, we consider the three-peakon interaction of the CH equation \eqref{ch:eq:1.1} with the initial condition \cite{XS08}
\begin{align*}%\label{ch-eq:t-Ps3}
u_0(x)=\phi_1(x)+\phi_2(x)+\phi_3(x),\ 0\le x\le 30,
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}%\label{ch-eq:t-Ps4}
\phi_i(x)=\left\lbrace
\begin{aligned}
&\frac{c_i}{\cosh(L/2)}\cosh(x-x_i),\ |x-x_i|\le L/2,\\%\frac{\frac{\partial F}{\partial {z}}}{\sqrt{2\Bigg(F+\frac{C}{|\Omega|}\Bigg)}}
&\frac{c_i}{\cosh(L/2)}\cosh(30-(x-x_i)),\ |x-x_i|> L/2,\
\end{aligned} i=1,2,3.
\right.\ \ %\label{LSP-SG:2.3}
\end{align*}
The parameters are $c_1=2, c_2=1, c_3=0.8, x_1=-5, x_2=-3, x_3=-1,L=30$ and the periodic boundary condition is chosen.
Fig. \ref{Fig:ch:5} shows the interaction of three-peakons of the CH equation \eqref{ch:eq:1.1} under $N$=2048 and $\tau$=0.0001 at $t=0,1,2,3,4$ and $6$. We observe that the moving peak interaction is resolved very well. The errors in invariants over the time interval $t\in[0,10]$ are displayed in Fig. \ref{Fig:ch:5}, which demonstrates that our scheme has a good conservation of the invariants.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/eg4_1.eps}
\end{minipage}\ \
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/eg4_2.eps}
\end{minipage}
\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/eg4_3.eps}
\end{minipage}\ \
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/eg4_4.eps}
\end{minipage}
\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/eg4_5.eps}
\end{minipage}\ \
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/eg4_6.eps}
\end{minipage}
\caption{The three-peakon interaction of the CH equation \eqref{ch:eq:1.1} under $N$=2048 and $\tau$=0.0001 at $t=0,1,2,3,4$ and $6$.}\label{Fig:ch:5}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/eg4_7.eps}
\caption*{(a) Energy}
\end{minipage}\ \
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/eg4_8.eps}
\caption*{(b) Momentum}
\end{minipage}
% with $h=\frac{L}{128}$ and $\tau=0.0001$ over the time interval $t\in[0,50]$.}%\label{Fig_GR-KDV:2}
\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/eg4_9.eps}
\caption*{(c) Mass}
\end{minipage}\ \
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/eg4_10.eps}
\caption*{(d) Modified energy}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Errors in invariants under $N$=2048 and $\tau$=0.0001 over the time interval $t\in[0,10]$.}\label{Fig:ch:6}
\end{figure}
\subsection{A solution with a discontinuous derivative}
Finally, we consider the following initial condition, which has a discontinuous derivative %with the initial condition
\begin{align*}
u_0(x)=\frac{10}{(3+|x|)^2},\ -30\le x\le 30,
\end{align*}
with the periodic boundary condition.
Fig. \ref{Fig:ch:7} shows the solutions with discontinuous derivative under $N$=1024 and $\tau$=0.001 at $t=5,10,15$ and $20$. Fig. \ref{Fig:ch:8} shows the errors in invariants over the time interval $t\in[0,20]$. From Figs. \ref{Fig:ch:7} and \ref{Fig:ch:8}, it is clearly demonstrated that the proposed scheme has a good resolution of the solution comparable with that in Refs. \cite{HR06,XS08}, and can preserve the modified energy exactly.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/eg3_1.eps}
\end{minipage}\ \
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/eg3_2.eps}
\end{minipage}
\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/eg3_3.eps}
\end{minipage}\ \
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/eg3_4.eps}
\end{minipage}
\caption{The solution with discontinuous derivative of the CH equation \eqref{ch:eq:1.1} under $N$=1024 and $\tau$=0.001 at $t=5,10,15$ and $20$.}\label{Fig:ch:7}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/eg3_5.eps}
\caption*{(a) Energy}
\end{minipage}\ \
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/eg3_6.eps}
\caption*{(b) Momentum}
\end{minipage}
% with $h=\frac{L}{128}$ and $\tau=0.0001$ over the time interval $t\in[0,50]$.}%\label{Fig_GR-KDV:2}
\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/eg3_7.eps}
\caption*{(c) Mass}
\end{minipage}\ \
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/eg3_8.eps}
\caption*{(d) Modified energy}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Errors in invariants under $N$=1024 and $\tau$=0.001 over the time interval $t\in[0,20]$.}\label{Fig:ch:8}
\end{figure}
%\subsection{Breakup of the plateau traveling wave}
%
%\begin{align}\label{ch-eq:t-Ps2}
%u_0(x)=\left\lbrace
% \begin{aligned}
% &ce^{x+5},\ x\le -5,\\%\frac{\frac{\partial F}{\partial {z}}}{\sqrt{2\Bigg(F+\frac{C}{|\Omega|}\Bigg)}}
% &c,\ |x|\le 5,\\
% &ce^{-x+5},\ x\ge 5,\
% \end{aligned} -40\le x\le 40,\ c=0.6.
% \right.\ \ %\label{LSP-SG:2.3}
% \end{align}
%\begin{figure}[H]
%\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
%\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/example_fig1.eps}
%\caption*{(a) Hamiltonian energy errors}
%\end{minipage}\ \
%\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
%\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/example_fig2.eps}
%\caption*{(b) Hamiltonian energy errors}
%\end{minipage}
%%\caption{Hamiltonian energy errors with $h=\frac{L}{2048}$ and $\tau=0.0001$ over the time interval $t\in[0,10]$.}\label{Fig_GR-KDV:2}
%\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
%\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/example_fig3.eps}
%\caption*{(c) Momentum errors}
%\end{minipage}\ \
%\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
%\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/example_fig4.eps}
%\caption*{(d) Momentum errors}
%\end{minipage}
%%\caption{Momentum errors with $h=\frac{L}{2048}$ and $\tau=0.0001$ over the time interval $t\in[0,10]$.}\label{Fig_GR-KDV:2}
%\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
%\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/example_fig5.eps}
%\caption*{(e) Mass errors}
%\end{minipage}\ \
%\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
%\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/example_fig6.eps}
%\caption*{(f) Mass errors}
%\end{minipage}
%%\caption{The errors in invariants with $h=\frac{L}{2048}$ and $\tau=0.0001$ over the time interval $t\in[0,10]$.}\label{Fig-ch:5}
%\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
%\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/example_fig7.eps}
%\caption*{(g) Modified energy errors}
%\end{minipage}\ \
%\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
%\includegraphics[width=65mm]{figure/example_fig8.eps}
%\caption*{(h) Modified energy errors}
%\end{minipage}
%\caption{The errors in invariants with $h=\frac{L}{2048}$ and $\tau=0.0001$ over the time interval $t\in[0,10]$.}\label{Fig-ch:4}
%\end{figure}
%Also, the results are compared with some existing conservative finite difference schemes for the convergence rate and
%momentum conservation law.
%For the LCN-MP scheme \eqref{GR-KDV-LEPSI}-\eqref{GR-KDV-LEPSI1}, we use the following iteration method to solve the linear equations:
%\begin{align*}
%\big({I}+\mathbb{A}^2&+\frac{\tau}{2}\mathbb{B}+\frac{\tau}{2}\mathbb{L}_h\big){U}^{n+\frac{1}{2},s+1}=\big({I}+\mathbb{A}^2\big){U}^{n}\nonumber\\
%&-\frac{\tau}{2(p+2)}\Big[\text{diag}((\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}})^p)\mathbb{L}_h{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2},s}+\mathbb{L}_h\big[\text{diag}((\hat{ U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}})^p)\cdot{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2},s}\big] \Big].
%\end{align*}
% We take the initial iteration vector ${U}^{n+\frac{1}{2},(0)}={U}^{n}$ and each iteration will terminate if the infinity norm of the error between two adjacent iterative
%steps is less than $10^{-14}$. Further, for a fixed iteration step $s$, the fast solver presented in Ref. \cite{JCWL17} is applied to solve the linear equations efficiently.
%For the convergence rate, we use the formula
%\begin{align*}
%\text{Rate}=\frac{\ln( error_{1}/error_{2})}{\ln (\tau_{1}/\tau_{2})},
%\end{align*}
%where $\tau_{l}, error_{l}, (l=1,2)$ are step sizes and errors with the step size $\tau_{l}$, respectively.
\section{Concluding remarks}\label{Sec:Ch:6}
In this paper, we present a novel linearization (energy
quadratization) strategy to develop second order, fully discrete,
linearly implicit scheme for the CH equation \eqref{ch:eq:1.1}. The proposed scheme is proven to preserve the discrete modified energy and enjoys the same computational advantages as the schemes obtained by the classical SAV approach. Several numerical examples are presented to illustrate
the efficiency of our numerical scheme. Comparing with some existing structure-preserving schemes of same order in both time and space, our scheme shows remarkable efficiency.
The linearization idea is rather general and
useful so that it can be applied to study a broad class of Hamiltonian partial differential equations (PDEs), such as the KdV equation, the nonlinear Klein-Gordon equation, etc. In addition, the MSAV reformulation also provides an elegant platform for developing arbitrarily high-order energy-preserving
schemes. Thus, a further direction of research will focus on arbitrarily high-order energy-preserving schemes for Hamiltonian PDEs based on the MSAV approach.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 11771213, 61872422, 11801269),
the National Key Research and Development Project of China (Grant Nos. 2016YFC0600310, 2018YFC0603500, 2018YFC1504205),
the Major Projects of Natural Sciences of University in Jiangsu Province of China (Grant Nos. 15KJA110002, 18KJA110003), the
Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province (Grant no. BK20180413 ), the Priority Academic Program Development of
Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions and the Foundation of Jiangsu Key Laboratory for Numerical Simulation
of Large Scale Complex Systems (201905).
%\newpage
%\section*{Appendix:}
%%\section{Appendix A. A fast solver to the proposed scheme}
%\appendix
%\begin{appendices}
%\section{Two novel linear-implicitly and energy-preserving schemes}
%\subsection{The construction of the two schemes}
% \begin{shm}(EQ-LCN Scheme)\label{schmeA1} If applying the linearized Crank-Nicolson method for the semi-discrete system \eqref{ch-eq:3.2} in time, we obtain a fully discretized scheme, as follows,
%\begin{align}\label{ch-A:1}
%\left\lbrace
% \begin{aligned}
% &\delta_t^+{U}^n={D}\Bigg({Q}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}+\text{diag}\big(-\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\big){U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\\
%&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-{D}_1\Big(\text{diag}\big(-{D}_1\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\big){U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\Big)\Bigg), \\%\frac{\frac{\partial F}{\partial {z}}}{\sqrt{2\Bigg(F+\frac{C}{|\Omega|}\Bigg)}}
% &\delta_t^+{Q}^n=\text{diag}\big(-\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\big)\delta_t^+{U}^n+\text{diag}\big(-{D}_1\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\big){D}_1\delta_t^+{U}^n.
% \end{aligned}\right.\ \ %\label{LSP-SG:2.3}
% \end{align}
% where $\delta_t{U}^n=\frac{{U}^{n+1}-{U}^n}{\tau},\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}=\frac{3{U}^{n}-{U}^{n-1}}{2}$ and ${Q}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}=\frac{{Q}^{n+1}+{ Q}^{n}}{2}$ and ${U}^1,{Q}^1$ is the solution of the following equation
% \begin{align}\label{ch-A:2}
%\left\lbrace
% \begin{aligned}
% &\delta_t^+{U}^0={D}\Bigg({Q}^{\frac{1}{2}}+\text{diag}\big(-{U}^{0}\big){U}^{\frac{1}{2}}-{D}_1\Big(\text{diag}\big(-{D}_1{U}^{0}\big){ U}^{\frac{1}{2}}\Big)\Bigg), \\%\frac{\frac{\partial F}{\partial {z}}}{\sqrt{2\Bigg(F+\frac{C}{|\Omega|}\Bigg)}}
% &\delta_t^+{Q}^0=\text{diag}\big(-{U}^{0}\big)\delta_t^+{U}^0+\text{diag}\big(-{D}_1{U}^{0}\big){D}_1\delta_t^+{U}^0.
% \end{aligned}\right.\ \ %\label{LSP-SG:2.3}
% \end{align}
%\end{shm}
%%The resulting scheme is linear-implicit and second order accuracy in time. In addition, we have the following theorem.
%\begin{thm} The EQ-LCN scheme \ref{schmeA1} can preserve the discrete modified energy conservation law \eqref{ch-eq:4.7}.
%
%\end{thm}
%\begin{prf} \rm
%\begin{align}\label{ch:A3}
%\delta_t^+\langle {Q}^n,{U}^n\rangle_h&=\langle \delta_t^+{Q}^n,{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\rangle_h+\langle {Q}^{n+\frac{1}{2}},\delta_t^+{ U}^n\rangle_h\nonumber\\
%&=\langle\text{diag}\big(-\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\big)\delta_t^+{U}^n+\text{diag}\big(-{D}_1\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\big){D}_1\delta_t^+{U}^n,{ U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\rangle_h\nonumber\\
%&~~~~~+\langle {Q}^{n+\frac{1}{2}},\delta_t^+{U}^n\rangle_h\nonumber\\
%&=\langle\text{diag}\big(-\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\big){U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}-{D}_1\big(\text{diag}\big(-{D}_1\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\big){ U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\big),\delta_t^+{U}^n\rangle_h\nonumber\\
%&~~~~~+\langle {Q}^{n+\frac{1}{2}},\delta_t^+{U}^n\rangle_h\nonumber\nonumber\\
%&=\langle {G}^n,\delta_t^+{U}^n\rangle_h=\langle {G}^n,{D}{G}^n\rangle_h=0,
%\end{align}
%where
%\begin{align*}
%{G}^n={Q}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}+\text{diag}\big(-\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\big){U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}-{D}_1\big(\text{diag}\big(-{D}_1\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\big){ U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\big).
%\end{align*}
%Thus, it follows from \eqref{ch:A3} that
%\begin{align*}
%E^{n+1}=E^{n},\ E^n=\langle {Q}^n,{U}^n\rangle_h,\ n=1,2,\cdots,M.
%\end{align*}
%An argument similar to \eqref{ch-A:2} used in \eqref{ch:A3} shows that
%\begin{align*}
%E^{1}=E^{0}.
%\end{align*}
%This completes the proof.
%
%\end{prf}
%
%\begin{shm} (SAV-LCN Scheme)\label{schmeA2} applying the linearized Crank-Nicolson method for the semi-discrete system \eqref{ch-eq:3.11} in time, we have another fully discretized scheme, as follows,
% \begin{align}\label{ch-A:4}
%\left\lbrace
% \begin{aligned}
% & \delta_t{U}^n={D}\Bigg(-\frac{\frac{\partial g}{\partial u}(\hat{{U}}^{n+\frac{1}{2}},{D}_1\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}})}{2\sqrt{\langle g(\hat{ U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}},{D}_1\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}),{1}\rangle_h+C_0}} q^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\\
% &~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+\frac{{D}_1\big(q^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\frac{\partial g}{\partial u_x}(\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}},{D}_1\hat{ U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}})\big)}{2\sqrt{\langle g(\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}},{D}_1\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}),{1}\rangle_h+C_0}}\Bigg),\\%\frac{\frac{\partial F}{\partial {z}}}{\sqrt{2\Bigg(F+\frac{C}{|\Omega|}\Bigg)}}
% &\delta_t q^n=\Big\langle\frac{\frac{\partial g}{\partial u}(\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}},{D}_1\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}})}{2\sqrt{\langle g(\hat{ U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}},{D}_1\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}),{1}\rangle_h+C_0}},\delta_t{U}\Big\rangle_h\\
% &~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+\Big\langle\frac{\frac{\partial g}{\partial u_x}(\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}},{D}_1\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}})}{2\sqrt{\langle g(\hat{ U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}},{D}_1\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}),{1}\rangle_h+C_0}},{D}_1\delta_t {U}^n\Big\rangle_h,
% \end{aligned}\right.\ \ %\label{LSP-SG:2.3}
% \end{align}
% where (${U}^1,q^1$) are the solutions of the following equations
% \begin{align}\label{ch-A:5}
%\left\lbrace
% \begin{aligned}
% & \delta_t{U}^0={D}\Bigg(-\frac{\frac{\partial g}{\partial u}({{U}^0},{D}_1{U}^0)}{2\sqrt{\langle g({U}^0,{D}_1{U}^0),{1}\rangle_h+C_0}}\cdot q^{\frac{1}{2}}\\
% &~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+\frac{{D}_1\big(q^{\frac{1}{2}}\frac{\partial g}{\partial u_x}({U}^0,{D}_1{U}^0)\big)}{2\sqrt{\langle g({U}^0,{D}_1{ U}^0),{1}\rangle_h+C_0}}\Bigg),\\%\frac{\frac{\partial F}{\partial {z}}}{\sqrt{2\Bigg(F+\frac{C}{|\Omega|}\Bigg)}}
% &\delta_t q^0=\Big\langle\frac{\frac{\partial g}{\partial u}({U}^0,{D}_1{U}^0)}{2\sqrt{\langle g({U}^0,{D}_1{U}^0),{1}\rangle_h+C_0}},\delta_t{ U}^0\Big\rangle_h\\
% &~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+\Big\langle\frac{\frac{\partial g}{\partial u_x}({U}^0,{D}_1{U}^0)}{2\sqrt{\langle g({U}^0,{D}_1{U}^0),{ 1}\rangle_h+C_0}},{ D}_1\delta_t {U}^0\Big\rangle_h.
% \end{aligned}\right.\ \ %\label{LSP-SG:2.3}
% \end{align}
% \end{shm}
% %The SAV-LCN scheme \ref{schmeA2} is linear-implicitly and has second accuracy in time.
% \begin{thm}The SAV-LCN scheme \ref{schmeA2} can preserve the discrete energy conservation law \eqref{ch-eq:4.19}.
%
% \end{thm}
% \begin{prf}\rm
% \begin{align}\label{ch:A6}
% \delta_t(-\frac{1}{2}(q^n)^2)&=-q^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\delta_tq^n\nonumber\\
% &=-q^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\Big\langle\frac{\frac{\partial g}{\partial u}(\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}},{D}_1\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}})}{2\sqrt{\langle g(\hat{ U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}},{D}_1\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}),{1}\rangle_h+C_0}},\delta_t{U}^n\Big\rangle_h\nonumber\\
% &~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-\Big\langle q^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\frac{\frac{\partial g}{\partial u_x}(\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}},{D}_1\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}})}{2\sqrt{\langle g(\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}},{D}_1\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}),{1}\rangle_h+C_0}},{D}_1\delta_t {U}^n\Big\rangle_h\nonumber\\
% &=\Big\langle -\frac{q^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\frac{\partial g}{\partial u}(\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}},{D}_1\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}})}{2\sqrt{\langle g(\hat{ U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}},{D}_1\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}),{1}\rangle_h+C_0}}\nonumber\\
% &~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+{D}_1\frac{q^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\frac{\partial g}{\partial u_x}(\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}},{D}_1\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}})}{2\sqrt{\langle g(\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}},{D}_1\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}),{1}\rangle_h+C_0}},\delta_t{U}^n\Big\rangle_h\nonumber\\
% &=\Big\langle{g}^n,\delta_t{U}^n\Big\rangle_h=\Big\langle{g}^n,{D}{g}^n\Big\rangle_h=0,
% \end{align}
% where
% \begin{align*}
% {g}^n=-\frac{q^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\frac{\partial g}{\partial u}(\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}},{D}_1\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}})}{2\sqrt{\langle g(\hat{ U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}},{D}_1\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}),{1}\rangle_h+C_0}}
% +{D}_1\frac{q^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\frac{\partial g}{\partial u_x}(\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}},{D}_1\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}})}{2\sqrt{\langle g(\hat{ U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}},{D}_1\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}),{1}\rangle_h+C_0}}.
% \end{align*}
% Thus, from \eqref{ch:A6}, we have
% \begin{align*}
% E^{n+1}=E^{n},\ E^{n}=-\frac{1}{2}(q^n)^2,\ n=1,2,\cdots,M.
% \end{align*}
% An argument similar to \eqref{ch-A:5} used in \eqref{ch:A6} shows that
% \begin{align*}
% E^{1}=E^{0}.
% \end{align*}
% This completes the proof.
% \end{prf}
% \subsection{Efficient implementation}
% We rewrite \eqref{ch-A:1} as
% \begin{align}\label{ch-B:1}
%\left\lbrace
% \begin{aligned}
% &{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}={U}^n+\frac{\tau}{2}{D}\Bigg[{Q}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}+\Bigg(\text{diag}\big(-\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\big)\\
% &~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-{D}_1\Big(\text{diag}\big(-{D}_1\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\big)\Big)\Bigg){U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\Bigg], \\%\frac{\frac{\partial F}{\partial {z}}}{\sqrt{2\Bigg(F+\frac{C}{|\Omega|}\Bigg)}}
% &{Q}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}=\Big(\text{diag}\big(-\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\big)+\text{diag}\big(-{D}_1\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\big){D}_1\Big){U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\\
% &~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+{Q}^n-\Big(\text{diag}\big(-\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\big)+\text{diag}\big(-{D}_1\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\big){D}_1\Big){U}^n.
% \end{aligned}\right.\ \ %\label{LSP-SG:2.3}
% \end{align}
%Denoting
%\begin{align*}
%&{g}_1^n=\text{diag}\big(-\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\big)-{D}_1\Big(\text{diag}\big(-{D}_1\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\big)\Big),\\
%&{g}_2^n=\text{diag}\big(-\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\big)+\text{diag}\big(-{D}_1\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\big){D}_1,
%\end{align*}
%Eq. \eqref{ch-B:1} can be rewritten as
%\begin{align}\label{ch-A:8}
%\left\lbrace
% \begin{aligned}
% &{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}={U}^n+\frac{\tau}{2}{D}\Bigg[{Q}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}+{g}_1^n{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\Bigg], \\%\frac{\frac{\partial F}{\partial { z}}}{\sqrt{2\Bigg(F+\frac{C}{|\Omega|}\Bigg)}}
% &{Q}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}={g}_2^n{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}+{Q}^n-{g}_2^n{U}^n.
% \end{aligned}\right.\ \ %\label{LSP-SG:2.3}
% \end{align}
% Eq. \eqref{ch-A:8} can be reformulated into one equation, as follows:
% \begin{align}
% {U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}=\frac{\tau}{2}{D}\Bigg[{g}_1^n{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}+{g}_2^n{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\Bigg]+{b}^n,
% \end{align}
% where
% \begin{align}
% {b}^n={U}^n+\frac{\tau}{2}{D}\Big({Q}^n-{g}_2^n{U}^{n}\Big).
% \end{align}
%Then, we use the following iteration method
%to solve the linear equation:
%\begin{align}
%{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2},s+1}=\frac{\tau}{2}{D}\Bigg[{g}_1^n{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2},s}+{g}_2^n{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2},s}\Bigg]+{b}^n.
%\end{align}
% We take the initial iteration vector ${U}^{n+\frac{1}{2},0}={U}^n$ and each iteration will terminate if
%the infinity norm of the error between two adjacent iterative steps is less than $10^{-14}$.
%
%%\begin{rmk} There are two unknown variables in \eqref{ch-A:1}, but we only need to compute
%%
%%\end{rmk}
%
%Denoting
%\begin{align*}
%{d}^n=\Bigg(-\frac{\frac{\partial g}{\partial u}(\hat{{U}}^{n+\frac{1}{2}},{D}_1\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}})}{2\sqrt{\langle g(\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}},{ D}_1\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}),{1}\rangle_h+C_0}}+\frac{{D}_1\big(\frac{\partial g}{\partial u_x}(\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}},{D}_1\hat{ U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}})\big)}{2\sqrt{\langle g(\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}},{D}_1\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}),{1}\rangle_h+C_0}}\Bigg),
%\end{align*}
%we rewrite \eqref{ch-A:2} as
% \begin{align}\label{ch-A:3}
%\left\lbrace
% \begin{aligned}
% & {U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}={U}^n+\frac{\tau}{2}{D}{d}^nq^{n+\frac{1}{2}},\\
% &{q}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}=q^n-\Big\langle{d}^n,{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}-{U}^n\Big\rangle_h.
% \end{aligned}\right.\ \ %\label{LSP-SG:2.3}
% \end{align}
% %\begin{align}
%% {U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}&={U}^n+\frac{\tau}{2}{D}{d}^n\Big(q^n-\Big\langle{d}^n,{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}-{U}^n\Big\rangle_h\Big)\\
%% &={U}^n+\frac{\tau}{2}{D}{d}^nq^n-\frac{\tau}{2}{D}{d}^n\Big\langle{d}^n,{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\Big\rangle_h+
%% \frac{\tau}{2}{D}{d}^n\Big\langle{d}^n,{U}^{n}\Big\rangle_h
%% \end{align}
%Eq. \eqref{ch-A:3} can be reformulated into one equation, as follows:
% \begin{align}\label{ch-A:13}
% {U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}+\frac{\tau}{2}{D}{d}^n\Big\langle{d}^n,{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\Big\rangle_h={U}^n+\frac{\tau}{2}{D}{d}^nq^n+\frac{\tau}{2}{D}{ d}^n\Big\langle{d}^n,{U}^{n}\Big\rangle_h:={g}^n.
% \end{align}
% Taking the discrete inner product of \eqref{ch-A:13} with ${d}^n$, we have
% \begin{align*}
% \Big\langle {d}^n,{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\Big\rangle_h+\frac{\tau}{2}\Big\langle {d}^n,{D}{d}^n\Big\rangle_h \Big\langle{d}^n,{ U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\Big\rangle_h=\Big\langle{d}^n,{g}^n\Big\rangle_h,
% \end{align*}
% that is,
% \begin{align}\label{ch-A:14}
% \Big[1+\frac{\tau}{2}\Big\langle {d}^n,{D}{d}^n\Big\rangle_h\Big] \Big\langle{d}^n,{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\Big\rangle_h=\Big\langle{d}^n,{g}^n\Big\rangle_h.
% \end{align}
% It follows from \eqref{ch-A:14} that
% \begin{align}\label{ch-A:15}
% \Big\langle{d}^n,{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\Big\rangle_h=\frac{\Big\langle{d}^n,{g}^n\Big\rangle_h}{1+\frac{\tau}{2}\Big\langle {d}^n,{D}{d}^n\Big\rangle_h }.
% \end{align}
%\end{appendices}
\bibliographystyle{plain}
\bibliography{ref}
\end{document}
We illustrate the idea using a simple case, where the
energy functional is given by
\begin{align}
\mathcal{H}=\frac{1}{2}({z},\mathcal{L}{z})+(F,1).
\end{align}
Here, $\mathcal{L}$ is a linear, self-adjoint, semi-positive definite operator and $F$ is the nonlinear term.
\begin{enumerate}
\item When $F$ is bound from blow for ${z}$. The energy functional can be rewritten as
\begin{align}
\mathcal{H}=\frac{1}{2}({z},\mathcal{L}{z})+\frac{1}{2}||q||^2-C,\ q=\sqrt{2\Bigg(F+\frac{C}{|\Omega|}\Bigg)},
\end{align}
where $C$ is a constant large enough to make $q$ well-defined. Here $||\cdot||$ is the $L^2$-norm, i.e., $||F||^2=(F,F),\ F\in L^2(\Omega)$.
For instance, considering the Hamiltonian energy functional of the sine-Gordon equation
\begin{align}
\mathcal{H}=\frac{1}{2}\Big(||v||^2+||\nabla u||^2+2\big((1-\cos(u)),1\big)\Big),
\end{align}
where $v=u_t$.
if we conduct an integration by part once, it reduces to
\begin{align}
\mathcal{H}&=\frac{1}{2}\Big(||v||^2-\big(\Delta u,u \big)+2\big((1-\cos(u)),1\big)\Big)+\frac{1}{2}\int_{\Omega}u\nabla u\cdot {n}dS\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{2}\Big(||v||^2-\big(\Delta u,u \big)+2\big((2-\cos(u)),1\big)\Big)+\frac{1}{2}\int_{\Omega}u\nabla u\cdot {n}dS-|\Omega|\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{2}\Big(\big({z}, \mathcal{L}{z}\big)+2\big((2-\cos(u)),1\big)\Big)+\frac{1}{2}\int_{\Omega}u\nabla u\cdot {n}dS-|\Omega|,
\end{align}
we identity \begin{align*}
\mathcal{L}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
-\Delta& 0 \\
0 &1
\end{array}
\right),{z}=\left(\begin{array}{c}
u \\
v
\end{array}
\right),\ \text{and}\ q=\sqrt{2\Big(2-\cos(u)+\frac{C}{|\Omega|}\Big)},
\end{align*} if the boundary integral term vanishes.
Then, we reformulate \eqref{hg-ep:Eq:2.1} to an equivalent form
\begin{align}\label{2SG:eq:1-2}
\left\lbrace
\begin{aligned}
&\partial_t {z}=\mathcal{D}\Bigg(\mathcal{L}{z}+q\frac{\partial g}{\partial {z}}\Bigg),\\%\frac{\frac{\partial F}{\partial { z}}}{\sqrt{2\Bigg(F+\frac{C}{|\Omega|}\Bigg)}}
&\partial_tq=\frac{\partial g}{\partial {z}}\cdot\partial_t{z},\ g=\sqrt{2\Bigg(F+\frac{C}{|\Omega|}\Bigg)},
\end{aligned}\right.\ \ %\label{LSP-SG:2.3}
\end{align}
where ${a}\cdot {b}=\sum_{i}a_ib_i$. Denoting ${Z}=\left(\begin{array}{c}
{z} \\
q
\end{array}
\right)$, \eqref{2SG:eq:1-2} can be cast into the following compact form
\begin{align}\label{2SG:eq:3-6}
\partial_t {Z}=S({Z})\mathcal{A}{Z},
\end{align}
where $S({Z})=\mathcal{G}^{*}\mathcal{D}\mathcal{G}$ is the following $(m+1)\times (m+1)$ matrix operator depending on ${Z}$,
\begin{align}
\mathcal{G}=\Big({I}_m\ \frac{\partial g}{\partial {z}}\Big)_{m,m+1}, \mathcal{A}=\text{diag}(\mathcal{L},1)_{(s+1)\times (s+1)},
\end{align}
and $\mathcal{G}^{*}$ is the adjoint operator of $\mathcal{G}$.
%\begin{align*}
%S({Z})=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
% \mathcal{D}& \mathcal{D}\frac{\partial g}{\partial {z}} \\
% \big(\frac{\partial g}{\partial {z}}\big)^{*}\mathcal{D} &\big(\frac{\partial g}{\partial {z}}\big)^{*}\mathcal{D}\frac{\partial g}{\partial {z}}
% \end{array}
%\right),\ \text{and}\ \mathcal{A}=\text{diag}(\mathcal{L},1)_{(s+1)\times (s+1)}.
%\end{align*}
%Here, $\big(\frac{\partial g}{\partial {z}}\big)^{*}$ is the adjoint operator of $\frac{\partial g}{\partial {z}}$. In fact, we have $\big(\frac{\partial g}{\partial {z}}\big)^{*}=\big(\frac{\partial g}{\partial {z}}\big)^T$.
Here, we have $\mathcal{G}^{*}=\mathcal{G}^{T}$. Since $\mathcal{D}$ is skew-symmetric, it can be prove easily that $S({Z})$ is
also skew-symmetric for any ${Z}$. Further, $\mathcal{A}$ is a linear, self-adjoint, positive definite operator
because of operator $\mathcal{L}$. Define the $\mathcal{A}$-norm as
\begin{align}
||{Z}||_{\mathcal{A}}=\sqrt{({Z},\mathcal{A}{Z})},
\end{align}
then the energy functional is rewritten as $\mathcal{H}=\frac{1}{2}||{Z}||_{\mathcal{A}}-C$. The system \eqref{2SG:eq:3-6} preserves the following energy conservation law
\begin{align}
\frac{d}{dt}\mathcal{H}=\big(\frac{\delta \mathcal{H}}{\delta {Z}},\frac{\partial {Z}}{\partial t}\big)=\big(\mathcal{A}{Z},S({Z})\mathcal{A}{Z}\big)=0.
\end{align}
\begin{rmk}More generally, if $q=g({z},\nabla {z})=\sqrt{2\Bigg(F({z},\nabla {z})+\frac{C}{|\Omega|}\Bigg)}$,
then the equivalent EQ form is given by
\begin{align}\label{2SG:eq:2-9}
\left\lbrace
\begin{aligned}
&\partial_t {z}=\mathcal{D}\Bigg(\mathcal{L}{z}+q\frac{\partial g}{\partial {z}}-\nabla\cdot\big(q\frac{\partial g}{\partial \nabla{ z}}\big)\Bigg),\\%\frac{\frac{\partial F}{\partial {z}}}{\sqrt{2\Bigg(F+\frac{C}{|\Omega|}\Bigg)}}
&\partial_tq=\frac{\partial g}{\partial {z}}\cdot\partial_t{z}+\frac{\partial g}{\partial \nabla{z}}\cdot\nabla\partial_t {z}.
\end{aligned}\right.\ \ %\label{LSP-SG:2.3}
\end{align}
The system can again be written into the form \eqref{2SG:eq:3-6} with the operators $\mathcal{G}$ and $\mathcal{G}^{*}$
\begin{align}
\mathcal{G}=\Big({I}_m\ \frac{\partial g}{\partial {z}}-\nabla\cdot\frac{\partial g}{\partial \nabla{z}}\Big)_{m,m+1},\ \mathcal{G}^{*}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
&{I}_m\\
& \Big(\frac{\partial g}{\partial {z}}-\nabla\cdot\frac{\partial g}{\partial \nabla{z}}\Big)^{*}
\end{array}
\right).
\end{align}
%\begin{align*}
%S({Z})=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
% \mathcal{D}& \mathcal{D}\Big(\frac{\partial g}{\partial {z}}-\nabla\cdot\frac{\partial g}{\partial\nabla{z}}\Big) \\
% \Big(\frac{\partial g}{\partial {z}}-\nabla\cdot\frac{\partial g}{\partial\nabla{z}}\Big)^{*}\mathcal{D} &\big(\frac{\partial g}{\partial { z}}\big)^{*}\mathcal{D}\frac{\partial g}{\partial {z}}
% \end{array}
%\right),
%\end{align*}
%and $\mathcal{A}=\text{diag}(\mathcal{L},1)_{(s+1)\times (s+1)}$.
\end{rmk}
\item When $F=A\sum_{l=1}^{m}{z}_l^{2k+1},\ k=1,2,\cdots,$ where $A$ is a given constant. The energy functional can be rewritten as
\begin{align}
\mathcal{H}=\frac{1}{2}({z},\mathcal{L}{z})+A({z},{q}),\ {q}={z}^{2k}.
\end{align}
Then, we reformulate \eqref{hg-ep:Eq:2.1} to an equivalent form
\begin{align}\label{2SG:eq:1-3}
\left\lbrace
\begin{aligned}
&\partial_t {z}=\mathcal{D}\Bigg(\mathcal{L}{z}+A{q}+2kA{z}^{2k}\Bigg),\\%\frac{\frac{\partial F}{\partial { z}}}{\sqrt{2\Bigg(F+\frac{C}{|\Omega|}\Bigg)}}
&\partial_t{q}=2k{z}^{2k-1}\cdot\partial_t{z},
\end{aligned}\right.\ \ %\label{LSP-SG:2.3}
\end{align}
where ${a}\cdot {b}=(a_1b_1,\cdots,)$. Denoting ${Z}=\left(\begin{array}{c}
{z} \\
{q}
\end{array}
\right)$, \eqref{2SG:eq:1-3} can be cast into the following compact form
\begin{align}\label{2SG:eq:3-11}
\partial_t {Z}=S({Z})\mathcal{A}{Z},
\end{align}
where $S({Z})$ is the following $2m\times 2m$ matrix operator depending on ${Z}$
\begin{align}
\mathcal{G}=\Big({I}_m\ \text{diag}(2k{z}^{2k-1})\Big)_{m,2m},\ \mathcal{G}^{*}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
&{I}_m\\
& \text{diag}\Big(2k{z}^{2k-1}\Big)^{*}
\end{array}
\right),
\end{align}
%\begin{align*}
%S({Z})=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
% \mathcal{D}& 2k\mathcal{D}\text{diag}({z}^{2k-1}) \\
% \text{diag}(2k({z}^{2k-1}))^{*}\mathcal{D} &\text{diag}(\big(2k{z}^{2k-1}\big))^{*}\mathcal{D}\big(2k{z}^{2k-1}\big)
% \end{array}
%\right),\
%\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{A}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
\mathcal{L}& A{I}_{m\times m} \\
0 &A{I}_{m\times m}
\end{array}
\right).
\end{align*}
Since $\mathcal{D}$ is skew-symmetric, it can be prove easily that $S({Z})$ is
also skew-symmetric for any ${Z}$. The system \eqref{2SG:eq:3-6} preserves the following energy conservation law
\begin{align}
\frac{d}{dt}\mathcal{H}=\big(\frac{\delta \mathcal{H}}{\delta {Z}},\frac{\partial {Z}}{\partial t}\big)=\big(\mathcal{A}{Z},S({Z})\mathcal{A}{Z}\big)=0.
\end{align}
\end{enumerate}
%\begin{rmk}More generally, if $F({z},\nabla {z})=A({z}^{k_1})^{T}(\nabla{z})^{k_2}$,
%The energy functional can be rewritten as
%\begin{align}
%\mathcal{H}=\frac{1}{2}({z},\mathcal{L}{z})+A({z},{q}),\ {q}=({z}^{k_1-1})^{T}(\nabla{z})^{k_2}.
%\end{align}
%Then the equivalent EQ form is given by
% \begin{align}\label{2SG:eq:2-9}
%\left\lbrace
% \begin{aligned}
% &\partial_t {z}=\mathcal{D}\Bigg(\mathcal{L}{z}+q\frac{\partial g}{\partial {z}}-\nabla\cdot\big(q\frac{\partial g}{\partial \nabla{ z}}\big)\Bigg),\\%\frac{\frac{\partial F}{\partial {z}}}{\sqrt{2\Bigg(F+\frac{C}{|\Omega|}\Bigg)}}
% &\partial_tq=\frac{\partial g}{\partial {z}}\cdot\partial_t{z}+\frac{\partial g}{\partial \nabla{z}}\cdot\nabla\partial_t {z}.
% \end{aligned}\right.\ \ %\label{LSP-SG:2.3}
% \end{align}
% The system can again be written into the form \eqref{2SG:eq:3-6} with the operators $\mathcal{G}$ and $\mathcal{G}^{*}$
% \begin{align}
% \mathcal{G}=\Big({I}_m\ \frac{\partial g}{\partial {z}}-\nabla\cdot\frac{\partial g}{\partial \nabla{z}}\Big)_{m,m+1},\ \mathcal{G}^{*}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
% &{I}_m\\
% & \Big(\frac{\partial g}{\partial {z}}-\nabla\cdot\frac{\partial g}{\partial \nabla{z}}\Big)^{*}
% \end{array}
%\right).
% \end{align}
%\begin{align*}
%S({Z})=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
% \mathcal{D}& \mathcal{D}\Big(\frac{\partial g}{\partial {z}}-\nabla\cdot\frac{\partial g}{\partial\nabla{z}}\Big) \\
% \Big(\frac{\partial g}{\partial {z}}-\nabla\cdot\frac{\partial g}{\partial\nabla{z}}\Big)^{*}\mathcal{D} &\big(\frac{\partial g}{\partial { z}}\big)^{*}\mathcal{D}\frac{\partial g}{\partial {z}}
% \end{array}
%\right),
%\end{align*}
%and $\mathcal{A}=\text{diag}(\mathcal{L},1)_{(s+1)\times (s+1)}$.
%\end{rmk}
We next discuss how to design energy-preserving schemes for the conservative systems. Actually,
we will show that the equivalent form in \eqref{2SG:eq:1-2} or \eqref{2SG:eq:1-3} can be handled more easily than its original system \eqref{hg-ep:Eq:2.1}.
\section{Temporal Discretization}
In this section, two linear second-order
schemes and a class of arbitrarily high-order Gauss collocation schemes are proposed respectively, where
all the schemes are shown to be energy-preserving for any time step sizes at the semi-discrete level.
Let $\Omega_{h}=\{(x_{j_1},y_{j_2})|x_{j_{1}}=j_{1}h_{1},y_{j_{2}}=j_{2}h_{2};\ 0\leq j_{r}\leq N_{r}, r=1,2\}$ be a partition of $\Omega$
with mesh sizes $h_1=\frac{l_{1}}{N_{1}}$ and $h_2=\frac{l_{2}}{N_{2}}$, respectively, where $N_{1}$ and $N_{2}$ are two even numbers. Denote \begin{align*}
J_{h}=\{\vec{j}=(j_1,j_2)|0\leq j_{r}\leq N_{r}, r=1,2\},\ J_{h}^{'}=\{\vec{j}=(j_1,j_2)|0\leq j_{r}\leq N_{r}-1, r=1,2\}.
\end{align*}
A discrete mesh function ${ U}_{j_1,j_2},\ (j_1,j_2)\in \mathbb{Z}\times\mathbb{Z}$ is said to satisfy periodic boundary conditions if and only if
\begin{align}\label{GR-KDV-PBS}
&x-\text{periodic}:\ U_{j_1,j_2}=U_{j_1+N_1,j_2}\ \text{and}\ y-\text{periodic}:\ U_{j_1,j_2}=U_{j_1,j_2+N_2}.
\end{align}
Let
\begin{small}
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{ V}_{h}:&=\big\{{U}|{U}=(U_{0,0},U_{1,0},\cdots,U_{N_{1}-1,0},U_{0,1},U_{1,1},\cdots, U_{N_{1}-1,1},\cdots,U_{0,N_{2}-1},U_{1,N_{2}-1},\\
&\cdots,U_{N_1-1,N_{2}-1})^{T}\big\},
\end{align*}
\end{small}
be the space of mesh functions defined on $\Omega_h$ and satisfy the periodic boundary conditions \eqref{GR-KDV-PBS}.
Subsequently, the discrete difference operators, and norms will be defined in an appropriate way. We introduce some discrete difference operators for any mesh function ${U}\in \mathbb{V}_h$, as follows:
\begin{align*}
&\delta_{x}^{+} U_{\vec{j}}=\frac{U_{j_{1}+1,j_{2}}-U_{j_{1},j_{2}}}{h_{1}},\
\delta_{y}^{+} U_{\vec{j}}=\frac{U_{j_{1},j_{2}+1}-U_{j_{1},j_{2}}}{h_{2}},\ \delta_{x}^{-} U_{\vec{j}}=\frac{U_{j_{1},j_{2}}-U_{j_{1}-1,j_{2}}}{h_{1}},\\
&\delta_{y}^{-} U_{\vec{j}}=\frac{U_{j_{1},j_{2}}-U_{j_{1},j_{2}-1}}{h_{2}},\
%& \widehat{A}_{t}U_{\vec{j}}^{n}=\frac{U_{\vec{j}}^{n+1}+U_{\vec{j}}^{n-1}}{2},\ U_{\vec{j}}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}=\frac{U_{\vec{j}}^{n+1}+U_{\vec{j}}^{n}}{2},\
%\hat{U}_{\vec{j}}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}=\frac{3U_{\vec{j}}^{n}-U_{\vec{j}}^{n-1}}{2},\
\nabla_h U_{\vec{j}}=\Big(\delta_{x}^+U_{\vec{j}},\ \delta_{y}^+ U_{\vec{j}}\Big)^T,\ \Delta_h U_{\vec{j}}=(\delta_{x}^{+}\delta_{x}^{-}+\delta_{y}^{+}\delta_{y}^{-})U_{\vec{j}}.
\end{align*}
We define discrete inner product as follows:
\begin{align*}
&\langle {U},{V}\rangle_{h}=h_1h_2\sum_{j_1=0}^{N_1-1}\sum_{j_2=0}^{N_2-1}U_{j_1,j_2}V_{j_1,j_2},\ \forall\ {U},{V}\in\mathbb{ V}_{h}.
%h_{\Delta}\sum_{j_1=0}^{N_1-1}\sum_{j_2=0}^{N_2-1}\sum_{j_3=0}^{N_3-1}U_{j_1,j_2,j_3}\overline{V}_{j_1,j_2,j_3}=
\end{align*}
The discrete $L^{2}$-norm of ${U}\in\mathbb{V}_h$ and its difference quotients are defined, respectively, as
\begin{align*}
&||{U}||_{h}=\sqrt{\langle{U},{U}\rangle_{h}},\ ||{\delta_{x}^+U}||=\sqrt{\langle{\delta_{x}^+U},\delta_{x}^+{U}\rangle_{h}}, ||{\delta_{y}^+ U}||=\sqrt{\langle{\delta_{y}^+U},\delta_{y}^+{U}\rangle_{h}},\\
&||\nabla_h{U}||_h=\sqrt{\langle{\delta_{x}^+U},\delta_{x}^+{U}\rangle_{h}+\langle\delta_{y}^{+}U,\delta_{y}^{+}{U}\rangle_h},\ ||\Delta_h{ U}||_h=\sqrt{\langle\Delta_h{U},\Delta_h{U}\rangle}.
\end{align*}
In fact, it is easy to show that
\begin{align*}
&||\nabla_h{U}||_h=\sqrt{\langle-\big({I}_{N_{2}}\otimes{B}_{1}+{B}_{2}\otimes {I}_{N_{1}}\big){U},{U}\rangle_{h}}:=\sqrt{\langle-{\Delta_h}{U},{ U}\rangle_{h}},\\
&||\Delta_h{U}||_h=\sqrt{\langle\big({I}_{N_{2}}\otimes{B}_{1}^2+2{B}_{2}\otimes{B}_1+{B}_{2}^2\otimes {I}_{N_{1}}\big){U},{U}\rangle}:=\sqrt{\langle{ \Delta^2_h}{U},{U}\rangle_{h}},
\end{align*}
where $\otimes$ means the Kronecker product, $I_{N_r}$ is an $N_r\times N_r$ identity matrix, and
\begin{align*}
{B}_r=\frac{1}{h_r^2}\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}
-2& 1 &0 &\cdots &1 \\
1& -2 &1& \cdots &0\\
\vdots &\vdots &\ddots& \ddots &\vdots\\
0&0& \cdots&-2&1\\
1& 0& \cdots&1 & -2\\
\end{array}
\right)_{N_r\times N_r},r=1,2.
\end{align*}
We also define discrete $H_h^2$ and $L^{\infty}$-norms as
\begin{align*}
& ||{U}||_{H_h^2}=\sqrt{||{U}||_h^2+||\nabla_h{U}||_h^2+||\Delta_h{U}||_h^2},\ ||{U}||_{h,\infty}=\max\limits_{\vec{j}\in J_{h}^{'}}|U_{\vec{j}}|.%,\ \forall\ {U}\in\mathbb{V}_h.
\end{align*}
We note that the discrete norms $||\delta_x^+{U}||$, $||\delta_y^+{U}||$, $||\nabla_h{U}||_h$ and $||\Delta_h{U}||_h$ defined above are semi-norms.
In addition, we denote $`\cdot$' as the element product of the vectors, that is,
\begin{align*}
%&{U}=({\hat {U}}_{0,0}^{T},\cdots,{\hat{{U}}}_{N_{2}-1,0}^{T},{\hat {U}}_{0,1}^{T},\cdots,{\hat {U}}_{N_{2}-1,1}^{T},\cdots,{\hat { U}}_{0,N_{3}-1}^{T},\cdots,{\hat {U}}_{N_{2}-1,N_{3}-1}^{T})^{T},\\
%&{\hat {U}}_{j_2,j_3}=(U_{0,j_2,j_3},\cdots,U_{N_{1}-1,j_2,j_3})^{T}.
{U}\cdot {V}=&\big(U_{0,0}V_{0,0},\cdots,U_{N_1-1,0}V_{N_1-1,0},\cdots,U_{0,N_2-1}V_{0,N_2-1},\cdots,U_{N_1-1,N_2-1}V_{N_1-1,N_2-1}\big)^{T}.
\end{align*}
For sake of brevity, we denote $\underbrace{{U}\cdot...\cdot {U}}_{p}$ as ${U}^p$.
%By simple calculation, we find that
%\begin{align*}
%|{u}|_{1,h}=\langle{B}{u}, {u}\rangle_{J}^{\frac{1}{2}},
%\end{align*}
%with
%\begin{align*}
%{B}=\frac{1}{h^2}\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}
% 2& -1 &0 &\cdots &-1 \\
% -1& 2 &-1& \cdots &0\\
% \vdots &\vdots &\ddots& \ddots &\vdots\\
% 0&0& \cdots&2&-1\\
% -1& 0& \cdots&-1 & 2\\
% \end{array}
%\right)_{J\times J}.
%\end{align*}
%%We note that $|{u}|_{1,h}$ is a semi-norm.
%\begin{rmk}
%
%\end{rmk}
\bibliographystyle{plain}
\bibliography{ref}
\end{document}
\subsection{Fourier pseudo-spectral method and a new semi-norm equivalence}
Let
\begin{align*}
&S_{N}^{''}=\text{span}\{g_{j_1}(x)g_{j_2}(y),\ 0\leq j_r\leq N_r-1, r=1,2\},
\end{align*}
be the interpolation space, where $g_{j_1}(x)$ and $g_{j_2}(y)$ are trigonometric polynomials of degree $N_{1}/2$ and $N_{2}/2$,
given, respectively, by
\begin{align*}
&g_{j_1}(x)=\frac{1}{N_{1}}\sum_{l=-N_{1}/2}^{N_{1}/2}\frac{1}{a_{l}}e^{\text{i}l\mu_{1} (x-x_{j_1})},\ g_{j_2}(y)=\frac{1}{N_{2}}\sum_{q=-N_{2}/2}^{N_{2}/2}\frac{1}{b_{q}}e^{\text{i}q\mu_{2} (y-y_{j_2})},
\end{align*}
with $a_{l}=\left \{
\aligned
&1,\ |l|<\frac{N_1}{2},\\
&2,\ |l|=\frac{N_1}{2},
\endaligned
\right.,\ b_{q}=\left \{
\aligned
&1,\ |q|<\frac{N_2}{2},\\
&2,\ |q|=\frac{N_2}{2},
\endaligned
\right.$ and $\mu_{r}=\frac{2\pi}{l_{r}},\ r=1,2$.
We define the interpolation operator $I_{N}: C(\Omega)\to S_{N}^{''}$ as follows:
\begin{align*}
I_{N}U(x,y,t)=\sum_{j_1=0}^{N_{1}-1}\sum_{j_2=0}^{N_{2}-1}U_{j_1,j_2}(t)g_{j_1}(x)g_{j_2}(y),
\end{align*}
where $U_{j_1,j_2}(t)=U(x_{j_1},y_{j_2},t)$. %and its vector form is denoted by
%\begin{align*}
%{u}=&(u_{0,0,0},u_{1,0,0},\cdots,u_{N_{1}-1,0,0},u_{0,1,0},u_{1,1,0},\cdots, u_{N_{1}-1,1,0},\cdots,u_{0,N_{2}-1,0},u_{1,N_{2}-1,0},\cdots,\\
% &u_{N_1-1,N_{2}-1,0},u_{0,0,1},u_{1,0,1}\cdots,u_{N_1-1,0,1},\cdots,u_{0,N_2-1,N_3-1},\cdots,u_{N_1-1,N_2-1,N_3-1})^{T}.
%\end{align*}
Taking the derivative with respect to $x$, and then evaluating the resulting expressions at the collocation points ($x_{j_1},y_{j_2}$), we can obtain
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial^{s_{1}} I_{N}U(x_{j_1},y_{j_2},t)}{\partial x^{s_1}}
&=\sum_{j=0}^{N_{1}-1}U_{j,j_2}\frac{d^{s_1}g_{j}(x_{j_1})}{dx^{s_1}}=[({I}_{N_{2}}\otimes{D}_{s_1}^{x}){U}]_{j_1,j_2},\ { U}\in\mathbb{V}_h,%{{N_{1}N_{2}(j_3-1)+N_{1}(j_2-1)+j_1}}
\end{align*}
where ${D}_{s_1}^{x}$ is an $N_{1}\times N_1$ matrix, with elements given by
\begin{align*}
({D}_{s_1}^{x})_{j_1,j}=\frac{d^{s_1}g_{j}(x_{j_1})}{dx^{s_1}},
\end{align*}
and $[({I}_{N_{2}}\otimes{D}_{s_1}^{x}){U}]_{j_1,j_2}$ represents the $(N_{1}(j_2-1)+j_1)$-th component of the vector $({I}_{N_{2}}\otimes{D}_{s_1}^{x}){ U}$. Without being confused, the notation is still be adopted in subsequent sections. In a similar way, we can obtain
\begin{align*}
%&:=[{D}_{1}{U}]_{N_{x}N_{y}(m-1)+N_{x}(k-1)+j},\\
\frac{\partial^{s_2} I_{N}U(x_{j_1},y_{j_2},t)}{\partial y^{s_2}}&=\sum_{k=0}^{N_{2}-1}u_{j_1,k}\frac{d^{s_2}g_{k}(y_{j_2})}{dy^{s_2}}
=[({D}_{s_2}^{y}\otimes {I}_{N_{1}}){U}]_{j_1,j_2},\ {U}\in\mathbb{V}_h,
%&:=[{D}_{2}{U}]_{{N_{x}N_{y}(m-1)+N_{x}(k-1)+j}},\\
\end{align*}
where %$\otimes$ is Kronecker product, $I_{N_{r}},\ r=1,2,3$ is the identity matrix of dimension $N_{r}\times N_{r}$ and
${D}_{s_2}^{y}$ is an $N_{2}\times N_2$ matrix with elements given by
\begin{align*}
({D}_{s_2}^{y})_{j_2,k}=\frac{d^{s_2}g_{k}(y_{j_2})}{dy^{s_2}}.
\end{align*}
For first and second derivatives, we have, respectively,
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial I_{N}U(x_{j_1},y_{j_2},t)}{\partial x}
=[({I}_{N_{2}}\otimes{D}_{1}^{x}){U}]_{j_1,j_2},\
\frac{\partial I_{N}U(x_{j_1},y_{j_2},t)}{\partial y}
=[({D}_{1}^{y}\otimes {I}_{N_{1}}){U}]_{j_1,j_2},
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial^{2} I_{N}U(x_{j_1},y_{j_2},t)}{\partial x^{2}}
=[({I}_{N_{2}}\otimes{D}_{2}^{x}){U}]_{j_1,j_2},\
\frac{\partial^{2} I_{N}U(x_{j_1},y_{j_2},t)}{\partial y^{2}}
=[({D}_{2}^{y}\otimes {I}_{N_{1}}){U}]_{j_1,j_2},
\end{align*}
where ${D}_{1}^{x}$ and ${D}_{1}^{y}$ are real skew-symmetric matrices, and ${D}_{2}^{x}$ and ${D}_{2}^{y}$ are real symmetric matrices. Now, for ${ U}\in\mathbb{V}_{h}$, we introduce three new semi-norms induced by the spectral differential matrices, as follows:
\begin{align*}
&|{U}|_{1,h}=\sqrt{\langle-({I}_{N_{2}}\otimes({D}_{1}^{x})^2+ ({D}_{1}^{y})^2\otimes {I}_{N_{1}}){U},{U}\rangle_{h}},\\
&||\mathbb{L}_h{U}||_{h}=\sqrt{\langle\mathbb{L}_h{U}, \mathbb{L}_h{U}\rangle}=\sqrt{\langle-({I}_{N_{2}}\otimes({D}_{1}^{x})^2+2{D}_{1}^{y}\otimes { D}_{1}^{x}+({D}_{1}^{y})^2\otimes I_{N_2}){U},{U}\rangle_{h}},\\
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
&|{U}|_{2,h}=\sqrt{\langle({I}_{N_{2}}\otimes({D}_{2}^{x})^2+2{D}_{2}^{y}\otimes {D}_{2}^x+ ({D}_{2}^{y})^2\otimes {I}_{N_{1}}){U},{U}\rangle_{h}},
\end{align*}
where $\mathbb{L}_h={I}_{N_{2}}\otimes{D}_{1}^{x}+ {D}_{1}^{y}\otimes {I}_{N_{1}}.$
\begin{lem}\rm\label{GR-KDV-lem2.1} For any grid function ${U}\in\mathbb{V}_{h}$, we have
\begin{align*}
||\mathbb{L}_h{U}||_{h}\le \sqrt{2}|{U}|_{1,h}.
\end{align*}
\begin{prf}\rm With the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, it is clear to see
\begin{align*}
||\mathbb{L}_h{U}||_{h}^2&=|{U}|_{1,h}^2+2\langle({I}_{N_1}\otimes {D}_{1}^{x}){U},({D}_{1}^{y}\otimes {I}_{N_2}){U}\rangle_{h}\\
&\le|{U}|_{1,h}^2+||({I}_{N_1}\otimes {D}_{1}^{x}){U}||_h^2+||({D}_{1}^{y}\otimes {I}_{N_2}){U}||_h^2\\
&\le 2|{U}|_{1,h}^2,
\end{align*}
which further shows
\begin{align*}
||\mathbb{L}_h{U}||_{h}\le \sqrt{2}|{U}|_{1,h}.
\end{align*}
This completes the proof.\qed
\end{prf}
\end{lem}
\begin{lem}\rm \label{GR-KDV-lem2.2}\cite{GCW14,HNO06} For the matrices ${B}_{r},r=1,2$ and ${D}_{2}^{w},w=x,y$, the following results hold
\begin{align*}
&{B}_{r}={F}_{N_r}^{H}\Lambda_{r}{F}_{N_r},\\
&{D}_{1}^{x}={F}_{N_1}^{H}\Lambda_{3}{F}_{N_1},\\
&{D}_{1}^{y}={F}_{N_2}^{H}\Lambda_{4}{F}_{N_2},\\
&{D}_{2}^{x}={F}_{N_1}^{H}\Lambda_{5}{F}_{N_1},\\
&{D}_{2}^{y}={F}_{N_2}^{H}\Lambda_{6}{F}_{N_2},
\end{align*}
where ${F}_{N_r},\ r=1,2$, is the discrete Fourier transform matrix with elements
$\big({F}_{N_r}\big)_{j,k}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N_r}}e^{-\text{\rm i}jk\frac{2\pi}{N_r}},$ ${F}_{N_r}^{H}$ is the conjugate transpose matrix of ${F}_{N_r}$ and
\begin{align*}
&\Lambda_{r}=\text{\rm diag}\Big[\lambda_{B_{r},0},\lambda_{B_{r},1},\cdots,\lambda_{B_{r},N_{r}-1}\Big],\ \lambda_{B_{r},j}=-\frac{4}{h_{r}^{2}}\sin^{2}\frac{j\pi}{N_{r}},\\
&\Lambda_{3}=\text{\rm diag}\Big[\lambda_{D_{1}^{x},0},\lambda_{D_{1}^{x},1},\cdots,\lambda_{D_{1}^{x},N_{1}-1}\Big],\ \lambda_{D_{1}^{x},j}=
\left \{
\aligned
&\text{i}j\mu_{1},\ &0\leq j\leq N_{1}/2-1,\\
&0,\ &j=N_1/2,\\
&\text{i}(j-N_1)\mu_1,\ &N_1/2<j<N_1,
\endaligned
\right.\\
&\Lambda_{4}=\text{\rm diag}\Big[\lambda_{D_{1}^{y},0},\lambda_{D_{1}^{y},1},\cdots,\lambda_{D_{1}^{y},N_{2}-1}\Big],\ \lambda_{D_{1}^{y},j}=
\left \{
\aligned
&\text{i}j\mu_{2},\ &0\leq j\leq N_{2}/2-1,\\
&0,\ &j=N_2/2,\\
&\text{i}(j-N_2)\mu_2,\ &N_2/2<j<N_2,
\endaligned
\right.\\
&\Lambda_{5}=\text{\rm diag}\Big[\lambda_{D_{2}^{x},0},\lambda_{D_{2}^{x},1},\cdots,\lambda_{D_{2}^{x},N_{1}-1}\Big],\ \lambda_{D_{2}^{x},j}=
\left \{
\aligned
&-(j\mu_{1})^{2},\ &0\leq j\leq N_{1}/2,\\
&-\big((j-N_1)\mu_1\big)^{2},\ &N_1/2<j<N_1,
\endaligned
\right.\\
&\Lambda_{6}=\text{\rm diag}\Big[\lambda_{D_{2}^{y},0},\lambda_{D_{2}^{y},1},\cdots,\lambda_{D_{2}^{y},N_{2}-1}\Big],\ \lambda_{D_{2}^{y},j}=
\left \{
\aligned
&-(j\mu_{2})^{2},\ &0\leq j\leq N_{2}/2,\\
&-\big((j-N_2)\mu_2\big)^{2},\ &N_2/2<j<N_2,
\endaligned
\right.
\end{align*}
In addition, the following inequalities hold \cite{GWWC17}
\begin{align}\label{GR-KDV:2.1}
%&0\leq-\frac{4}{\pi^{2}}\lambda_{(D_{1}^{x})^2,j}\leq -\lambda_{B_{1},j},\ 0\leq j\leq N_1-1,\\\label{GR-KDV:2.01}
%&0\leq-\frac{4}{\pi^{2}}\lambda_{(D_{1}^{y})^2,j}\leq -\lambda_{B_{2},j},\ 0\leq j\leq N_2-1,\\\label{GR-KDV:2.1}
&0\leq-\frac{4}{\pi^{2}}\lambda_{(D_{1}^{x})^2,j}\leq-\frac{4}{\pi^{2}}\lambda_{D_{2}^{x},j}\leq -\lambda_{B_{1},j}\leq -\lambda_{D_{2}^{x},j},\ 0\leq j\leq N_1-1,\\\label{GR-KDV:2.2}
&0\leq-\frac{4}{\pi^{2}}\lambda_{(D_{1}^{y})^2,j}\leq-\frac{4}{\pi^{2}}\lambda_{D_{2}^{y},j}\leq -\lambda_{B_{2},j}\leq -\lambda_{D_{2}^{y},j},\ 0\leq j\leq N_2-1,\\\label{GR-KDV:2.3}
&0\leq\frac{16}{\pi^{4}}\lambda_{D_{2}^{x},j}^2\leq \lambda_{B_{1},j}^2\leq \lambda_{D_{2}^{x},j}^2,\ 0\leq j\leq N_1-1,\\\label{GR-KDV:2.4}
&0\leq\frac{16}{\pi^{4}}\lambda_{D_{2}^{y},j}^2\leq \lambda_{B_{2},j}^2\leq \lambda_{D_{2}^{y},j}^2,\ 0\leq j\leq N_2-1.
\end{align}
\end{lem}
%Now, we give the following equivalence between $|{U}|_{1,h}$ and $|{U}|_{h}$.
\begin{lem}\rm \label{GR-KDV-lem2.3} For any grid function ${U} \in \mathbb{V}_{h}$, we have
\begin{align*}%\label{eq:2.11}
&||\Delta_h{U}||_{h}\leq |{U}|_{2,h}\leq\frac{\pi^2}{4}||\Delta_h{U}||_{h}.
\end{align*}
\end{lem}
\begin{prf}\rm
We denote
\begin{align*}
I^{2}:&=|{U}|_{2,h}^{2}\\
&=\langle\big({I}_{N_{2}}\otimes({D}_{2}^{x})^2\big){U},{U}\rangle_{h}+2\langle\big({D}_{2}^{y}\otimes {D}_{2}^{x}\big){U},{U}\rangle_{h}+\langle\big(({ D}_{2}^{y})^2\otimes {I}_{N_{1}}\big){U},{U}\rangle_{h}\nonumber\\
&:=I_{1}^{2}+I_{2}^{2}+I_{3}^{2},
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
J^{2}:&=||\Delta_{h}{U}||_h^2=\langle\Delta_{h}{U},\Delta_{h}{U}\rangle_{h}\nonumber\\
&=\langle\big({I}_{N_{2}}\otimes{B}_{1}^2\big){U},{U}\rangle_{h}+\langle2\big({B}_{2}\otimes {B}_{1}\big){U},{U}\rangle_{h}+\langle\big({B}_{2}^2\otimes { I}_{N_{1}}\big){U},{U}\rangle_{h}\\
&:=J_1^{2}+J_2^{2}+J_3^{2}.
\end{align*}
With Lemma \ref{GR-KDV-lem2.2}, we can obtain
\begin{align*}
I_{1}^{2}&=\langle\big({I}_{N_{2}}\otimes{F}_{N_1}^{H}\Lambda_{3}^2{F}_{N_1}\big){U},{U}\rangle_{h}
=\langle\big({I}_{N_{2}}\otimes\Lambda_{3}^2\big)\widetilde{{U}},\widetilde{{U}}\rangle_{h}\nonumber\\
&=h_{\Delta}\sum_{j_1=0}^{N_1-1}\sum_{j_2=0}^{N_2-1}\big(\lambda_{D_{2}^{x},j_1}\big)^2|\widetilde{{U}}_{j_1,j_2}|^{2},
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
I_{2}^{2}&=\langle\big( {F}_{N_2}^{H}\Lambda_{4}{F}_{N_2}\otimes {F}_{N_1}^{H}\Lambda_{3}{F}_{N_1}\big){U},{U}\rangle_{h}
=\langle\big(\Lambda_{4}\otimes\Lambda_{3}\big)\widetilde{{U}},\widetilde{{U}}\rangle_{h}\nonumber\\
&=h_{\Delta}\sum_{j_1=0}^{N_1-1}\sum_{j_2=0}^{N_2-1}\big(\lambda_{D_{2}^{x},j_1}\lambda_{D_{2}^{y},j_2}\big)|\widetilde{{U}}_{j_1,j_2}|^{2},
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
I_{3}^{2}&=\langle\big( {F}_{N_2}^{H}\Lambda_{4}^2{F}_{N_2}\otimes {I}_{N_{1}}\big){U},{U}\rangle_{h}
=\langle\big(\Lambda_{4}^2\otimes{I}_{N_{1}}\big)\widetilde{{U}},\widetilde{{U}}\rangle_{h}\nonumber\\
&=h_{\Delta}\sum_{j_1=0}^{N_1-1}\sum_{j_2=0}^{N_2-1}\big(\lambda_{D_{2}^{y},j_2}\big)^2|\widetilde{{U}}_{j_1,j_2}|^{2},
\end{align*}
where $\widetilde{{U}}=\big({F}_{N_2}\otimes{F}_{N_1}\big){U}$.
Similarly, we can obtain
\begin{align*}
&J_1^{2}=h_{\Delta}\sum_{j_1=0}^{N_1-1}\sum_{j_2=0}^{N_2-1}\big(\lambda_{B_{1},j_1}\big)^2|\widetilde{{ U}}_{j_1,j_2}|^{2},\ J_2^{2}=h_{\Delta}\sum_{j_1=0}^{N_1-1}\sum_{j_2=0}^{N_2-1}\big(\lambda_{B_{1},j_1}\lambda_{B_{2},j_2}\big)|\widetilde{{ U}}_{j_1,j_2}|^{2},\\
&J_3^{2}=h_{\Delta}\sum_{j_1=0}^{N_1-1}\sum_{j_2=0}^{N_2-1}\big(\lambda_{B_{2},j_2}\big)^2|\widetilde{{ U}}_{j_1,j_2}|^{2}.
\end{align*}
%\begin{align*}
%J_2^{2}=h_{\Delta}\sum_{j_1=0}^{N_1-1}\sum_{j_2=0}^{N_2-1}\sum_{j_3=0}^{N_3-1}\big(-\lambda_{B_{2},j_2}\big)|\widetilde{{U}}_{j_1,j_2,j_3}|^{2},
%\end{align*}
%and
%\begin{align*}
%J_3^{2}=h_{\Delta}\sum_{j_1=0}^{N_1-1}\sum_{j_2=0}^{N_2-1}\sum_{j_3=0}^{N_3-1}\big(-\lambda_{B_{3},j_3}\big)|\widetilde{{ U}}_{j_1,j_2,j_3}|^{2}.
%\end{align*}
With the use of \eqref{GR-KDV:2.1}-\eqref{GR-KDV:2.4}, we can have
\begin{align*}%\label{3d_NLS:2.23}
\frac{16}{\pi^4}I_{r}^{2}\leq J_r^{2}\leq I_r^{2},\ r=1,2,3,
\end{align*}
which implies that
\begin{align}\label{GR-KDV:2.5}
J_{r}^{2}\leq I_r^{2}\leq \frac{\pi^4}{16}J_r^{2}, \ r=1,2,3.
\end{align}
With \eqref{GR-KDV:2.5}, we can get
\begin{align*}%\label{3d_NLS:2.25}
J^{2}\leq I^{2}\leq \frac{\pi^4}{16}J^{2},
\end{align*}
that is,
\begin{align*}%\label{3d_NLS:2.26}
||\Delta_h{U}||_{h}\leq |{U}|_{2,h}\leq\frac{\pi^2}{4}||\Delta_h{U}||_{h}.
\end{align*}
We complete the proof.
\qed
\end{prf}
\begin{lem}\rm \label{GR-KDV-lem2.4} For any grid function ${U} \in \mathbb{V}_{h}$, we have
\begin{align*}%\label{eq:2.11}
&|{U}|_{1,h}\leq\frac{\pi}{2}||\nabla_h{U}||_{h}.
\end{align*}
\end{lem}
The proof is similar to the Lemma \ref{GR-KDV-lem2.3}. For sake of brevity, we omit it.
\begin{lem}\rm \cite{LS10,QS12,zhou90} \label{GR-KDV-lem2.5} For any grid function ${U}\in \mathbb{V}_h$, we have
\begin{align*}
&||\nabla_h {U}||_h^2\le ||{U}||_h||\Delta_h {U}||_h,\\
&||{U}||_{h,\infty}^2\le C||{U}||_h\big(||\Delta_h {U}||_h+||{U}||_h\big).
\end{align*}
\end{lem}
\subsection{Momentum-preserving spatial semi-discretization}
Eq. \eqref{GR-KDV_eq:1.1} can be written as the following equivalent form
\begin{align}\label{GR-KDV_eq:2.6}
u_t+\Delta^2u_t+\Delta u_x+\mathbb{L}u+\frac{1}{p+2}(u^p\mathbb{L} +\mathbb{L}u^p)u,
\end{align}
where the operator $(u^p\mathbb{L} +\mathbb{L}u^p)$ operates to a function $u$ in such a way that $(u^p\mathbb{L} +\mathbb{L}u^p)u=u^p\mathbb{L}u +\mathbb{L}(u^pu)$, which is a standard convention. The same convection applies to the discrete versions.
Applying the Fourier pseudo-spectral method to the system \eqref{GR-KDV_eq:2.6} in space, we have
\begin{align}\label{GR-KDV_eq:2.7}
\big({I}+\mathbb{A}^2\big)\frac{d}{dt}{U}+\mathbb{D}(U){U}=0,\ {U}\in\mathbb{V}_h,
\end{align}
with
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{D}({U})=\mathbb{B}+\mathbb{L}_h+\frac{1}{p+2}(\text{diag}\big({U}^p\big)\mathbb{L}_h +\mathbb{L}_h\text{diag}({U}^p)),
\end{align*}
where $\mathbb{A}={I}_{N_{2}}\otimes{D}_{2}^{x}+ {D}_{2}^{y}\otimes {I}_{N_1}$ and
$\mathbb{B}={I}_{N_{2}}\otimes{D}_{3}^{x}+ {D}_{2}^{y}\otimes {D}_{1}^x$. %, and
%$\mathbb{L}_h={I}_{N_{2}}\otimes{D}_{1}^{x}+ {D}_{1}^{y}\otimes {I}_{N_{1}}$.
Note that we have used the fact ${D}_{4}^{w}=({D}_{2}^{w})^2,\ w=x,y$ in the above equation. In addition, with noting the anti-symmetric property of $\mathbb{B}$ and $\mathbb{L}_h$, we can easily deduce that the matrix ${\mathbb D}(U)$ is anti-symmetric for ${U}$.
\begin{lem}\rm\label{GR-KDV-lem2.6} The semi-discrete system \eqref{GR-KDV_eq:2.7} possesses the semi-discrete momentum conservation law
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{P}(t)=\mathcal{P}(0),\ \mathcal{P}(t)=||{U}||_h^2+|{U}|_{2,h}^2, \ {U}\in\mathbb{V}_h,
\end{align*}
\end{lem}
\begin{prf}\rm Making the discrete inner product of \eqref{GR-KDV_eq:2.7} with ${U}$ and we have
\begin{align*}
\frac{d}{dt}\big(||{U}||_h^2+|{U}|_{2,h}^2\big)=0,
\end{align*}
which further shows
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{P}(t)=\mathcal{P}(0),
\end{align*}
where the anti-symmetric property of $\mathbb{D}({U})$ is used. This completes the proof.\qed
\end{prf}
\section{Construction of the linearized Crank-Nicolson momentum-preserving (LCN-MP) scheme} \label{3D_NLS:Sec.2.1}
In this section, we will propose a LCN-MP scheme by using the linearized Crank-Nicolson scheme to the semi-discrete system \eqref{GR-KDV_eq:2.7}.
For a positive integer $M$, let $\Omega_{\tau}=\{t_{n}|t_{n}=n\tau; 0\leq n\leq M\}$
be a uniform partition of $[0,T]$ with time step $\tau=T/M$. Let $\Omega_{h\tau}=\Omega_{h}\times\Omega_{\tau}$ and denote
$U_{\vec{j}}^n$ be the numerical solution of $u(x_{j_1},y_{j_2},t_n)$ defined on $\Omega_{h\tau}$.
For any grid function ${U}^n\in\mathbb{V}_h$ defined on $\in\Omega_{h\tau}$, we define
\begin{align*}
&\delta_{t}^{+} {U}^{n}
=\frac{{U}^{n+1}-{U}^{n}}{\tau},\ {U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}=\frac{{U}^{n+1}+{U}^{n}}{2},\ \hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}=\frac{3{U}^{n}-{U}^{n-1}}{2}.
%&\delta_{t} {U}^{n}
%=\frac{{U}^{n+1}-{U}^{n-1}}{2\tau},\ \widehat{A}_{t}{U}^{n}=\frac{{U}^{n+1}+{U}^{n-1}}{2}.
\end{align*}
Applying the linear Crank-Nicolson scheme to the semi-discrete system \eqref{GR-KDV_eq:2.7} in time, we can obtain
\begin{align}\label{GR-KDV-LEPSI}
&\big({I}+\mathbb{A}^2\big)\delta_t^+{U}^n+\mathbb{D}(\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}){U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}=0,\ n=1,\cdots,M-1,
\end{align}
where ${U}^1$ is the solution of the following equation
\begin{align}\label{GR-KDV-LEPSI1}
&\big({I}+\mathbb{A}^2\big)\delta_t^+{U}^0+\mathbb{D}({U}^0){U}^{\frac{1}{2}}=0,
\end{align}
which comprises our linearized Crank-Nicolson momentum-preserving (LCN-MP) scheme for the GR-KdV equation. In this paper, for simplicity, we denote $C$ a positive constant which is independent of mesh grids and may be different in different case.
%Also we present several discrete Sobolev interpolation formulas and inverse inequalities in the following Lemma. The proof
%can be found in Ref. \cite{zhou90}.
\begin{thm}\rm \label{GR-KDV-thm3.1} The scheme \eqref{GR-KDV-LEPSI}-\eqref{GR-KDV-LEPSI1} possesses the following discrete global momentum conservation law
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{P}^n=\cdots=\mathcal{P}^0,\ \mathcal{P}^n=||{U}^n||_h^2+|{U}^n|_{2,h}^2.
\end{align*}
\end{thm}
\begin{prf}\rm We first show
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{P}^1=\mathcal{P}^0.
\end{align*}
By nothing
\begin{align*}
\langle\mathbb{D}({U}^0){U}^{\frac{1}{2}},{U}^{\frac{1}{2}}\rangle_h=0,
\end{align*}
we make the discrete inner product of \eqref{GR-KDV-LEPSI1} with ${U}^{\frac{1}{2}}$ and obtain
\begin{align*}
\delta_t^+\mathcal{P}^0=0,
\end{align*}
that is,
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{P}^1=\mathcal{P}^0.
\end{align*}
Similarly, by taking the discrete inner product of \eqref{GR-KDV-LEPSI} with ${U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}$, we have
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{P}^n=\cdots=\mathcal{P}^1.
\end{align*}
This completes the proof.\qed
\end{prf}
\begin{lem}\rm \label{GR-KDV-lem3.1} Supposing $\mathcal{P}^0\le C$, the solution of the scheme \eqref{GR-KDV-LEPSI}-\eqref{GR-KDV-LEPSI1} satisfies
\begin{align*}
||{U}^n||_h\le C,\ ||\nabla_h{U}^n||_h\le C,\ ||\Delta_h{U}^n||_{h}\le C,\ ||{U}^n||_{h,\infty}\le C,\ 1\le n\le M.
\end{align*}
\end{lem}
\begin{prf}\rm According to $\mathcal{P}^0\le C$ and Theorem \ref{GR-KDV-thm3.1}, we have
\begin{align}
||{U}^n||_h^2+|{U}^n|_{2,h}^2\le C,
\end{align}
which implies
\begin{align}
||{U}^n||_h\le C,\ |{U}^n|_{2,h}\le C,\ 1\le n\le M.
\end{align}
With the aid of Lemmas \ref{GR-KDV-lem2.3} and \ref{GR-KDV-lem2.5}, we can obtain
\begin{align}
||\nabla_h{U}^n||_h\le C,\ ||\Delta_h{U}^n||_{h}\le C,\ ||{U}^n||_{h,\infty}\le C,\ 1\le n\le M.
\end{align}
This completes the proof.\qed
\end{prf}
\begin{thm}\rm The LCN-MP scheme is uniquely solvable.
\end{thm}
\begin{prf}\rm The LCN-MP scheme can be written as the following linear equation system
\begin{align}
{A}{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}={b},
\end{align}
where ${A}=\big({I}+\mathbb{A}^2+\frac{\tau}{2}\mathbb{D}(\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}})\big)$ and ${b}=\big({I}+\mathbb{A}^2\big){U}^n.$
In order to obtain the
unique solvability of the scheme, we need to prove that the matrix ${A}$ is invertible.
If ${A}{x}=0$, we have
\begin{align}
0={x}^T{A}{x}={x}^T\big({I}+\mathbb{A}^2\big){x},
\end{align}
where the anti-symmetry of $\mathbb{D}(U)$ is used. Note that the ${I}+\mathbb{A}^2$ is symmetric positive definite, thus,
${x}=0$, that is, ${A}{x}=0$ has only zero solution. Therefore, ${A}$ is invertible. This completes the proof.
\qed
\end{prf}
\begin{lem}\rm\label{GR-KDV-lem3.2}
Let
\begin{align}\label{GR-KDVeq:3.8}
&||{U}^n||_h\le C,\ ||\nabla_h{U}^n||_h\le C,\ ||\Delta_h{U}^n||_{h}\le C,\ ||{U}^n||_{h,\infty}\le C,\\\label{GR-KDVeq:3.9}
& ||{V}^n||_h\le C,\ ||\nabla_h{V}^n||_h\le C,\ ||\Delta_h{V}^n||_{h}\le C,\ ||{V}^n||_{h,\infty}\le C,
\end{align}
we have
\begin{align*}
\langle\mathbb{D}({U}^{0}){U}^{\frac{1}{2}}&-\mathbb{D}({V}^{0}){V}^{\frac{1}{2}},{\eta}^{\frac{1}{2}}\rangle_h
\le C\big(||{{\eta}}^{0}||_h^2+||\Delta_h{\eta}^{0}||_{h}^2+||{\eta}^{1}||_{h}^2+||\Delta_h{\eta}^{1}||_{h}^2\big),
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
\langle\mathbb{D}(\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}){U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}&-\mathbb{D}(\hat{V}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}){V}^{n+\frac{1}{2}},{ \eta}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\rangle_h\nonumber\\
&\le C\big(||{{\eta}}^{n-1}||_h^2+||{{\eta}}^{n}||_h^2+||{{\eta}}^{n+1}||_h^2+||\Delta_h{\eta}^{n}||_{h}^2+||\Delta_h{\eta}^{n+1}||_{h}^2\big),
\end{align*}
where ${\eta}={U}-{V}$ and $n=1,\cdots,M$.
\end{lem}
\begin{prf}\rm
Denoting
\begin{align*}
F({x}_1,{x}_2,{x}_3)&=F_1({x}_1,{x}_2,{x}_3)+ F_2({x}_1,{x}_2,{x}_3)\nonumber\\
&:=\Big(\frac{3{x}_2-{x}_1}{2}\Big)^p\cdot\mathbb{L}_h\frac{{x}_3+{x}_2}{2}+\mathbb{L}_h\Big(\big(\frac{3{x}_2-{x}_1}{2}\big)^p\cdot\frac{{x}_3+{ x}_2}{2}\Big),
\end{align*}
we then have
\begin{small}
\begin{align}\label{GR-KDVeq:3.10}
{f}&:=F_1({U}^{n-1},{U}^{n},{U}^{n+1})-F_1({V}^{n-1},{V}^{n},{V}^{n+1})\nonumber\\
&=\Big(\hat{{U}}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\Big)^p\cdot\mathbb{L}_h{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}-\Big(\hat{{V}}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\Big)^p\cdot\mathbb{L}_h{ V}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\nonumber\\
&=\Big[\Big(\hat{{U}}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\Big)^p-\Big(\hat{{V}}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\Big)^p\Big]\cdot\mathbb{L}_h{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}+\Big(\hat{{ V}}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\Big)^p\cdot\mathbb{L}_h{\eta}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\nonumber\\
&=\Big[\hat{{\eta}}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\cdot\sum_{l=0}^{p-1}\Big((\hat{{U}}^{n+\frac{1}{2}})^{p-l-1}\cdot(\hat{{ V}}^{n+\frac{1}{2}})^{l}\Big)\Big]\cdot\mathbb{L}_h{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}+\Big(\hat{{V}}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\Big)^p\cdot\mathbb{L}_h{\eta}^{n+\frac{1}{2}},
\end{align}
\end{small}
and
\begin{small}
\begin{align}\label{GR-KDVeq:3.11}
{g}&:=F_2({U}^{n-1},{U}^{n},{U}^{n+1})-F_2({V}^{n-1},{V}^{n},{V}^{n+1})\nonumber\\
&=\mathbb{L}_h\Big(\big(\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\big)^p\cdot{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\Big)-\mathbb{L}_h\Big(\big(\hat{V}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\big)^p\cdot{ V}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\Big)\nonumber\\
&=\mathbb{L}_h\Big[\Big(\big(\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\big)^p-\big(\hat{V}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\big)^p\Big)\cdot{ U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\Big]+\mathbb{L}_h\Big(\big(\hat{V}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\big)^p\cdot{\eta}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\Big)\nonumber\\
&=\mathbb{L}_h\Big[\hat{\eta}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\cdot\sum_{l=0}^{p-1}\Big(\big(\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\big)^{p-l-1}\cdot\big(\hat{ V}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\big)^{l}\Big)\cdot{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\Big]+\mathbb{L}_h\Big(\big(\hat{V}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\big)^p\cdot{\eta}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\Big).
\end{align}
\end{small}
With noting
\begin{align*}
\langle\big(\mathbb{B}+\mathbb{L}_h\big){\eta}^{n+\frac{1}{2}},{\eta}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\rangle_h=0,
\end{align*}
we then have
\begin{align}\label{GR-KDV:eq:3.8}
\langle\mathbb{D}(\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}){U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}&-\mathbb{D}(\hat{V}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}){V}^{n+\frac{1}{2}},{ \eta}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\rangle_h=\langle{f},{\eta}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\rangle_h+\langle{g},{\eta}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\rangle_h.
\end{align}
%and
%\begin{align}\label{GR-KDV:eq:3.9}
%\langle\mathbb{D}(\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}){U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}&-\mathbb{D}(\hat{V}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}){V}^{n+\frac{1}{2}},{ \eta}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\rangle_h=\langle{g},{\eta}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\rangle_h.
%\end{align}
By using Lemmas \ref{GR-KDV-lem2.1}, \ref{GR-KDV-lem2.3}-\ref{GR-KDV-lem2.5} and Eqs. \eqref{GR-KDVeq:3.8}-\eqref{GR-KDVeq:3.9}, we can deduce from \eqref{GR-KDVeq:3.10}-\eqref{GR-KDVeq:3.11} that
\begin{align}\label{GR-KDV:eq:3.10}
\langle{f},{\eta}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\rangle_h&=\sum_{\vec{j}}\Big\{\Big[\hat{{\eta}}_{\vec{j}}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\sum_{l=0}^{p-1}\Big((\hat{{ U}}_{\vec{j}}^{n+\frac{1}{2}})^{p-l-1}\cdot(\hat{{ V}}_{\vec{j}}^{n+\frac{1}{2}})^{l}\Big)\Big](\mathbb{L}_h{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}})_{\vec{j}}\nonumber\\
&-\Big(\hat{{ V}}_{\vec{j}}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\Big)^p(\mathbb{L}_h{ \eta}^{n+\frac{1}{2}})_{\vec{j}}\Big\}{ \eta}_{\vec{j}}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\nonumber\\
&\le C\big(||\hat{{\eta}}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}||_h^2+||{{\eta}}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}||_{h,\infty}^2||\mathbb{L}_h{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}||_{h}^2+
||\mathbb{L}_h{\eta}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}||_{h}^2+||{\eta}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}||_{h}^2\big)\nonumber\\
&\le C\big(||\hat{{\eta}}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}||_h^2+||\Delta_h{\eta}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}||_{h}^2+
||\nabla_h{\eta}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}||_{h}^2+||{\eta}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}||_{h}^2\big)\nonumber\\
&\le C\big(||\hat{{\eta}}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}||_h^2+||\Delta_h{\eta}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}||_{h}^2+||{\eta}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}||_{h}^2\big),\nonumber\\
& \le C\big(||{{\eta}}^{n-1}||_h^2+||{{\eta}}^{n}||_h^2+||{{\eta}}^{n+1}||_h^2+||\Delta_h{\eta}^{n}||_{h}^2+||\Delta_h{\eta}^{n+1}||_{h}^2\big),
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}\label{GR-KDV:eq:3.11}
\langle{g},{\eta}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\rangle_h&=\langle\hat{\eta}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\cdot\sum_{l=0}^{p-1}\Big(\big(\hat{ U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\big)^{p-l-1}\cdot\big(\hat{V}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\big)^{l}\Big)\cdot{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}},-\mathbb{L}_h{ \eta}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\rangle_h\nonumber\\
&+\langle\big(\hat{V}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\big)^p\cdot{\eta}^{n+\frac{1}{2}},-\mathbb{L}_h{\eta}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\rangle_h\nonumber\\
&\le C\big(||\nabla_h{\eta}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}||_{h}^2+||{\eta}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}||_{h}^2+||\hat{\eta}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}||_{h}^2\big)\nonumber\\
&\le C\big(||\Delta_h{\eta}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}||_{h}^2+||{\eta}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}||_{h}^2+||\hat{\eta}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}||_{h}^2\big)\nonumber\\
&\le C\big(||{{\eta}}^{n-1}||_h^2+||{{\eta}}^{n}||_h^2+||{{\eta}}^{n+1}||_h^2+||\Delta_h{\eta}^{n}||_{h}^2+||\Delta_h{\eta}^{n+1}||_{h}^2\big).
\end{align}
Substituting \eqref{GR-KDV:eq:3.10} and \eqref{GR-KDV:eq:3.11} into \eqref{GR-KDV:eq:3.8},
we have
\begin{align*}
\langle\mathbb{D}(\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}){U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}&-\mathbb{D}(\hat{V}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}){V}^{n+\frac{1}{2}},{ \eta}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\rangle_h\nonumber\\
&\le C\big(||{{\eta}}^{n-1}||_h^2+||{{\eta}}^{n}||_h^2+||{{\eta}}^{n+1}||_h^2+||\Delta_h{\eta}^{n}||_{h}^2+||\Delta_h{\eta}^{n+1}||_{h}^2\big).
\end{align*}
In a same way, we can obtain
\begin{align*}
\langle\mathbb{D}({U}^{0}){U}^{\frac{1}{2}}&-\mathbb{D}({V}^{0}){V}^{\frac{1}{2}},{\eta}^{\frac{1}{2}}\rangle_h
\le C\big(||{{\eta}}^{0}||_h^2+||\Delta_h{\eta}^{0}||_{h}^2+||{\eta}^{1}||_{h}^2+||\Delta_h{\eta}^{1}||_{h}^2\big).
\end{align*}
\qed
\end{prf}
%\subsection{Linearized and momentum-preserving Fourier pseudo-spectral scheme II (LEPS-II)}
%We discretize the system \eqref{GR-KDV_eq:2.7} by
%\begin{align}\label{GR-KDV-LEPSII}
%&\big({I}+\mathbb{A}^2\big)\delta_t{U}^n+\mathbb{D}({U}^{n})\widehat{A}_{t}{U}^{n}=0,\ n=1,\cdots,M-1,
%\end{align}
%where ${U}^1$ is the solution of the following equation
%\begin{align}\label{GR-KDV-LEPSII1}
%&\big({I}+\mathbb{A}^2\big)\delta_t^+{U}^0+\mathbb{D}({U}^0){U}^{\frac{1}{2}}=0.
%\end{align}
%\begin{thm}\rm \label{GR-KDV-thm3.2} The LEPS-II \eqref{GR-KDV-LEPSII} possesses the following discrete total momentum conservation law
%\begin{align*}
%\mathcal{E}^n=\cdots=\mathcal{E}^0,\ \mathcal{E}^n=||{U}^n||_h^2+|{U}^n|_{2,h}^2.
%\end{align*}
%\end{thm}
%\begin{prf}\rm
%We make the discrete inner product of \eqref{GR-KDV-LEPSII1} with ${U}^{\frac{1}{2}}$ and obtain
%\begin{align}\label{GR-KDV-eq:3.8}
%\mathcal{E}^1=\mathcal{E}^0.
%\end{align}
%We make the discrete inner product of \eqref{GR-KDV-LEPSII} with ${U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}$ and obtain
%\begin{align*}
%\delta_t\mathcal{E}^n=0,\ n=1,2,\cdots,M-1,
%\end{align*}
%By noting \eqref{GR-KDV-eq:3.8}, we finish the proof.
%\end{prf}
%
%
%\begin{lem}\rm \label{GR-KDV-lem3.2} Supposing $U^0=u_0(x,y)\in H^2(\Omega)$, the solution of the scheme \eqref{GR-KDV-LEPSII}-\eqref{GR-KDV-LEPSII1} satisfies
%\begin{align*}
%||{U}^n||_h\le C,\ ||\nabla_h{U}||_h\le C,\ ||\Delta_h{U}^n||_{h}\le C,\ ||{U}^n||_{h,\infty}\le C,\ 1\le n\le M.
%\end{align*}
%
%\end{lem}
%%\begin{prf}\rm
%The proof is similar to Lemma \ref{GR-KDV-lem3.1}. For sake of brevity, we omit it.
%%\end{prf}
%\section{Unique solvability}
%This section has two goals. The first one is to prove the existence of the solution of the LEPS I and II.
%The second one is to prove the uniqueness of the solution.
% The argument of the existence for the solution relies on the Browder fixed point theorem \cite{ADK91,Browder65}.
% \begin{lem}\rm \label{GR-KDV-lem4.1} (Browder Fixed Point Theorem \cite{ADK91,Browder65})
% Let $(H,\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle)$ be a finite dimensional inner product space, $||\cdot||$ be the associated norm, and
% $g: H\rightarrow H$ be a continuous function. If
% \begin{align*}
% \exists\ \alpha>0,\ \forall\ z\in H,\ ||z||=\alpha,\ s.t.,\ \text{Re}\langle g(z),z\rangle \geq 0,
% \end{align*}
% there exists a $z^{*}\in H,\ ||z^{*}||\leq \alpha$, such that $g(z^{*})=0$.
%\end{lem}
%\begin{thm}\rm \label{GR-KDV-thm4.1}
% The solution of the LEPS-I exists.
%\end{thm}
%\begin{prf}\rm
%For a fixed $n$, we rewrite LEPS-I as the following equivalent form
%\begin{align}\label{GR-KDV-eq:4.1}
%&\big({I}+\mathbb{A}^2\big){U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}+\frac{\tau}{2}\mathbb{D}(\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}){U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}-{U}^n=0,\ n=1,\cdots,M-1,
%\end{align}
%where $\widehat{{ U}}{n+\frac{1}{2}}\in\mathbb{V}_{h}$. We define a mapping $\mathcal{F}: \mathbb{V}_{h}\rightarrow \mathbb{V}_{h}$
%as
%\begin{align}\label{GR-KDV-eq:4.2}
%\mathcal{F}{w}=\big({I}+\mathbb{A}^2\big){w}+\frac{\tau}{2}\mathbb{D}(\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}){w}-{U}^n.
%\end{align}
%It is obvious that $\mathcal{F}$ is continuous.
%
%We make the inner product of \eqref{GR-KDV-eq:4.2} with ${w}$ and have
%\begin{align*}
%\text{Re}\langle \mathcal{F}{w},{w}\rangle_{h}&=||{w}||_{h}^{2}+|{w}^n|_{2,h}^2-\text{Re}\langle {{U}}^{n},{w}\rangle_{h}\nonumber\\
%&\geq ||{w}||_{h}^{2}+|{w}^n|_{2,h}^2-|\langle {{U}}^{n},{w}\rangle_{h}|\nonumber\\
%&\geq ||{w}||_{h}^{2}+|{w}^n|_{2,h}^2-||{{U}}^{n}||_{h}||{w}||_{h}\nonumber\\
%&\geq \frac{1}{2}\big(||{w}||_{h}^{2}-||{{U}}^{n}||_{h}^{2}\big)\\
%&\geq \frac{1}{2}\big(||{w}||_{h}^{2}-||{{U}}^{n}||_{h}^{2}-|{U}^n|_{2,h}^2\big),
%\end{align*}
%where the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality.
%
%Let $\alpha=\sqrt{||{{U}}^{n}||_{h}^{2}+|{U}^n|_{2,h}^2+1}$. For $||{w}||_{h}=\alpha$, we have $\text{Re}\langle \mathcal{F}{w},{ w}\rangle_{h}\geq\frac{1}{2}$. It follows from Lemma \ref{GR-KDV-lem4.1} that there exists a solution ${w}^{*}\in\mathbb{V}_{h}$ satisfying $\mathcal{F}{ w}^{*}=0$.
%Let ${{U}}^{n+1}=2{w}^{*}-{{U}}^{n}$, the existence of ${U}^{n+1}$ is obtained. The argument of the existence of the solution ${U}^1$ is similar. For sake of brevity, we omit it.
%\qed
%\end{prf}
%
%
%
%
%%Then, we deduce the uniqueness of the solution. The proof relies on the mathematical induction.
%\begin{thm}\rm \label{GR-KDV-thm4.2}
% The solution of the LEPS-I is unique.
%\end{thm}
%\begin{prf}\rm We first prove that the solution ${U}^1$ of the LEPS-I is unique.
%For a given initial value ${U}^{0}\in\mathbb{V}_h$, we suppose that there exist two different
%solutions ${U}^{1}\in\mathbb{V}_h$ and ${V}^{1}\in\mathbb{V}_h$ of the LEPS-I.
%Let
%\begin{align*}%\label{eq:3.3}
%\chi_{\vec{j}}={U}_{\vec{j}}^{1}-{V}_{\vec{j}}^{1},\ \vec{j}\in J_{h},
%\end{align*}
%then, we have
%\begin{align}\label{GR-KDV-eq:4.3}
%&\big({I}+\mathbb{A}^2\big)\frac{{\chi}}{\tau}+\mathbb{D}({U}^0){\chi}=0.
%\end{align}
%We make the discrete inner product (\ref{GR-KDV-eq:4.3}) with ${\bm\chi}$ and have
%\begin{align*}
%||{\chi}||_h^2+|{\chi}|_{2,h}^2=0,
%\end{align*}
%which implies that
%\begin{align*}
%||{\chi}||_h^2=0,
%\end{align*}
%that is,
%\begin{align*}
%{U}^{1}={V}^{1}.
%\end{align*}
%Then we prove that the the solution ${U}^{n}\in\mathbb{V}_h,n\geq 2$ of the LEPS-I is also unique. The proof relies on the mathematical induction.
%For a given initial value ${U}^{0}\in\mathbb{V}_h$, we assume that the solution ${U}^{1}\in\mathbb{V}_h,\ k=1,\cdots,n$ of the LEPS-I are unique.
%Then, we show that the solution ${U}^{n+1}\in\mathbb{V}_h$ of the LEPS-I is also unique.
%
%For given ${U}^{n-1}\in\mathbb{V}_h$ and ${U}^{n}\in\mathbb{V}_h$, we suppose that there exist two different
%solutions ${U}^{n+1}\in\mathbb{V}_h$ and ${V}^{n+1}\in\mathbb{V}_h$ of the LEPS-I. Let
%\begin{align*}%\label{eq:3.3}
%\chi_{\vec{j}}={ U}_{\vec{j}}^{n+1}-{V}_{\vec{j}}^{n+1},\ \vec{j}\in J_{h},
%\end{align*}
%then, we have
%\begin{align}\label{GR-KDV-eq:4.4}
%&\big({I}+\mathbb{A}^2\big)\frac{{\chi}}{\tau}+\mathbb{D}(\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}){\chi}=0.
%\end{align}
%We make the discrete inner product (\ref{GR-KDV-eq:4.4}) with ${\bm\chi}$, and have
%\begin{align*}%\label{eq:3.8}
%||{\chi}||_{h}^{2}=0,
%\end{align*}
%which further implies that
%\begin{align*}
%{U}^{n+1}={V}^{n+1}.
%\end{align*}
%This completes the proof.
%\qed
%\end{prf}
%\begin{thm}\rm \label{GR-KDV-thm4.3}
% The solution of the LEPS-II is uniquely solvable.
%\end{thm}
%The proof is similar to Theorems \ref{GR-KDV-thm4.2} and \ref{GR-KDV-thm4.3}. For sake of brevity, we omit it.
\section{A an priori estimate}\label{Sec.4}
In this section, we will establish a an priori estimate for the proposed scheme \eqref{GR-KDV-LEPSI}-\eqref{GR-KDV-LEPSI1} in discrete $L^{\infty}$-norm.
For simplicity, we let $\Omega=[0,2\pi]^{2}$. More general cuboid domain can be translated into $\Omega$.
We assume that $C_{p}^{\infty}(\Omega)$ be a set of infinitely differentiable functions with the period $2\pi$ defined on $\Omega$ for all
variables. $H_{p}^{r}(\Omega)$ is the closure of $C_{p}^{\infty}(\Omega)$ in $H^{r}(\Omega)$.
The semi-norm and the norm of $H_{p}^{r}(\Omega)$ are denoted by $\arrowvert\cdot\arrowvert_{r}$
and $\Arrowvert\cdot\Arrowvert_{r}$ respectively.
$\Arrowvert\cdot\Arrowvert_{0}$ is denoted by $\Arrowvert\cdot\Arrowvert$ for simplicity.
Let $N_1=N_2=N$ (that is, $h_1=h_2=h$), the interpolation space $S_{N}^{''}$ can be rewritten as
\begin{align*}
&S_{N}^{''}=\Big\{ u| u=\sum_{\arrowvert j_1\arrowvert,\arrowvert j_2\arrowvert\leq\frac{N}{2}}
\frac{{\hat u}_{j_1,j_2}}{c_{j_1}c_{j_2}}e^{\text{i}(j_1x+j_2y)}: {\hat u}_{\frac{N}{2},j_2}={\hat u}_{-\frac{N}{2},j_2},\ {\hat u}_{j_1,\frac{N}{2}}={\hat u}_{j_1,-\frac{N}{2}}\Big\},
\end{align*}
where $c_{l}=1,\ |l|<\frac{N}{2},\ c_{-\frac{N}{2}}=c_{\frac{N}{2}}=2$. The projection space is defined as
\begin{align*}
S_{N}=\Big\{u| u=\sum_{\arrowvert j_1\arrowvert,\arrowvert j_2\arrowvert\leq\frac{N}{2}}
{\tilde u}_{j_1,j_2}e^{\text{i}(j_1x+j_2y)}\Big\}.
\end{align*}
It is clear that $S_{N-2}\subseteq S_{N}^{''}\subseteq S_{N}$.
We denote by $P_{N}:L^{2}(\Omega)\to S_{N}$ as the orthogonal projection operator
and recall the interpolation operator $I_{N}:C(\Omega)\to S_{N}^{''}$.
Further, $P_{N}$ and $I_{N}$ satisfy \cite{GWWC17}:
\begin{align*}
&1.\ P_{N}\partial_{w}u=\partial_{w} P_{N}u,\ I_{N}\partial_{w}u\ne \partial_{w} I_{N}u,\ w=x,\ \text{or}\ y. \\
&2.\ P_{N}u=u,\ \forall u\in S_{N}, \ I_{N}u=u,\ \forall u\in S_{N}^{''}.
\end{align*}
%Now, we introduce some useful Lemmas that will be used frequently in the subsequent error estimate.
\begin{lem}\rm \label{GR-KDV:lem4.1} \cite{GWWC17}
For ${u}\in S_{N}^{''}$,
$\Arrowvert { u}\Arrowvert\leq \Arrowvert {u}\Arrowvert_{h}\leq 2\Arrowvert { u}\Arrowvert$.
\end{lem}
\begin{lem}\rm \label{GR-KDV:lem4.2}
\cite{CQ82} If $0\leq l \leq s$ and ${u}\in H_{p}^{s}(\Omega)$, then
\begin{align*}
&\Arrowvert P_{N}{u}-{u}\Arrowvert_{l}\leq CN^{l-s}\arrowvert {u}\arrowvert_{s},\\
&||P_{N} u||_{l}\le C ||u||_{l},
\end{align*}
and in addition if $r>1$ then
\begin{align*}
&\Arrowvert I_{N}{ u}-{ u}\Arrowvert_{l}\leq CN^{l-s}\arrowvert {u}\arrowvert_{s}.
%&||I_{N} u||_{l}\le C ||u||_{l}.
\end{align*}
\end{lem}
\begin{lem}\rm \label{GR-KDV:lem4.3} \cite{GWWC17} For ${ u}\in H_{p}^{s}(\Omega),\ s>1$, let ${u}^{*}=P_{N-2}{u},\ N>2$. Then, we have
\begin{align*}%\label{3d_DNLS:4.5}
\Arrowvert {u}^{*}-{u}\Arrowvert_{h}\leq CN^{-s} \arrowvert {u}\arrowvert_{s}.
\end{align*}
\end{lem}
\begin{lem}\rm \cite{GW12}\label{GR-KDV:lem4.4} For any ${ u}\in S_{qN}$, we have
\begin{align*}%\label{3d_DNLS:4.5}
\Arrowvert I_N u\Arrowvert_{l}\leq q\Arrowvert u \Arrowvert_{l}.
\end{align*}
\end{lem}
\begin{lem}\rm \label{GR-KDV:lem4.5} For ${ u}\in H_{p}^{s+1}(\Omega),\ s>1$, let ${u}^{*}=P_{N-2}{u},\ N>2$. Then, we have
\begin{align*}%\label{3d_DNLS:4.5}
\Arrowvert\nabla_h\big( {u}^{*}-{u}\big)\Arrowvert_{h}\leq CN^{-s} \arrowvert {u}\arrowvert_{s+1}.
\end{align*}
\end{lem}
The proof is similar to Lemma 4.4 in Ref. \cite{JCW17}. For sake of brevity, we omit it.
\begin{lem}\rm \label{GR-KDV:lem4.6} For ${ u}\in H_{p}^{s+2}(\Omega),\ s>1$, let ${u}^{*}=P_{N-2}{u},\ N>2$. Then, we have
\begin{align*}%\label{3d_DNLS:4.5}
\Arrowvert\Delta_h\big( {u}^{*}-{u}\big)\Arrowvert_{h}\leq CN^{-s} \arrowvert {u}\arrowvert_{s+2}.
\end{align*}
\end{lem}
\begin{prf}\rm According to Lemmas \ref{GR-KDV-lem2.3} and \ref{GR-KDV:lem4.1}, we have
\begin{align}\label{GR-KDV:eq:4.1}
\Arrowvert\Delta_h\big( {u}^{*}-{u}\big)\Arrowvert_{h}\le |{u}^{*}-{u}|_{2,h}&=\Arrowvert\mathbb{A}({u}^{*}-{u})\Arrowvert_h\nonumber\\
%&=\Arrowvert\Delta(I_N({u}^{*}-{u}))\Arrowvert_h\nonumber\\
&\le 2\Arrowvert I_N(\Delta(I_N({u}^{*}-{u})))\Arrowvert,
\end{align}
where we have used the fact $\big[\mathbb{A}({u}^{*}-{u})\big]_{j_1,j_2}=\big[I_N(\Delta(I_N({u}^{*}-{u})))\big](x_{j_1},y_{j_2})$.
By noting $\Delta(I_N({u}^{*}-{u}))\in S_{2N}$, we can deduce from Lemmas \ref{GR-KDV:lem4.2} and \ref{GR-KDV:lem4.4} that
\begin{align}\label{GR-KDV:eq:4.2}
\Arrowvert I_N(\Delta(I_N({u}^{*}-{u})))\Arrowvert&\leq 2\Arrowvert\Delta(I_N({u}^{*}-{ u}))\Arrowvert\nonumber\\
&\le 2\big(\Arrowvert\Delta(u^{*}-u)\Arrowvert+\Arrowvert\Delta (u-I_Nu)\Arrowvert\big)\nonumber\\
&\le C\big(\Arrowvert u^{*}-u\Arrowvert_2+\Arrowvert u-I_Nu\Arrowvert_2\big)\nonumber\\
&\le CN^{-s}|u|_{s+2}.
\end{align}
Substituting \eqref{GR-KDV:eq:4.2} into \eqref{GR-KDV:eq:4.1}, we finish the proof.\qed
\end{prf}
%We rewrite \eqref{3DNLD_eq:1.1} as
%\begin{align}\label{3DNLD_eq:1.2}
% \text{i}u_{t}+\Delta u+\beta e^{-2\gamma t}\big|u\big|^{2}u=0,
%\end{align}
%where $u=e^{\gamma t}\psi$. Denoting
%\begin{align*}
%u^{*}=P_{N-2}u,\ f^{*}=P_{N-2}f(u),
%\end{align*}
%where $f(u)=e^{-2\gamma t}\beta|u|^{2}u$. The projection equation of \eqref{3DNLD_eq:1.2} is
%\begin{align}\label{3d_DNLSeq:4.9}
%\text{i}\partial_{t} u^{*}+ \Delta u^{*}+f^{*}=0.
%\end{align}
%
%We define
%\begin{align}\label{3d_DNLSeq:4.10}
%\xi_{\vec{j}}^{n}&=\text{i}\delta_{t}(u^{*})_{\vec{j}}^{n}+\big( \Delta\widehat{A}_{t}({ u}^{*})^{n}\big)_{\vec{j}}
%+\widehat{A}_{t}f^{*}(u)_{\vec{j}}^{n},\ \vec{j}\in J_{h},\ n=1,\cdots,M-1,
%\end{align}
%where $(u^{*})_{\vec{j}}^{n}=u^{*}(x_{j_{1}},y_{j_2},z_{j_3},t_n)$ and $(f^{*})_{\vec{j}}^{n}=f^{*}(x_{j_{1}},y_{j_2},z_{j_3},t_n)$.
%By noting $u({x},t)^{*}\in S_{N}^{'''}$, we can obtain \begin{align}\label{3d_DNLSeq:4.11}
%\Delta u^{*}({x}_{\vec{j}},t_{n})=\Delta (I_{N}u^{*}({x}_{\vec{j}},t_{n}))&=(\Delta_{h}({u}^{*})^{n})_{\vec{j}},
%\end{align}
%where $\vec{j}\in J_{h},~({u}^{*})^n\in\mathbb{V}_h,~t_{n}\in\Omega_{\tau}$.
%With \eqref{3d_DNLSeq:4.11}, we can deduce from (\ref{3d_DNLSeq:4.9}) and (\ref{3d_DNLSeq:4.10})
%\begin{align}
%\xi_{\vec{j}}^{n}=\text{i}\delta_{t}(u^{*})_{\vec{j}}^{n}-\text{i}\widehat{A}_{t}(\partial_{t}(u^{*}))_{\vec{j}}^{n}, \ \vec{j}\in J_{h},\ n=1,\cdots,M-1.
%\end{align}
%By the Taylor formula, we can see
%\begin{align}\label{3d_DNLS:4.14}
%\xi_{\vec{j}}^{n}&=\text{i}\frac{\tau^2}{4}\int_{0}^1\big[\partial_{ttt}u^*({x}_{\vec{j}},t_n+\zeta\tau)+\partial_{ttt}u^*({ x}_{\vec{j}},t_n-\zeta\tau)\big](1-\zeta)^2d\zeta\nonumber\\
%&-\text{i}\frac{\tau^2}{2}\int_{0}^1\big[\partial_{ttt}u^*({x}_{\vec{j}},t_n+\zeta\tau)+\partial_{ttt}u^*({x}_{\vec{j}},t_n-\zeta\tau)\big](1-\zeta)d\zeta,
%\end{align}
%where $ \vec{j}\in J_{h},\ n=1,\cdots,M-1$.
%
%We define the error function by
%\begin{align*}
%{\eta}_{\vec{j}}^{n}=(u^{*})_{\vec{j}}^{n}-U_{\vec{j}}^{n},\ \vec{j}\in J_{h},\ n=0,1,\cdots,M.
%\end{align*}
%Subtracting \eqref{3d_NLS:eq2.3} from (\ref{3d_DNLSeq:4.10}), we obtain the error equation
%\begin{align}\label{3d_DNLS:4.16}
%\xi_{\vec{j}}^{n}=\text{i}\delta_{t}{\eta}_{\vec{j}}^{n}+( \Delta_{h}\widehat{A}_{t}{\eta}^{n})_{\vec{j}}+G_{\vec{j}}^{n},\ \vec{j}\in J_{h},\ n=1,\cdots,M-1,
%\end{align}
%where ${\eta}^n\in\mathbb{V}_h$ and
%\begin{align*}
%G_{\vec{j}}^{n}=&\widehat{A}_{t}(f^{*})_{\vec{j}}^{n}-\beta e^{-2\gamma t_{n}}|{U}_{\vec{j}}^{n}|^{2}
%\widehat{A}_{t}{U}_{\vec{j}}^{n}.
%\end{align*}
%For convenience, \eqref{3d_DNLS:4.16} can be written as a vector form
%\begin{align}\label{3d_DNLS:4.17}
%{\xi}^{n}=\text{i}\delta_{t}{\eta}^{n}+\Delta_{h}\widehat{A}_{t}{\eta}^{n}+{G}^{n},\ n=1,\cdots,M-1.
%\end{align}
\begin{lem}\label{GR-KDV:lem4.9}\rm Let $u^*=P_{N-2}u$ and
\begin{align*}
u_t^*+\Delta^2u_t^*&+\Delta u_x^*+\mathbb{L} u^*+\frac{1}{p+2}((u^*)^p\mathbb{L}u^* +\mathbb{L}(I_N(u^*)^{p+1}))=\nonumber\\
&u_t+\Delta^2u_t+\Delta u_x+\mathbb{L} u+\frac{1}{p+2}(u^p\mathbb{L}u +\mathbb{L}(u^{p+1}))+\xi_1.
\end{align*}
If $u\in H^{s+4}(\Omega),\ s>1$, we have
\begin{align*}
||{\xi}_1||_h\le CN^{-s},\ {\xi}_1\in \mathbb{V}_{h}.
\end{align*}
\end{lem}
\begin{prf}\rm
With Lemma \ref{GR-KDV:lem4.2}, we can obtain the following approximation estimate
\begin{align}\label{GR-KDV:eq:4.4}
||\partial_t^k(u^*-u)||_{l}=||P_{N-2}(\partial_t^ku)-\partial_t^ku||_{l}\le CN^{-s}|\partial_t^ku|_{s+l}.
\end{align}
Let
\begin{align}\label{GR-KDV:eq:4.5}
\tilde{\xi}&=((u^*)^p\mathbb{L}u^* +\mathbb{L}(I_N(u^*)^{p+1}))-(u^p\mathbb{L}u +\mathbb{L}(u^{p+1}))\\
&=\Big[((u^*)^p-u^p)\mathbb{L}u^*+u^p\mathbb{L}(u^*-u)\Big]\nonumber\\
&~~~~+\Big[\mathbb{L}(I_N(u^*)^{p+1}-(u^*)^{p+1})+\mathbb{L}((u^*)^{p+1}-u^{p+1})\Big]\nonumber\\
&=:\tilde{\xi}_1+\tilde{\xi}_2.
\end{align}
With Lemma \ref{GR-KDV:lem4.2}, we can obtain
\begin{align}\label{GR-KDV:eq:4.6}
||\tilde{\xi}_1||&\le ||((u^*)^p-u^p)\mathbb{L}u^*||+||u^p\mathbb{L}(u^*-u)||\nonumber\\
%&\le ||\mathbb{L}u^*||_{\infty}||((u^*)^p-u^p)||+||u^p||_{\infty}||\mathbb{L}(u^*-u)||\nonumber\\
&\le ||\mathbb{L}u^*||_{L^{\infty}}||(u^*)^p-u^p||+||u||_{L^{\infty}}^p||\mathbb{L}(u^*-u)||\nonumber\\
& \le ||\mathbb{L}u^*||_{L^{\infty}}||\sum_{l=0}^{p-1}(u^*)^{p-l-1}u^l||_{L^{\infty}}||u^*-u||+||u||_{L^{\infty}}^p||\mathbb{L}(u^*-u)||\nonumber\\
&\le C||u^*-u||_1\le N^{-s}|u|_{s+1},
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}\label{GR-KDV:eq:4.7}
||\tilde{\xi}_2||&\le ||\mathbb{L}(I_N(u^*)^{p+1}-(u^*)^{p+1}))||+||\mathbb{L}((u^*)^{p+1}-u^{p+1})||\nonumber\\
&\le C\Big( ||I_N(u^*)^{p+1}-(u^*)^{p+1}||_1+||(u^*)^{p}(\mathbb{L}u^{*}-\mathbb{L}u)||+||((u^*)^{p}-u^{p})\mathbb{L}u||\Big)\nonumber\\
%&\le C\Big( ||I_N(u^*)^{p+1}-(u^*)^{p+1}||_1+||(u^*)^{p}(\mathbb{L}u^{*}-\mathbb{L}u)||+||((u^*)^{p}-u^{p})\mathbb{L}u||\Big)\nonumber\\
&\le CN^{-s}|(u^*)^{p+1}|_{s+1}+ ||u^*||_{L^{\infty}}^p||\mathbb{L}u^{*}-\mathbb{L}u||\nonumber\\
&~~~~~~~~+||\mathbb{L}u||_{L^{\infty}}||\sum_{l=0}^{p-1}((u^*)^{p-l-1})u^l||_{L^{\infty}}||u^*-u||\nonumber\\
&%\le CN^{-s}|(u^*)^{p+1}|_{s+1}+ CN^{-s}|u|_{s+1}.
\le CN^{-s}.
\end{align}
Thus, we can deduce from \eqref{GR-KDV:eq:4.6} and \eqref{GR-KDV:eq:4.7} that
\begin{align}\label{GR-KDV:eq:4.8}
||\tilde{\xi}||\le CN^{-s}.%|(u^*)^{p+1}|_{s+1}+ CN^{-s}|u|_{s+1}.
\end{align}
With \eqref{GR-KDV:eq:4.4} and \eqref{GR-KDV:eq:4.8}, have
\begin{align}\label{GR-KDV:eq:4.9}
||\xi_1||\le CN^{-s}.
\end{align}
Further, by noting $\xi_1\in S_{(p+1)N}$, we can obtain
\begin{align}\label{GR-KDV:eq:4.9n}
||{\xi}_1||_h\le 2||I_N\xi_1||\le C||\xi_1||\le CN^{-s},
\end{align}
where Lemma \ref{GR-KDV:lem4.4} is used.\qed
\end{prf}
\begin{lem}\rm \label{GR-KDV-lem4.8}
Let
\begin{align}\label{GR-KDV:eq:4.10}
({I}+\mathbb{A}^2)\delta_t^+({u}^*)^0&+\mathbb{D}(({u}^*)^{0})({u}^*)^{\frac{1}{2}}={\xi}^{0},
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}\label{GR-KDV:eq:4.11}
&({I}+\mathbb{A}^2)\delta_t^+({u}^*)^n+\mathbb{D}((\hat{u}^*)^{n+\frac{1}{2}})({u}^*)^{n+\frac{1}{2}}={\xi}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}.
\end{align}
If $u({x},t)\in C^{3}\Big(0,T; H_{p}^{s+4}(\Omega)\Big),\ s>1$, we then have
\begin{align*}\label{GR-KDV:eq:4.12}
||{\xi}^{0}||_h\le C(N^{-s}+\tau),\ ||{\xi}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}||_h\le C(N^{-s}+\tau^2).
\end{align*}
\begin{prf}\rm We denote
\begin{align*}
(1+\Delta^2)\delta_t^+({u}^*)^0&+\Delta({u}^*)_x^{\frac{1}{2}}+\mathbb{L} ({u}^*)^{\frac{1}{2}}\nonumber\\
&=(1+\Delta^2) \partial_{t}{u}^*(0)+(\Delta\partial_x+\mathbb{L}){u}^*(0)+{\xi}_2^{0},
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{p+2}\Big[(({u}^*)^{0})^p\mathbb{L}({u}^*)^{\frac{1}{2}}&+\mathbb{L}I_N\Big((({u}^*)^{0})^{p}({u}^*)^{\frac{1}{2}}\Big)\Big]\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{p+2}\Big[({u}^*(0))^p\mathbb{L}{u}^*(0)+\mathbb{L}I_N\Big(({u}^*(0))^{p}{u}^*(0)\Big)\Big]+{\xi}_3^{0}.
\end{align*}
By the Taylor expansion, we have
\begin{align}
&\delta_t^+({u}^*)^0=\partial_t u^*(0)+\tau c_1\partial_{tt}u^{*}(\zeta_1),\ \zeta_1\in(0,\tau),\\
&({u}^*)^{\frac{1}{2}}=u^*(0)+\tau c_2\partial_{t}u^{*}(\zeta_2),\ \zeta_2\in(0,\tau).
\end{align}
where $c_1$ and $c_2$ are constants. With noting $u({x},t)\in C^{3}\Big(0,T; H_{p}^{s+4}(\Omega)\Big),\ s>1$, we have
\begin{align*}
||{\xi}_2^{0}||&\le C\tau\Big(||(1+\Delta^2)\partial_{tt}{u}^*(\zeta_1)||+||(\Delta\partial_x+\mathbb{L})\partial_t{u}^*(\zeta_2)||\Big)\nonumber\\
%&\le C\tau(||\Delta^2\partial_{tt}u^*(0)||+||(\Delta\partial_x+\mathbb{L})\partial_tu^*(0)||)\nonumber\\
&\le C\tau (||\partial_{tt}u^*(\zeta_1)||_4+||\partial_{t}u^*(\zeta_2)||_3)\nonumber\\
&\le C\tau(||\partial_{tt}u(\zeta_1)||_4+||\partial_{t}u(\zeta_2)||_3)\nonumber\\
&\le C\tau,
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align}
||{\xi}_3^{0}||&%\le C\tau\big(||({ u}^*(0))^p\mathbb{L}\partial_t{ u}^*(0)||_h+||\mathbb{L}\Big(({u}^*(0))^{p}\partial_t{ u}^*(0)\Big)||_h\big)\nonumber\\
\le C\tau\Big(||({u}^*(0))^p\cdot\mathbb{L}\partial_t{u}^*(\zeta_2)||+||\mathbb{L}I_N\Big(({ u}^*(0))^{p}\cdot\partial_t{u}^*(\zeta_2)\Big)||\Big)\nonumber\\
&\le C\tau\Big(||{u}^*(0)||_{L^{\infty}}^p\cdot||\partial_t{u}(\zeta_2)^*||_1+||({ u}(0)^*)^{p}\cdot\partial_t{u}^*(\zeta_2)||_1\Big)\nonumber\\
%&\le C\tau\Big(||{u}(0)||_{2}^p\cdot||\partial_t{u}(\zeta_2)||_1+||\partial_t{u}(\zeta_2)||_1\Big)\nonumber\\
&\le C\tau.
\end{align}
Denoting
\begin{align*}
(1+\Delta^2)\delta_t^+({u}^*)^n&+\Delta\partial_x({u}^*)^{n+\frac{1}{2}}+\mathbb{L} ({u}^*)^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\nonumber\\
&=(1+\Delta^2)\partial_{t}{ u}^*(t_{n+\frac{1}{2}})+(\Delta\partial_x+\mathbb{L}){u}^*(t_{n+\frac{1}{2}})+{\xi}_2^{n+\frac{1}{2}},
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
&\frac{1}{p+2}\Big[((\hat{u}^*)^{n+\frac{1}{2}})^p\mathbb{L}({u}^*)^{n+\frac{1}{2}}+\mathbb{L}I_N\Big(((\hat{u}^*)^{n+\frac{1}{2}})^{p}({ u}^*)^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\Big)\Big]\nonumber\\
&~~~~~~~~~=\frac{1}{p+2}\Big[({u}^*(t_{n+\frac{1}{2}}))^p\cdot\mathbb{L}{u}^*(t_{n+\frac{1}{2}})+\mathbb{L}I_N\Big(({u}^*(t_{n+\frac{1}{2}}))^{p}{ u}^*(t_{n+\frac{1}{2}})\Big)\Big]+{ \xi}_3^{n+\frac{1}{2}}.
\end{align*}
By the Taylor expansion, we have
\begin{align}
&\delta_t^+({u}^*)^n=\partial_tu^*(t_{n+\frac{1}{2}})+c_3\tau^2 \partial_{ttt}u^{*}(\zeta_3),\ \zeta_3\in(t_n,t_n+\tau),\\
&({u}^*)^{n+\frac{1}{2}}=u^*(t_{n+\frac{1}{2}})+c_4\tau^2 \partial_{tt}u^{*}(\zeta_4),\ \zeta_4\in(t_n,t_n+\tau),
\end{align}
where $c_3$ and $c_4$ are constants. By the similar argument as above, we can prove
\begin{align}
||{\xi}_2^{n+\frac{1}{2}}||&\le C\tau^2
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
||{\xi}_3^{n+\frac{1}{2}}||&\le C\tau^2.%(||\partial_{tt}u(\zeta_4)||_4+||\partial_{tt}u(\zeta_4)||_1)\le C\tau^2, %C\tau\big(||({ u}^*(t_{n+\frac{1}{2}}))^p\cdot\mathbb{L}_h\partial_t{u}^*(t_{n+\frac{1}{2}})||_h+||\mathbb{L}_h\Big(({u}^*(t_{n+\frac{1}{2}}))^{p}\cdot\partial_t{ u}^*(t_{n+\frac{1}{2}})\Big)||_h\big)\nonumber\\
%&\le C\tau\big(||({u}^*(t_{n+\frac{1}{2}}))^p\cdot\mathbb{L}\partial_t{u}^*(t_{n+\frac{1}{2}})||+||\mathbb{L}I_N\Big(({ u}^*(0))^{p}\cdot\partial_t{u}^*(0)\Big)||\big)\nonumber\\
%&\le C\tau\big(||\partial_t{u}(t_{n+\frac{1}{2}})||_1+||({ u}(t_{n+\frac{1}{2}}))^{p}\cdot\partial_t{u}(t_{n+\frac{1}{2}})||_1\big)\le C\tau,
\end{align}
Noting ${\xi}_2^{0},\ {\xi}_2^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\in S_{2N}$ and ${\xi}_3^{0},\ {\xi}_3^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\in S_{(p+1)N}$, then by using Lemma \ref{GR-KDV:lem4.4} we can prove
\begin{align}\label{GR-KDV:eq:4.16}
||{\xi}_2^{0}||_h+||{\xi}_3^{0}||_h\le2\big(||I_N{\xi}_2^{0}||+||I_N{ \xi}_3^{0}||\big)\le C\big(||{\xi}_2^{0}||+||{ \xi}_3^{0}||\big)\le C\tau,
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}\label{GR-KDV:eq4.17}
||{\xi}_2^{n+\frac{1}{2}}||_h+||{\xi}_3^{n+\frac{1}{2}}||_h&\le 2\big(||I_N{\xi}_2^{n+\frac{1}{2}}||+||I_N{ \xi}_3^{n+\frac{1}{2}}||\big)\nonumber\\
&\le C\big(||{\xi}_2^{n+\frac{1}{2}}||+||{ \xi}_3^{n+\frac{1}{2}}||\big)\nonumber\\
&\le C\tau^2,
\end{align}
It is clear to see that
\begin{align*}
&{\xi}^{0}={\xi}_1(0)+{\xi}_2^{0}+{\xi}_3^{0},\ {\xi}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}={\xi}_1(t_{n+\frac{1}{2}})+{\xi}_2^{n+\frac{1}{2}}+{\xi}_3^{n+\frac{1}{2}}.\
\end{align*}
Thus, with Lemma \ref{GR-KDV:lem4.9}, we can deduce from \eqref{GR-KDV:eq:4.16} and \eqref{GR-KDV:eq4.17} that
\begin{align*}
&||{\xi}^{0}||_h\le ||{\xi}_1(0)||_h+||{\xi}_2^{0}||_h+||{\xi}_3^{0}||_h\le C(N^{-s}+\tau),\\
&||{\xi}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}||_h\le ||{\xi}_1(t_{n+\frac{1}{2}})||_h+||{\xi}_2^{n+\frac{1}{2}}||_h+||{\xi}_3^{n+\frac{1}{2}}||_h\le C(N^{-s}+\tau^2).
\end{align*}
This completes the proof.\qed
\end{prf}
\end{lem}
%\begin{lem}\rm \label{GR-KDV:lem5.7}
% (Gronwall inequality \cite{zhou90}).
%Suppose that the discrete function $\big\{\omega^{n}|n=0,1,2,\cdots,M;M\tau=T\big\}$ is nonnegative and satisfies the inequality
%\begin{align*}
%\omega^{n}\leq \widehat{E}+\tau\sum_{l=1}^{n}E_{l}\omega^{l},
%\end{align*}
%where $\widehat{E}$ and $E_{k} (k=1,2,\cdots,M)$ are nonnegative constants. Then
%\begin{align*}
%\max\limits_{0 \leq n\leq
%M}|\omega^{n}|\leq \widehat{E} e^{2\sum_{k=1}^{M}E_{k}\tau},
%\end{align*}
%where $\tau$ is sufficiently small, such that $\tau\big(\max\limits_{k=0,1,\cdots,
%M}E_{k}\big)\leq\frac{1}{2}$.
%\end{lem}
We define the error function by
\begin{align*}
e_{\vec{j}}^n=(u^*)_{\vec{j}}^n-U_{\vec{j}}^n,\ \vec{j}\in J_h^{'},\ 1\le n\le M.
\end{align*}
subtracting \eqref{GR-KDV-LEPSI} and \eqref{GR-KDV-LEPSI1} from \eqref{GR-KDV:eq:4.11} and \eqref{GR-KDV:eq:4.10}, respectively, we can get
\begin{align}\label{GR-KDV:eq:4.17}
&\big({I}+\mathbb{A}^2\big)\delta_t^+{e}^0+\mathbb{D}(({u}^*)^0)({u}^*)^{\frac{1}{2}}-\mathbb{D}({U}^0){U}^{\frac{1}{2}}={\xi}^0,
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}\label{GR-KDV:eq:4.20}
&\big({I}+\mathbb{A}^2\big)\delta_t^+{e}^n+\mathbb{D}((\hat{u}^*)^{n+\frac{1}{2}})({u}^*)^{n+\frac{1}{2}}-\mathbb{D}(\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}){ U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}={\xi}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}.
\end{align}
\begin{thm}\rm \label{3d_DNLSlem4.5} We assume $u({x},t)\in C^{2}\Big(0,T; H_{p}^{s+4}(\Omega)\Big),\ s>1$. Then, there exists a constant $\tau_0>0$ sufficiently small,
such that, when $0< \tau\leq \tau_0$, we have
\begin{align*}
&||{u}^{1}-{U}^{1}||_{h}+||\Delta_h({u}^{1}-{U}^{1})||_{h}\leq C(N^{-s}+\tau^{2}),
\end{align*}
\end{thm}
\begin{prf}\rm Making the discrete inner product of \eqref{GR-KDV:eq:4.17} with ${e}^{\frac{1}{2}}$, when $0\le \tau\leq \tau_0$, we have
\begin{align}\label{GR-KDV:20}
&F^1-F^0\le C\tau\big(F^1+F^0\big)+C(N^{-s}+\tau^{2})^2,
\end{align}
with
\begin{align*}
F^n=||{e}^n||_h^2+||\Delta_h{e}^n||_h^2,\ n=0,1,
\end{align*}
where Lemmas \ref{GR-KDV-lem3.2} and \ref{GR-KDV-lem4.8} are used. By Lemmas \ref{GR-KDV:lem4.3}-\ref{GR-KDV:lem4.6}, we can deduce that
\begin{align}\label{GR-KDV:21}
F^0&=||{e}^0||_h+||\Delta_h{e}^0||_h\nonumber\\
&=||({u}^*)^0-{u}^0||_h+||\Delta_h(({u}^*)^0-{u}^0)||_h\nonumber\\
&\le CN^{-s}.
\end{align}
With \eqref{GR-KDV:21}, when $\tau$ is sufficiently small, we can get from \eqref{GR-KDV:20} that
\begin{align}\label{GR-KDV:eq4.18}
||{e}^1||_h^2+||\Delta_h{e}^1||_h^2\le C(N^{-s}+\tau^{2})^2,
\end{align}
which implies that
\begin{align*}%\label{GR-KDV:eq4.18}
||{e}^1||_h+||\Delta_h{e}^1||_h\le C(N^{-s}+\tau^{2}).
\end{align*}
By using Lemmas \ref{GR-KDV:lem4.3} and \ref{GR-KDV:lem4.6}, and Eq. \eqref{GR-KDV:eq4.18}, we have
\begin{align}\label{GR-KDV-eq4.19}
||{u}^{1}-{U}^{1}||_{h}&+||\Delta_h({u}^{1}-{U}^{1})||_{h}\nonumber\\
&\le \big(||{u}^{1}-({u}^*)^1||_h+||\Delta_h{u}^{1}-\Delta_h({u}^*)^1||_h+||{e}^1||_{h}+||\Delta_h{e}^{1}||_{h}\big)\nonumber\\
&\le C(N^{-s}+\tau^{2}).
\end{align}
With Lemma \ref{GR-KDV-lem2.5}, we can deduce from \eqref{GR-KDV-eq4.19} that
\begin{align*}
||{u}^{1}-{U}^{1}||_{h,\infty}\le C(N^{-s}+\tau^{2}).
\end{align*}
This completes the proof.\qed
%\begin{align}
% \delta_t^+({U}^*)^0+\delta_t^+\mathbb{A}({U}^*)^0&+\mathbb{B}({U}^*)^{\frac{1}{2}}+\mathbb{L}_h ({U}^*)^{\frac{1}{2}}
% +\frac{1}{p+2}(diag(({U}^*)^{0})^p)\mathbb{L}_h({U}^*)^{\frac{1}{2}}\nonumber\\
% &+\mathbb{L}_h diag((({U}^*)^{0})^{p})({U}^*)^{\frac{1}{2}}={\xi}^{0},
%\end{align}
\end{prf}
\begin{thm}\rm \label{3d_DNLSlem4.5} We assume $u({x},t)\in C^{3}\Big(0,T; H_{p}^{s+4}(\Omega)\Big),\ s>1$. %Then, there exists a constant $\tau_0>0$ sufficiently small,
%such that, when $0< \tau\leq \tau_0$,
Then, when $\tau$ is sufficiently
small, such that, $C\tau\le \frac{1}{2}$, we have
\begin{align*}
&||{u}^{n}-{U}^{n}||_{h}+||\Delta_h({u}^{n}-{U}^{n})||_{h}\leq C(N^{-s}+\tau^{2}),\ ||{U}^n||_{h,\infty}\le C(N^{-s}+\tau^{2}).
\end{align*}
\end{thm}
\begin{prf}\rm %\begin{align}
% \delta_t^+(u^*)^n&+\Delta^2\delta_t^+(u^*)^n+\Delta (u_x^*)^{n+\frac{1}{2}}+\mathbb{L} (u^*)^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\nonumber\\
% &+\frac{1}{p+2}(((\hat{u}^*)^{n+\frac{1}{2}})^p\mathbb{L}(u^*)^{n+\frac{1}{2}}
% +\mathbb{L}(I_N((\hat{u}^*)^{n+\frac{1}{2}})^{p}(u^*)^{n+\frac{1}{2}}))=\xi^{n+\frac{1}{2}},
%\end{align}
%Noting $\xi^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\in S_{(p+1)N}$
%\begin{align}
%||{\xi}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}||_h=||I_N\xi^{n+\frac{1}{2}}||_h\le 2||I_N\xi^{n+\frac{1}{2}}||\le 2(p+1)||\xi^{n+\frac{1}{2}}||\le C(N^{-s}+\tau).
%\end{align}
%\begin{align}
%&\big({I}+\mathbb{A}^2\big)\delta_t^+({u}^*)^n+\mathbb{D}(({u}^*)^{n+\frac{1}{2}})({u}^*)^{n\frac{1}{2}}={\xi}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}.
%\end{align}
Making the discrete inner product of \eqref{GR-KDV:eq:4.20} with ${e}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}$, we have
\begin{align}\label{GR-KDV:eq:4.21}
&F^{n+1}-F^n\le C\tau\big(F^{n+1}+F^n\big)+C\tau{e}^{n-1}+C\tau(N^{-s}+\tau^2)^2,
\end{align}
with
\begin{align*}
F^n=||{e}^n||_h^2+||\Delta_h{e}^n||_h^2,\ 1\le n\le M,%||{e}^{n-1}||_h^2+||\Delta_h{e}^{n-1}||_h^2+
\end{align*}
where Lemmas \ref{GR-KDV-lem3.2} and \ref{GR-KDV-lem4.8} are used. Summing up for $n$ from 1 to $m$ and then replacing $m$ by $n$, we can get from \eqref{GR-KDV:eq:4.21} that
\begin{align}\label{GR-KDV:eq:4.22}
F^{n}&\le F^1+C\tau\sum_{l=1}^nF^{l}+C\tau{e}^{0}+CT(N^{-s}+\tau^2)^2\nonumber\\
&\le C\tau\sum_{l=1}^nF^{l}+CT(N^{-s}+\tau^2)^2,
\end{align}
where \eqref{GR-KDV:21}\ and \eqref{GR-KDV:eq4.18} are used.
Applying the Gronwall inequality \cite{zhou90} to \eqref{GR-KDV:eq:4.22}, we have
\begin{align}\label{GR-KDV:eq:4.23}
||{e}^n||_h^2+||\Delta_h{e}^n||_h^2\le C(N^{-s}+\tau^2)^2,
\end{align}
which implies that
\begin{align*}%\label{GR-KDV:eq:4.23}
||{e}^n||_h+||\Delta_h{e}^n||_h\le C(N^{-s}+\tau^2),
\end{align*}
where $\tau$ is sufficiently small, such that $C\tau\le \frac{1}{2}$.
By using Lemmas \ref{GR-KDV:lem4.3} and \ref{GR-KDV:lem4.6}, and Eq. \eqref{GR-KDV:eq:4.23}, we have
\begin{align}\label{GR-KDV:eq4.19}
||{u}^{n}-{U}^{n}||_{h}&+||\Delta_h({u}^{n}-{U}^{n})||_{h}\nonumber\\
&\le \big(||{u}^{n}-({u}^*)^n||_h+||\Delta_h{u}^{n}-\Delta_h({u}^*)^n||_h+||{e}^n||_{h}+||\Delta_h{e}^{n}||_{h}\big)\nonumber\\
&\le C(N^{-s}+\tau^{2}).
\end{align}
With Lemma \ref{GR-KDV-lem2.5}, we can deduce from \eqref{GR-KDV:eq4.19} that
\begin{align*}
||{u}^{n}-{U}^{n}||_{h,\infty}\le C(N^{-s}+\tau^{2}).
\end{align*}
This completes the proof.\qed
\end{prf}
\section{Numerical examples}\label{2SG:Sec5}
In this section, we will investigate the numerical behaviors of the LCN-MP scheme \eqref{GR-KDV-LEPSI}-\eqref{GR-KDV-LEPSI1} for the GR-KdV equation in 1D and 2D.
Also, the results are compared with some existing conservative finite difference schemes for the convergence rate and
momentum conservation law.
For the LCN-MP scheme \eqref{GR-KDV-LEPSI}-\eqref{GR-KDV-LEPSI1}, we use the following iteration method to solve the linear equations:
\begin{align*}
\big({I}+\mathbb{A}^2&+\frac{\tau}{2}\mathbb{B}+\frac{\tau}{2}\mathbb{L}_h\big){U}^{n+\frac{1}{2},s+1}=\big({I}+\mathbb{A}^2\big){U}^{n}\nonumber\\
&-\frac{\tau}{2(p+2)}\Big[\text{diag}((\hat{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}})^p)\mathbb{L}_h{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2},s}+\mathbb{L}_h\big[\text{diag}((\hat{ U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}})^p)\cdot{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2},s}\big] \Big].
\end{align*}
We take the initial iteration vector ${U}^{n+\frac{1}{2},(0)}={U}^{n}$ and each iteration will terminate if the infinity norm of the error between two adjacent iterative
steps is less than $10^{-14}$. Further, for a fixed iteration step $s$, the fast solver presented in Ref. \cite{JCWL17} is applied to solve the linear equations efficiently. For the convergence rate, we use the formula
\begin{align*}
\text{Rate}=\frac{\ln( error_{1}/error_{2})}{\ln (\tau_{1}/\tau_{2})},
\end{align*}
where $\tau_{l}, error_{l}, (l=1,2)$ are step sizes and errors with the step size $\tau_{l}$, respectively.
\subsection{Simulations of the R-KdV equation in 1D}
In this section, we consider the following R-KdV equation in 1D
\begin{align}\label{RKDV:eq:5.2}
u_t+u_{xxxxt}+u_{xxx}+u_x+uu_x=0,
\end{align}
with initial condition
\begin{align*}
u(x,0)=\Big(-\frac{35}{24}+\frac{35}{312}\sqrt{313}\Big)\text{sech}^4
\Big[\frac{1}{24}\sqrt{-26+2\sqrt{313}}x\Big].
\end{align*}
Eq. \eqref{RKDV:eq:5.2} possesses the following exact solution \cite{zuo09}
\begin{align*}
u(x,t)=\Big(-\frac{35}{24}+\frac{35}{312}\sqrt{313}\Big)\text{sech}^4
\Big[\frac{1}{24}\sqrt{-26+2\sqrt{313}}\Big(x-\big(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{26}\sqrt{313}\big)t\Big)\Big].
\end{align*}
In our computation, we take the computational domain $\Omega=[-50,50]$ and the periodic boundary condition.
Table \ref{Tab_GR-KDV:1} shows numerical error and convergence rate of the proposed scheme with $N=1024$ and different time steps at $T=1$. As illustrated in Table \ref{Tab_GR-KDV:1}, the LCN-MP scheme has second-order
convergence rate in time. In Table \ref{Tab_GR-KDV:2}, we display the spatial numerical error and convergence rate of the proposed scheme with $\tau=10^{-4}$ and different mesh points at $T=1$, which implies that the scheme has spectral accuracy in space. Table \ref{Tab_GR-KDV:3} shows the numerical errors of different schemes with $h=\tau=0.1$ at different times. Compared with the linearized and conservative finite difference (LC-FD) scheme presented in Ref. \cite{HXH13}, our scheme provides smaller numerical error.
In Fig. \ref{Fig_GR-KDV:1}, we display the propagation of the soliton by the LCN-MP scheme over the
time interval $t\in[0,200]$, which shows that shapes of the soliton is preserved accurately in long time.
The energy errors over the time interval $t\in[0,200]$ are investigated in Fig. \ref{Fig_GR-KDV:2}. As
illustrated in the figure, the momentum error provided by our scheme is much smaller than the one provided by the LC-FD scheme .
\begin{table}[H]
\tabcolsep=9pt
\small
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
\centering
\caption{{The temporal numerical error and convergence rate of the proposed scheme with $N=1024$ and different time steps at $T=1$.}}\label{Tab_GR-KDV:1}
\begin{tabularx}{1.1\textwidth}{XXXXXX}\hline
{$\tau$} &{$L^{2}$} & {Rate} & {$L^{\infty}$} & {Rate} \\ %% µÚ1 ÐÐ
\hline
{0.1} & {7.2992e-05} & {-} & {2.8001e-05}&{-}\\
{0.05} & {1.8132e-05} & {2.01} & {6.9584e-06}&{2.01}\\
{0.025} & {4.5184e-06} & {2.00} & {1.7341e-06} & {2.00} \\ %% µÚ2 ÐÐ
{0.0125} & {1.1277e-06} & {2.00} & {4.3281e-07}&{2.00} \\\hline
\end{tabularx}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[H]
\tabcolsep=9pt
\small
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
\centering
\caption{{The spatial numerical error and convergence rate of the proposed scheme with $\tau=10^{-4}$ and different mesh points at $T=1$.}}\label{Tab_GR-KDV:2}
\begin{tabularx}{1.1\textwidth}{XXXXXX}\hline
{$N$} &{$L^{2}$} & {Rate} & {$L^{\infty}$} & {Rate} \\ %% µÚ1ÐÐ
\hline
{16} & {8.2999e-02} & {-} & {1.7538e-02}&{-}\\
{32} & {1.7211e-03} & {5.6} & {4.2655e-04}&{5.4}\\
{64} & {9.4160e-08} & {14.2} & {2.3647e-08}&{14.1}\\
{128} & {1.0002e-010} & {9.9} & {5.9555e-011} & {8.6} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
{256} & {9.6546e-011} & {-} & {5.9655e-011}&{-} \\\hline
\end{tabularx}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[H]
\tabcolsep=9pt
\small
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
\centering
\caption{{The numerical errors and CPU times of different schemes with $h=\tau=0.1$ at different times $T$.}}\label{Tab_GR-KDV:3}
\begin{tabularx}{1.1\textwidth}{XXXXXX}\hline
{Scheme\ \ }&{$T$} &{$L^{2}$} & {$L^{\infty}$}\\%&{CPU (s)} \\ %% µÚ1 ÐÐ
\hline
{LCN-MP}&{5} & {1.0117e-04} & {4.3763e-05}\\%&{1.4}\\
{}&{10} & {1.5839e-04} & {6.4159e-05}\\%&{2.8}\\
{}&{15} & {2.2025e-04} & {8.2850e-05}\\%&{4.3} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
{}&{20} & { 2.8153e-04} & { 1.0011e-04}\\%&{6.0} \\\hline
{LC-FD \cite{HXH13}}&{5} & {7.7806e-04} & {2.8682e-04}\\%&{1.8}\\
{}&{10} & {1.5213e-03} & {5.7239e-04}\\%&{3.7}\\
{}&{15} & {2.2129e-03} & {8.2431e-04}\\%&{5.7} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
{}&{20} & {2.8523e-03} & {1.0479e-03}\\\hline%&{8.0} \\\hline
%{CN}&{5} & {3.5677e-04} & {1.3049e-04}&{1.7}\\
% {}&{10} & {6.9832e-04} & {2.6165e-04}&{3.6}\\
% {}&{15} & {1.0166e-03} & {3.7762e-04}&{5.6} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
% {}&{20} & { 1.3109e-03} & {4.8062e-04}&{7.7} \\\hline
\end{tabularx}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{f1}
\caption{Numerical solution computed by the LCN-MP scheme with $h=\tau=0.1$ over the time interval $t\in[0,200]$.}\label{Fig_GR-KDV:1}
\end{minipage}\ \
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{f2}
\caption{Momentum errors with $h=\tau=0.1$ over the time interval $t\in[0,200]$.}\label{Fig_GR-KDV:2}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Simulations of the GR-KdV equation in 2D}
In this section, we consider the following GR-KdV equation in 2D, as follows:
\begin{align}\label{RKDV:eq:5.3}
u_t+\Delta^2u_t+\Delta u_x+(1+u^p)\mathbb{L}u=0,\ \ (x,y)\in\Omega,\ 0<t\leq T,
\end{align}
with initial condition
\begin{align*}%\label{eq:1.3}
u(x,y,0)=0.1(1+\sin(3x)\sin(5 y)),\ (x,y)\in\Omega.
\end{align*}
In our computation, we take $\Omega=[0,2\pi]^2$, $p=2$ and the periodic boundary conditions. The \emph{exact} solution is obtained numerically by the LCN-MP scheme under a very small time step $\tau=0.0001$ and spatial steps $h_1=h_2=\frac{2\pi}{128}$. Temporal and spatial numerical errors and convergence rates of the LCN-MP scheme at $T=1$ are shown in Tables \ref{Tab_GR-KDV:4} and \ref{Tab_GR-KDV:5}, respectively. It can be observed from those tables
that the LCN-MP scheme has second-order convergence rate in time and spectral accuracy in space, respectively, which confirms the theoretical analysis. Numerical errors of different schemes with different
mesh sizes and time steps at $T=1$ are shown in Table \ref{Tab_GR-KDV:6}. From the Table,
we find that, compared with the existing linearized and conservative finite difference (LC-FD) scheme in Ref. \cite{AO15}, our scheme admits much smaller numerical errors. In Fig. \ref{Fig_GKDV3} we show the momentum errors provided by the LCN-MP scheme and LC-FD scheme, respectively, with $h_1=h_1= \frac{2\pi}{50}$ and $\tau=0.1$ over the time interval $t\in[0,200]$. It is clear to see from the figure that our scheme provides much smaller momentum error than the one provided by the LC-FD scheme.
\begin{table}[H]
\tabcolsep=9pt
\small
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
\centering
\caption{{The temporal numerical error and convergence rate of the proposed scheme with $N_1=N_2=100$ and different time steps at $T=1$.}}\label{Tab_GR-KDV:4}
\begin{tabularx}{1.1\textwidth}{XXXXXX}\hline
{$\tau$} &{$L^{2}$} & {Rate} & {$L^{\infty}$} & {Rate} \\ %% µÚ1 ÐÐ
\hline
{0.1} & {1.1046e-06} & {-} & {2.2706e-07}&{-}\\
{0.05} & {2.7610e-07} & {2.00} & {5.6758e-08}&{2.00}\\
{0.025} & {6.9017e-08} & {2.00} & {1.4189e-08} & {2.00} \\ %% µÚ2 ÐÐ
{0.0125} & {1.7253e-08} & {2.00} & { 3.5469e-09}&{2.00} \\\hline
\end{tabularx}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[H]
\tabcolsep=9pt
\small
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
\centering
\caption{{The spatial numerical error and convergence rate of the proposed scheme with $\tau=10^{-4}$ and different mesh sizes at $T=1$.}}\label{Tab_GR-KDV:5}
\begin{tabularx}{1.1\textwidth}{XXXXXX}\hline
{$N$} &{$L^{2}$} & {Rate} & {$L^{\infty}$} & {Rate} \\ %% µÚ1ÐÐ
\hline
{4} & {1.0668e-01} & {-} & {2.7783e-02}&{-}\\
{8} & {2.2779e-02} & { 2.23} & {7.0849e-03}&{ 1.97}\\
{16} & {8.7270e-06} & { 11.35} & {2.6313e-06}&{11.39}\\
{32} & {8.6541e-013} & {23.27} & {4.6810e-013} & {22.42} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
{64} & {4.6350e-013} & {-} & {2.7911e-013}&{-} \\\hline
\end{tabularx}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[H]
\tabcolsep=9pt
\small
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
\centering
\caption{{The numerical errors of different schemes with different mesh points and time steps at $T=1$.}}\label{Tab_GR-KDV:6}
\begin{tabularx}{1.1\textwidth}{XXXXXX}\hline
{Scheme\ \ }&{$(N,\tau)$} &{$L^{2}$} & {$L^{\infty}$} \\ %% µÚ1 ÐÐ
\hline
{LCN-MP}&{(32,0.2)} & {4.4192e-06} & {9.0775e-07}\\
{}&{(64,0.1)} & {1.1046e-06} & {2.2706e-07}\\
{}&{(128,0.05)} & {2.7610e-07} & {5.6758e-08} \\
%{IFD}&{(32,0.01)} & {4.8214e-04} & {1.5235e-04}&{1.6}\\
% {}&{(64,0.005)} & {1.1577e-04} & {3.6735e-05}&{6.4}\\
% {}&{(128,0.0025)} & {2.8649e-05} & {9.0920e-06}&{88.36} \\
{LC-FD \cite{AO15}}&{(32,0.2)} & { 1.7003e-04} & {5.2164e-05}\\
{}&{(64,0.1)} & {4.4699e-05} & {1.3896e-05}\\
{}&{(128,0.05)} & {1.1315e-05} & { 3.5242e-06} \\\hline
\end{tabularx}
\end{table}
%\begin{table}[H]
%\tabcolsep=9pt
%\small
%\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
%\centering
%\caption{{The CPU times with different mesh points and time steps at $T=200$.}}\label{Tab_GR-KDV:3}
%\begin{tabularx}{1.1\textwidth}{XXXXXX}\hline
%{Scheme}&{$(N,\tau)$}&{CPU } \\ %% µÚ1ÐÐ
%\hline
% {LCN-MP}&{(32,0.2)} & {18.1} \\
% {}&{(64,0.1)} & { 72.8} \\
% %{IFD}&{(32,0.01)} & {4.8214e-04} & {1.5235e-04}&{1.6}\\
%% {}&{(64,0.005)} & {1.1577e-04} & {3.6735e-05}&{6.4}\\
%% {}&{(128,0.0025)} & {2.8649e-05} & {9.0920e-06}&{88.36} \\
% {LCN}&{(32,0.2)} & {19.6} \\
% {}&{(64,0.1)} & {67.7} \\\hline
%\end{tabularx}
%\end{table}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{70mm}
\includegraphics[width=70mm]{f3}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Momentum errors with $h_1=h_1= \frac{2\pi}{50}$ and $\tau=0.1$ over the time interval $t\in[0,200]$.}\label{Fig_GKDV3}
\end{figure}
\section{Concluding remarks}
In this paper, we propose a new linearized and momentum-preserving Fourier pseudo-spectral method for the GR-KdV equation. With the help of the new
semi-norm equivalence and the discrete momentum conservation law, we obtain the bound of the numerical solution in $L^{\infty}$-norm. Subsequently, based on the energy method and the bound of the numerical solution, an a priori estimate in discrete $L^{\infty}$-norm for the scheme is established without any restriction on the grid ratio. Numerical results verify the theoretical analysis. Compared with the existing conservative schemes, our scheme is more accurate and has the significant advantage in preserving the discrete momentum conservation law. Furthermore, The technique presented in this paper can also be used to establish an optimal
$L^{\infty}$-error estimate for the linearized and momentum-preserving Fourier pseudo-spectral schemes of the Rosenau-RLW equation \cite{GT17,PZ12} and the Rosenau-Kawahara equation \cite{BTL11,zuo09}.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant
Nos. 11771213), the National Key Research and Development Project of China
(Grant No. 2016YFC0600310), the National Key R\&D
Program of the Ministry of Science and Technology of China with the Project Integration
Platform Construction for Joint Inversion and Interpretation of Integrated Geophysics
(Grant No. 2018YFC0603500)", the Major Projects of Natural Sciences of University
in Jiangsu Province of China (Grant No. 15KJA110002) and the Priority Academic
Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions.
\bibliographystyle{plain}
\bibliography{ref}
\end{document}
\section{Numerical experiments}
In this section, we will investigate the numerical behaviors of the scheme \eqref{3d_NLS:eq2.3}-\eqref{3d_NLS:eq2.5}. %and \ref{3DNLD_eq£ºSec.5}. % Also the results are compared with IFD scheme \cite{zhang04} for the convergence rate,
%the conservation laws and the CPU time.
%For CFPM scheme (\ref{eq:2.10}), we use the following fixed-point iteration method to solve all the nonlinear algebraic equations, i.e.,
%\begin{align*}
%&\text{i} \frac{{U}^{n+1,(s+1)}-e^{-\gamma\tau}{U}^{n}}{\tau}+{D_{2}}\Big(\frac{{U}^{n+1,(s+1)}+e^{-\gamma\tau}{U}^{n}}{2}\Big)\nonumber\\
%&~~~~~~~~~~+\frac{\beta e^{-\frac{\gamma}{2}\tau}}{2}\Big[\Big(|e^{\frac{\gamma}{2}\tau}{U}^{n+1,(s)}|^{2}
%+|e^{-\frac{\gamma}{2}\tau}{U}^{n}|^{2}\Big)\cdot\Big(\frac{e^{\frac{\gamma}{2}\tau}{U}^{n+1,(s)}+e^{-\frac{\gamma}{2}\tau}{U}^{n}}{2}\Big)\Big]=0.
%\end{align*}
%We take the initial iteration vector ${U}^{n+1,(0)}={U}^{n}$ and each iteration will terminate if the infinity norm of the error between two adjacent iterative
%steps is less than $10^{-14}$.
To show the advantages of the scheme, we compare it with the IFD scheme \cite{zhang04}.
The IFD scheme of the DNLS equation \eqref{3DNLD_eq:1.2} can be rewritten as the following equivalent form
\begin{align*}
&\text{i}\delta_{t}{U}^{n}+ \Delta_{1,h}{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}
+\frac{\beta}{2} e^{-2\gamma t_{n+\frac{1}{2}}}\big(\big|{U}^{n+1}\big|^{2}+\big|{U}^{n}\big|^{2}\big)\cdot{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}=0,\ {U}^{n}\in \mathbb{V}_{h},
\end{align*}
where ${U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}=\frac{{U}^{n+1}+{U}^n}{2}$. %which admits discrete mass conservation laws
% \begin{align}
%\mathcal{M}_1^{n+1}=\mathcal{M}_1^{n},\ \mathcal{M}_1:=||{U}^{n}||_{h}^2,\ n=0,\cdots,M-1,
%\end{align}
%and momentum conservation laws
%\begin{align}
%\mathcal{E}_1^{n+1}=\mathcal{E}_1^{n},\ n=0,\cdots,M-1,
%\end{align}
%where
%\begin{align*}
%\mathcal{E}_1^{n}:=&|{U}^{n}|_{1,h}^{2}-\frac{\beta}{2}e^{-2\gamma t_{n-\frac{1}{2}}}||{U}^{n}||_{h,4}^{4}-\frac{\beta}{2}\sum_{l=1}^{n}e^{-2\gamma t_{l-\frac{3}{2}}}(1-e^{-2\gamma\tau})||{U}^{l-1}||_{h,4}^{4}.
%\end{align*}
In our computations, the symmetric LQ method (symmlq.m) is used to solve the LFP scheme with the tolerance number $10^{-6}$,
while, for the IFD scheme, we use the following fixed-point iteration method to solve the nonlinear algebraic equations, that is,
\begin{align*}
&\text{i} \frac{{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2},(s+1)}-{U}^{n}}{\tau}+\frac{1}{2} \Delta_{1,h}{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2},(s+1)}\nonumber\\
&~~~~~~~~~~+\frac{\beta}{4}e^{-2\gamma t_{n+\frac{1}{2}}}\Big[\Big(|2{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2},(s)}-{U}^{n}|^{2}
+|{U}^{n}|^{2}\Big)\cdot{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2},(s)}\Big]=0.
\end{align*}
We take the initial iteration vector ${U}^{n+\frac{1}{2},(0)}={U}^{n}$ and each iteration will terminate if the infinity norm of the error between two adjacent iterative
steps is less than $10^{-14}$. Solving the above equations gives ${U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}$ and the relation ${U}^{n+1}=2{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2}}-{U}^{n}$
yields the solution ${U}^{n+1}$. It's worth noting that, for a fixed iteration step $s$, we use the fast solver presented in Ref. \cite{JCWL17} to solve the linear equations efficiently.
%Before we present the numerical results, we introduce some notations which have been employed in this section.
In order to evaluate the convergence rate, for a fixed $n$, we use the formula
\begin{align*}
\text{Rate}=\frac{\ln( error_{1}/error_{2})}{\ln (\tau_{1}/\tau_{2})},
\end{align*}
where $\tau_{\tilde{l}}, error_{\tilde{l}}, (\tilde{l}=1,2)$ are step sizes and errors with the step size $\tau_{\tilde{l}}$, respectively.
%\subsection{Numerical experiment 1}
%In this subsection, we investigate the numerical behaviors of the LFP scheme of the DNLS equation.
Eq. \eqref{3DNLD_eq:1.1} possesses the following analytical solution
\begin{align}\label{3d_NLS:eq6.1}
\psi(x,y,z,t)=Ke^{-\gamma t}e^{\text{i}(k_1 x+k_2y+k_3z-\delta(t))},\ (x,y,z)\in\Omega=[0,2\pi]^3,
\end{align}
where $\delta(t)=\big(k_1^2+k_2^2+k_3^2\big)t+\frac{\beta|K|^2}{2\gamma}(e^{-2\gamma t}-1)$.
%Furthermore,
%For iteration step $s$, \eqref{IFDFI} can be simplified into
%\begin{align}\label{IFDFI}
%&\text{i}{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2},(s+1)}+\frac{\tau}{2}{\Delta_{h}}{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2},(s+1)}={F},
%\end{align}
%where ${F}={U}^{n}-\frac{\beta\tau}{4}\Big[\Big(e^{-2\gamma t_{n+1}}|2{U}^{n+1,(s)}-{U}^{n}|^{2}
%+e^{-2\gamma t_{n}}|{U}^{n}|^{2}\Big)\cdot{U}^{n+\frac{1}{2},(s)}\Big]$. Then, the fast solver presented in Ref. \cite{JCWL17} is employed to solve the
%linear equations efficiently.
%Further, for a fixed $n$, the relative errors in the total mass and energy is calculated
%by using the formulas, respectively,
%\begin{align}
%RM^{n}=\Big|\frac{\mathcal{M}^{n}-\mathcal{M}^{0}}{\mathcal{M}^{0}}\Big|,\ n=0,1,\cdots,M-1,
%\end{align}
%and
%\begin{align}
%RE^{n}=\Big|\frac{\mathcal{E}^{n}-\mathcal{E}^{0}}{\mathcal{E}^{0}}\Big|,\ n=0,1,\cdots,M-1.
%\end{align}
%Also, the rate of dissipation of the total conformal mass and
%momentum is calculated by using the formula
%\begin{align}\label{eq:5.2}
%r^{n}=\frac{1}{\tau}\ln\Big(\frac{N^{n+1}}{N^{n}}\Big)+2\gamma,
%\end{align}
%where $N^{n}$ represents the proper approximation for $M$ and $I$ of (\ref{eq:1.4}) and (\ref{3DNLD_eq:1.2}).
%\subsection{Example 1}
%Firstly, we will focus on the rate of convergence and the conservation
%laws in mass and energy for the following DNLS equations in 2D. %In addition,
%%some comparisons between the conformal Fourier pseudo-spectral scheme (CFPS) (2.24)-
%%(2.25) and the Birkhoffian multi-sympletic scheme (BMSS) [30] are displayed
%\begin{align}\label{eq:5.4}
% \text{i}\psi_{t}+\Delta \psi+\beta \big|\psi\big|^{2}\psi+\text{i}\gamma \psi=0,\ (x,y,z)\in\Omega=[0,2\pi]^2.
%\end{align}
%
%Eq. \eqref{eq:5.4} possesses exact solution as follows
%%\begin{align}\label{eq:5.5}
%%\psi(x,y,z,t)=Ke^{\text{i}(k_1 x+k_2y+k_3z-\omega t)},\ (x,y,z)\in\Omega
%%\end{align}
%%where $K=k_1=k_2=k_3=1,\ \beta=2,$ and $\omega=k_1^2+k_2^2+k_3^2-\beta K^2$.
%\begin{align}\label{3d_NLS:eq5.5}
%\psi(x,y,t)=Ke^{-\gamma t}e^{\text{i}(k_1 x+k_2y-\omega(t))},\ (x,y,z)\in\Omega,
%\end{align}
%where $\omega(t)=\big(k_1^2+k_2^2\big)t+\frac{\beta|K|^2}{2\gamma}(e^{-2\gamma t}-1)$.
%
%
%
%
%We choose $K=k_1=k_2=1,\beta=-2$ and set the exact solution of \eqref{eq:5.4} at $t=0$ on the domain $\Omega$ as
%the initial condition. Table \ref{Tab511} shows the temporal errors and convergence rates of difference schemes for the DNLS equation with $N_1=N_2=1024,\ \gamma=0.1$ and $\beta=-2$ at $T=1$. It is clear to see that the all schemes are second order of convergence rate in time. In addition,
%the numerical error obtained using the LFP method are much better than that of the LCN method.
%%Some comparisons between the LCFDM, LCNM and our method with the different temporal and spatial steps are displayed in Table \ref{Tab512}. As illustrated in the Table, we find that
%%LFPM admits much smaller error than LCFDM. LCNM has smallest error. %, but our method is most efficient.
%% Moreover, it clear to see that, due to the FFT algorithm, CPU times used by different methods are almost the same little for a fixed time and spatial step, which
%% implies that our method works like LCNM.
%We show that the spatial errors and convergence rates of different schemes with $\tau=10^{-5}$ at $T=1$ in Table \ref{Tab512}.
%we can observe clearly that the spatial error of LFP method is very small and almost negligible, and the error is dominated
%by the time discretization error. It confirms that, for the sufficiently smooth problem,
%the Fourier pseudo-spectral method is of arbitrary order of accuracy. But, other schemes only have second order of convergence rates.
%Noting that the numerical results obtained by LCN and IFD methods are same, this is due to the fact that the same discrete strategy has been employed.
%
%In Fig. \ref{fig511}, we investigate the relative mass and energy error
%of LFP method over $t\in[0,1000]$ with $\tau=0.2$, $\beta=-2$ and $N_1=N_2=64$.
%Numerical results show that the errors in mass and energy are preserved up to round-off error, which conforms the theoretical analysis in the previous section.
%
%\begin{table}[H]
%\tabcolsep=9pt
%\small
%\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
%\centering
%\caption{The temporal error and convergence rate of LFP scheme with $N_1=N_2=256,\ \gamma=0.1$ and $\beta=-2$ at $T=1$.}\label{Tab511}
%\begin{tabularx}{1.11\textwidth}{XXXXXXX}\hline
%{Method}&{$\tau$} &{$L^{2}$} & {Rate} & {$L^{\infty}$} & {Rate}&{CPU (s)}\\ %% µÚ1 ÐÐ
%\hline
% %{LFPM}&{0.2} & {3.8484e-00} & {-} & {6.1249e-01}&{-}&{3.4} \\
% {LFPM}&{0.1} & {4.5508e-01} & {-} & {7.2427e-02}&{-}&{3.6}\\
%{}&{0.05} & {1.3973e-01} & {1.7035} & {2.2238e-02} & {1.7035}&{5.3} \\
% {}&{0.025} & {3.6642e-02} & {1.9310} & {5.8318e-03} & {1.9310}&{8.7} \\
% {}&{0.0125} & {9.2687e-03} & {1.9831} & {1.4752e-03}&{1.9831}&{13.8}\\
% %{LCNM \cite{SW17}}&{0.2} & {4.1862e-00} & {-} & {6.6626e-01}&{-}&{1.2}\\
% {LCNM \cite{SW17}}&{0.1} & {1.6176e-00} & {-} & {2.5745e-01} & {-}&{2.5} \\ %% µÚ2 ÐÐ
% {}&{0.05} & {4.6545e-01} & {1.7972} & {7.4078e-02}&{1.7972}&{4.5} \\
% {}&{0.025} & {1.2124e-01} & {1.9408} & {1.9296e-02} & {1.9408}&{7.5}\\
% {}&{0.0125} & {3.1017e-02} & {1.9667} & {4.9366e-03} & {1.9667}&{11.7}\\
% % {TSFP \cite{BJ03}}&{0.1} & {e-02} & {-} & {e-03}&{-}&{}\\
%% {}&{0.05} & {e-02} & {} & {e-03} & {} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
%% {}&{0.025} & {e-02} & {} & {e-03}&{} \\
%% {}&{0.0125} & {e-03} & {} & {e-04} & {} \\
%% {IFDM \cite{zhang04}}&{0.2} & {9.6713e-01} & {-} & {1.5392e-01}&{-}&{3.8}\\
% {IFDM \cite{zhang04}}&{0.1} & {2.5774e-01} & {-} & {4.1021e-02} & {-}&{5.3}\\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
% {}&{0.05} & {6.5915e-02} & {1.9673} & {1.049e-02}&{1.9673}&{8.3}\\
% {}&{0.025} & {1.6974e-02} & {1.9573} & {2.7015e-03} & {1.9573}&{13.4} \\
% {}&{0.0125} & {4.6758e-03} & {1.9573} & {7.4418e-04} & {1.8600}&{21.8} \\
%\hline
%\end{tabularx}
%\end{table}
%
%%\begin{table}[H]
%%\tabcolsep=9pt
%%\small
%%\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
%%\centering
%%\caption{The temporal error and convergence rate of LFP scheme with $N_1=N_2=1024,\ \gamma=0.1$ and $\beta=-2$ at $T=1$.}\label{Tab511}
%%\begin{tabularx}{1.11\textwidth}{XXXXXXX}\hline
%%{Method}&{$\tau$} &{$L^{2}$} & {Rate} & {$L^{\infty}$} & {Rate}&{CPU (s)}\\ %% µÚ1 ÐÐ
%%\hline
%% {LFPM}&{0.02} & {2.3584e-02} & {-} & {3.7535e-03}&{-}&{169.0} \\
%% {}&{0.01} & {5.9403e-03} & {1.9892} & {9.4543e-04}&{1.9892}&{276.1} \\
%%{}&{0.005} & {1.4879e-03} & {1.9973} & {2.3680e-04} & {1.9973}&{484.6} \\
%% {}&{0.0025} & {3.7214e-04} & {1.9993} & {5.9228e-05} & {1.9993}&{836.2} \\
%% %{}&{0.003125} & {e-04} & {} & {e-05}&{}&{}\\
%% {LCNM \cite{SW17}}&{0.02} & {7.7633e-02} & {-} & {1.2356e-02}&{-}&{142.0}\\
%% {}&{0.01} & {1.9554e-02} & {1.9892} & {3.1122e-03} & {1.9892} &{245.3}\\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
%% {}&{0.005} & {4.9222e-03} & {1.9901} & {7.8340e-04}&{1.9901} &{526.3}\\
%% {}&{0.0025} & {1.2571e-03} & {1.9692} & {2.0007e-04} & {1.9692}&{917.0} \\
%% % {TSFP \cite{BJ03}}&{0.1} & {e-02} & {-} & {e-03}&{-}&{}\\
%%% {}&{0.05} & {e-02} & {} & {e-03} & {} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
%%% {}&{0.025} & {e-02} & {} & {e-03}&{} \\
%%% {}&{0.0125} & {e-03} & {} & {e-04} & {} \\
%% {IFDM \cite{zhang04}}&{0.02} & {1.0540e-02} & {-} & {1.6774e-03}&{-}&{255.4}\\
%% {}&{0.01} & {2.6634e-03} & {1.9845} & {4.2389e-04} & {1.9845}&{409.9} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
%% {}&{0.005} & {6.9271e-04} & {1.9429} & {1.1025e-04}&{1.9429} &{575.1}\\
%% {}&{0.0025} & {1.9994e-04} & {1.7927} & {3.1822e-05} & {1.7927}&{979.9} \\
%%\hline
%%\end{tabularx}
%%\end{table}
%
%
%%\begin{table}[H]
%%\tabcolsep=9pt
%%\small
%%\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
%%\centering
%%\caption{Some comparisons between the different schemes with different time steps and spatial steps at $T=1$.}\label{Tab512}
%%\begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{XXXXXXX}\hline
%%{$\tau/h$ }&{Method} &{$L^{2}$}& {$L^{\infty}$}&{CPU (s)}\\ %% µÚ1ÐÐ
%%\hline
%%{$0.1/\frac{\pi}{8}$}& {CFPM} &{3.6411e-01}&{2.3118e-02}&{0.1855}\\
%%{} & {LCNM \cite{SW17}} &{3.5237e-01}&{2.2373e-02}&{ 0.1552} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
%% {} & {LCFDM} &{3.6878e-01}&{2.3415e-02}&{0.2077} \\
%% {}& {} &{}& {} \\
%% {$0.05/\frac{\pi}{16}$}& {CFPM} &{9.1658e-02}&{5.8197e-03}&{1.2913}\\
%%{} & {LCNM \cite{SW17}} &{8.2426e-02}&{5.2335e-03}&{1.2717} \\ %% µÚ2 ÐÐ
%% {} & {LCFDM} &{9.1950e-02}&{5.8382e-03}&{1.2980} \\
%% {}& {} &{}& {} \\
%% {$0.025/\frac{\pi}{32}$}& {CFPM}&{2.2955e-02}&{1.4575e-03}&{14.7010}\\
%%{} & {LCNM \cite{SW17}} &{2.0083e-02}&{1.2752e-03} &{15.1484} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
%% {} & {LCFDM} &{2.2973e-02}&{1.4586e-03}&{14.7282} \\
%% {}& {} &{}& {} \\
%% {$0.0125/\frac{\pi}{64}$}& {CFPM} &{5.7412e-03}&{3.6453e-04}&{183.9334}\\
%%{} & {LCNM \cite{SW17}} &{4.9691e-03}&{3.1550e-04}&{188.5033} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
%% {} & {LCFDM} &{5.7423e-03}&{3.6460e-04}&{184.6362} \\
%% {}& {} &{}& {} \\
%%\hline
%%\end{tabularx}
%%\end{table}
%
%
%
%
%
%%\begin{table}[H]
%%\tabcolsep=9pt
%%\small
%%\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
%%\centering
%%\caption{The CPU times of different schemes at different time steps with with $N_1=N_2=N_3=128$ at $T=1$.}\label{Tab512}
%%\begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{XXXXXX}\hline
%%{$\tau$ }&{CFPM} &{LCNM \cite{SW17}}& {LCFDM \cite{WGX13}}\\ %% µÚ1ÐÐ
%%\hline
%% {0.1} & {21.8315 s} &{22.7518 s }&{21.4018 s}\\
%% {0.05} & {46.2839 s} &{48.2993 s}&{45.3092 s} \\ %% µÚ2 ÐÐ
%% {0.025} & {97.3127 s} &{99.0431 s}&{93.0387 s} \\
%% {0.0125} & {195.9294 s} &{ 200.7944 s}& {186.4753 s} \\
%%\hline
%%\end{tabularx}
%%\end{table}
%\begin{table}[H]
%\tabcolsep=9pt
%\small
%\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
%\centering
%\caption{The spatial errors and convergence rates of different schemes with $\gamma=0.1,\ \beta=-2,$ and $\tau=10^{-5}$ at $T=1$.}\label{Tab512}
%\begin{tabularx}{1.2\textwidth}{XXXXXXX}\hline
%{method\ \ }&{$\tau$} &{$L^{2}$} & {Rate} & {$L^{\infty}$} & {Rate}&{CPU (s)}\\ %% µÚ1ÐÐ
%\hline
% {LFPM} &{$8\times 8$} & {6.0589e-09} & {-} & {9.6740e-010}&{-}&{22.1}\\
% {}&{$16\times 16$} & { 5.9656e-09} & {-} & {9.5095e-010}&{-}&{61.4} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
% {}&{$32\times 32$} & {5.9402e-09} & {-} & {9.4646e-010}&{-}&{215.8} \\
% {}&{$64\times 64$} & {5.9944e-09} & {-} & { 9.5487e-010} & {-}&{254.3}\\
% %{LCNM \cite{SW17}}&{$8\times 8$}& {5.7236e-01} & {-} & {9.1095e-02}&{-}\\
%% {}&{$16\times 16$} & {1.4537e-01} & {1.9772} & {2.3136e-02} & {1.9772} \\ %% µÚ2 ÐÐ
%% {}&{$32\times 32$} & {3.6484e-02} & {1.9944} & {5.8066e-03}&{1.9944} \\
%% {}&{$64\times 64$} & {9.1298e-03} & {1.9986} & {1.4530e-03} & {1.9986} \\
%% {IFDM \cite{zhang04}}&{$8\times 8$} & {5.7236e-01} & {-} & {9.1095e-02}&{-}\\
%% {}&{$16\times 16$} & {1.4537e-01} & {1.9772} & {2.3136e-02} & {1.9772} \\ %% µÚ2 ÐÐ
%% {}&{$32\times 32$} & {3.6484e-02} & {1.9944} & {5.8066e-03}&{1.9944} \\
%% {}&{$64\times 64$} & {9.1298e-03} & {1.9986} & {1.4530e-03} & {1.9986}\\
%% {TSFPM}&{$8\times 8\times 8$} & {7.6660e-01} & {-} & {4.8674e-02}&{-}\\
%% {}&{$16\times 16\times 16$} & {4.7106e-03} & {4.0245} & {2.9909e-04} & {4.0245} \\ %% µÚ2 ÐÐ
%% {}&{$32\times 32\times 32$} & {2.9343e-04} & {4.0048} & {1.8631e-05}&{4.0048} \\
%% {}&{$64\times 64\times 64$} & { 1.8663e-05} & {3.9747} & {1.1850e-06} & { 3.9748} \\
%\hline
%\end{tabularx}
%\end{table}
%
%
%%\begin{table}[H]
%%\tabcolsep=9pt
%%\small
%%\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
%%\centering
%%\caption{The spatial errors and convergence rates of different schemes with $\gamma=0.1,\ \beta=-2,$ and $\tau=10^{-5}$ at $T=1$.}\label{Tab513}
%%\begin{tabularx}{1.2\textwidth}{XXXXXXX}\hline
%%{method\ \ }&{$\tau$} &{$L^{2}$} & {Rate} & {$L^{\infty}$} & {Rate}&{CPU (s)}\\ %% µÚ1ÐÐ
%%\hline
%% {LFPM} &{$8\times 8$} & {6.0589e-09} & {-} & {9.6740e-010}&{-}&{ 20.6}\\
%% {}&{$16\times 16$} & { 5.9656e-09} & {-} & {9.5095e-010}&{-}&{57.0} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
%% {}&{$32\times 32$} & {5.9402e-09} & {-} & {9.4646e-010}&{-}&{201.7} \\
%% {}&{$64\times 64$} & {5.9944e-09} & {-} & { 9.5487e-010} & {-} &{211.2} \\
%% {LCNM \cite{SW17}}&{$8\times 8$}& {5.7236e-01} & {-} & {9.1095e-02}&{-}&{24.0}\\
%% {}&{$16\times 16$} & {1.4537e-01} & {1.9772} & {2.3136e-02} & {1.9772}&{68.1} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
%% {}&{$32\times 32$} & {3.6484e-02} & {1.9944} & {5.8066e-03}&{1.9944} &{241.6} \\
%% {}&{$64\times 64$} & {9.1298e-03} & {1.9986} & {1.4530e-03} & {1.9986}& {262.0} \\
%% {IFDM \cite{zhang04}}&{$8\times 8$} & {5.7236e-01} & {-} & {9.1095e-02}&{-}&{22.7}\\
%% {}&{$16\times 16$} & {1.4537e-01} & {1.9772} & {2.3136e-02} & {1.9772}&{62.9} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
%% {}&{$32\times 32$} & {3.6484e-02} & {1.9944} & {5.8066e-03}&{1.9944} &{228.1}\\
%% {}&{$64\times 64$} & {9.1298e-03} & {1.9986} & {1.4530e-03} & {1.9986} &{339.2}\\
%%% {TSFPM}&{$8\times 8\times 8$} & {7.6660e-01} & {-} & {4.8674e-02}&{-}\\
%%% {}&{$16\times 16\times 16$} & {4.7106e-03} & {4.0245} & {2.9909e-04} & {4.0245} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
%%% {}&{$32\times 32\times 32$} & {2.9343e-04} & {4.0048} & {1.8631e-05}&{4.0048} \\
%%% {}&{$64\times 64\times 64$} & { 1.8663e-05} & {3.9747} & {1.1850e-06} & { 3.9748} \\
%%\hline
%%\end{tabularx}
%%\end{table}
%
%\begin{figure}[H]
%\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
%\includegraphics[width=65mm]{RM1}
%\end{minipage}\ \
%\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
%\includegraphics[width=65mm]{RE1}\\
%\end{minipage}\\
%\caption{The relative error in the mass (left) and the energy (right) over the time interval $t\in[0,1000]$ with $\beta=-2,\ \gamma=0.1,$ $\tau=0.2$ and $N_1=N_2=64$.}\label{fig511}
%\end{figure}
%
%\subsection{Example 2}
%Then,
%
%\subsection{Example 3}
%Finally,
%We will focus on the rate of convergence and the conservation
%laws in mass and energy for the DNLS equations in 3D.
%\begin{align}\label{3d_NLS:eq5.5}
% \text{i}\psi_{t}+\Delta \psi+\beta \big|\psi\big|^{2}\psi+\text{i}\gamma\psi=0,\ (x,y,z)\in \Omega=[0,2\pi]^{3}.
%\end{align}
%where $\gamma=0.1$ and $(x,y,z)\in \Omega=[0,2\pi]^{3}$.
%\begin{align}\label{eq:5.5}
%\psi(x,y,z,0)=Ke^{\text{i}(k_1 x+k_2y+k_3z)},\ (x,y,z)\in\Omega
%\end{align}
%where $K=k_1=k_2=k_3=1,$ and $\beta=2$.
We choose $K=k_1=k_2=k_3=1,\beta=2$ and set the analytical solution of \eqref{3d_NLS:eq6.1} at $t=0$ on the domain $\Omega=[0,2\pi]^3$ as the
initial condition. The convergence rates in the temporal direction of the LFP scheme are displayed in Fig. \ref{fig521}. As illustrated in the figure,
the convergence order of the LFP scheme is of second order accuracy for different $\gamma$ in temporal
direction, which verifies the error estimate in Theorem \ref{3d_DNLSthm4.1}, and the numerical errors decrease with the increase in $\gamma$. We depict the spatial errors of the LFP scheme with different $\gamma$ and $\tau=10^{-5}$ at $T=1$ in Fig. \ref{fig522}, which shows that the spatial error of the LFP method is very small and almost negligible, and the error is dominated
by the time discretization error. It confirms that, for sufficiently smooth problems,
the Fourier pseudo-spectral method is of an arbitrary order.
In Table \ref{Tab521}, we reports the errors of LFP and IFD schemes in the solutions and CPU times at $T=1$.
Compared with the IFD scheme, our scheme admits smaller numerical errors and more efficient than the IFD scheme for a fixed temporal and spatial steps.
In Fig. \ref{fig523}, we plot the relative mass and energy errors of the LFP and IFD schemes.
From the figure, we can see that the LFP and IFD schemes can preserve the mass and energy conservation laws exactly,
but our scheme admits smaller errors than the ones provided by the IFD scheme.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{f1}
\end{minipage}\ \
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{f2}\\
\end{minipage}\\
\caption{Temporal convergence rates of the numerical solution computed by the LFP scheme for different $\gamma$ with $N_1=N_2=N_3=64$ at $T=1$.}\label{fig521}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{f3}
\end{minipage}\ \
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{f4}\\
\end{minipage}\\
\caption{Spatial errors of the numerical solution computed by the LFP scheme for different $\gamma$ with $\tau=10^{-5}$ at $T=1$.}\label{fig522}
\end{figure}
%
%\begin{table}[H]
%\tabcolsep=9pt
%\small
%\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
%\centering
%\caption{The temporal error and convergence rate of LFP scheme with $N_1=N_2=N_3=32$ and $\gamma=0.1$ at $T=1$.}\label{Tab521}
%\begin{tabularx}{1.1\textwidth}{XXXXXXX}\hline
%{$\tau$} &{$L^{2}$} & {Rate} & {$L^{\infty}$} & {Rate}&{CPU (s)}&{Max iterations}\\ %% µÚ1 ÐÐ
%\hline
% {0.1} & {3.3364e-01} & {-} & {2.1184e-02}&{-}&{1.1}&{}\\
% {0.05} & {8.4215e-02} & {1.9861} & {5.3471e-03}&{1.9861}&{1.7}&{} \\ %% µÚ2 ÐÐ
%{0.025} & {2.1105e-02} & {1.9965} & {1.3400e-03}&{1.9965}&{2.8}&{} \\
% {0.0125} & {5.2795e-03} & {1.9991} & {3.3522e-04} & {1.9991}&{4.8}&{} \\
%{0.00625} & {1.3201e-03} & {1.9998} & {8.3817e-05} & {1.9998} &{7.8}&{}\\
% %{LCNM \cite{SW17}}&{0.1} & {1.9666e-01} & {-} & {1.2486e-02}&{-}&{161.8180}\\
%% {}&{0.05} & {4.5899e-02} & {2.0991} & {2.9143e-02} & {2.0991}&{343.1610} \\ %% µÚ2 ÐÐ
%% {}&{0.025} & {6.3017e-03} & {2.8647} & {4.0012e-03}&{2.8647}&{703.4090} \\
%% {}&{0.0125} & {e-03} & {} & {e-04} & {} \\
%% {}&{0.003125} & {e-03} & {} & {e-05} & {} &{}\\
%% {LCFDM \cite{WGX13}}&{0.1} & {1.4676e-01} & {-} & {2.9645e-02}&{-}\\
%% {}&{0.05} & {3.6693e-02} & {1.9999} & {7.7435e-03} & {1.9368} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
%% {}&{0.025} & {9.1626e-03} & {2.0017} & {1.9564e-03}&{ 1.9848} \\
%% {}&{0.0125} & {2.2962e-03} & {1.9965} & { 4.8818e-04} & {2.0027} \\
%\hline
%\end{tabularx}
%\end{table}
%\begin{table}[H]
%\tabcolsep=9pt
%\small
%\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
%\centering
%\caption{Some comparisons between the different schemes with different time steps and $N_x=N_y=N_z=128$ at $T=1$.}\label{Tab521}
%\begin{tabularx}{1.2\textwidth}{XXXXXXX}\hline
%{$\tau$ }&{Scheme} &{$L^{2}$}& {$L^{\infty}$}&{CPU (s)}\\ %% µÚ1ÐÐ
%\hline
% {$0.1$}& {LFPS} &{3.3364e-01}&{2.1184e-02}&{55.8}\\
%{} & {IFDS \cite{zhang04}} &{2.9701e-02}&{1.8858e-03}&{173.4} \\ %% µÚ2 ÐÐ
% {}& {} &{}& {} \\
% {$0.05$}& {LFPS}&{8.4215e-02}&{5.3471e-03}&{119.0}\\
%{} & {IFDS \cite{zhang04}} &{1.3873e-02}&{8.8085e-04} &{256.5} \\ %% µÚ2 ÐÐ
% {}& {} &{}& {} \\
% {$0.025$}& {LFPS} &{2.1105e-02}&{1.3400e-03}&{246.7}\\
%{} & {IFDS \cite{zhang04}} &{9.9068e-03}&{6.2901e-04}&{405.3} \\ %% µÚ2 ÐÐ
% {}& {} &{}& {} \\
% {$0.0125$}& {LFPS} &{3.3124e-04}&{2.1031e-05}&{506.0}\\
%{} & {IFDS \cite{zhang04}} &{5.2795e-03}&{3.3522e-04}&{781.3} \\ %% µÚ2 ÐÐ
%% {}& {} &{}& {} \\
%\hline
%\end{tabularx}
%\end{table}
\begin{table}[H]
\tabcolsep=9pt
\small
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
\centering
\caption{The numerical errors and CPU times for the LFP and IFD schemes with $\gamma=0.1$ at $T=1$}\label{Tab521}
\begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{XXXXXXX}\hline
{$\tau/h$ }&{Method} &{$L^{2}$}& {$L^{\infty}$}&{CPU (s)}\\ %% µÚ1 ÐÐ
\hline
{$0.01/\frac{\pi}{8}$}& {LFPS} &{3.3791e-03}&{2.1481e-04}&{0.8}\\
{} & {IFDS} &{5.4674e-01}&{3.4715e-02}&{1.0} \\
%{} & {TSFP} &{4.5659e-013}&{3.4505e-014}&{0.1} \\
{$0.005/\frac{\pi}{16}$}& {LFPS} &{8.4488e-04}&{5.3916e-05}&{11.4}\\
{} & {IFDS} &{1.3723e-01}&{8.7130e-03}&{14.0} \\
%{} & {TSFP} &{6.8860e-013}&{5.3917e-014}&{2.5} \\
{$0.0025/\frac{\pi}{32}$}& {LFPS}&{2.1122e-04}&{ 1.3462e-05}&{255.3}\\
{} & {IFDS } &{3.4340e-02}&{2.1804e-03}&{282.3} \\
%{} & {TSFP} &{1.8584e-012}&{1.3598e-013}&{50.4} \\
%{}&{}& {} &{}& {} \\
%{$\gamma=1$}& {$0.01/\frac{\pi}{8}$}& {LFPS} &{2.3212e-03}&{1.4750e-04}&{0.9}\\
%{}& {} & {IFDS} &{2.2270e-01}&{1.4152e-02}&{1.1} \\
%{}& {$0.005/\frac{\pi}{16}$}& {LFPS} &{5.8049e-04}&{3.6982e-05}&{14.4}\\
%{}& {} & {IFDS} &{5.5947e-02}&{3.5523e-03}&{16.8} \\
%{}& {$0.0025/\frac{\pi}{32}$}& {LFPS} &{1.4513e-04}&{ 9.2397e-06}&{304.5}\\
%{}& {} & {IFDS} &{1.4000e-02}&{8.8894e-04}&{325.5} \\
\hline
\end{tabularx}
\end{table}
%\begin{table}[H]
%\tabcolsep=9pt
%\small
%\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
%\centering
%\caption{Some comparisons between the different schemes with different time steps and spatial steps at $T=1$}\label{Tab522}
%\begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{XXXXXXX}\hline
%{$\tau/h$ }&{Method} &{$L^{2}$}& {$L^{\infty}$}&{CPU (s)}\\ %% µÚ1 ÐÐ
%\hline
%{$0.1/\frac{\pi}{8}$}& {LFPM} &{3.3364e-01}&{2.1184e-02}&{0.2097}\\
%{} & {LCNM \cite{SW17}} &{3.7434e-01}&{2.3768e-02}&{0.1481} \\ %% µÚ2 ÐÐ
% {} & {FDM} &{3.3784e-01}&{2.1451e-02}&{0.1895} \\
% {}& {} &{}& {} \\
% {$0.05/\frac{\pi}{16}$}& {LFPM} &{8.4214e-02}&{5.3471e-02}&{1.2956}\\
%{} & {LCNM \cite{SW17}} &{8.8911e-02}&{5.6453e-03}&{1.2551} \\ %% µÚ2 ÐÐ
% {} & {FDM} &{8.4478e-02}&{5.3638e-03}&{1.2858} \\
% {}& {} &{}& {} \\
% {$0.025/\frac{\pi}{32}$}& {lFPM}&{2.1105e-02}&{1.3400e-03}&{14.8774}\\
%{} & {LCNM \cite{SW17}} &{2.1780e-02}&{1.3829e-03} &{15.9984} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
% {} & {FDM } &{2.1121e-02}&{1.3411e-03}&{15.0645} \\
% {}& {} &{}& {} \\
% {$0.0125/\frac{\pi}{64}$}& {CFPM} &{5.2792e-03}&{3.3519e-04}&{195.9377}\\
%{} & {LCNM \cite{SW17}} &{5.3990e-03}&{3.4280e-04}&{202.4877} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
% {} & {FDM} &{5.2802e-03}&{3.3526e-04}&{187.7595} \\
% {}& {} &{}& {} \\
%\hline
%\end{tabularx}
%\end{table}
%
%\begin{table}[H]
%\tabcolsep=9pt
%\small
%\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
%\centering
%\caption{The CPU times of different schemes at different time steps with with $N_1=N_1=N_3=128$ at $T=1$.}\label{Tab512}
%\begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{XXXXXX}\hline
%{$\tau$ }&{CFPM} &{LCNM \cite{SW17}}& {LCFDM \cite{WGX13}}\\ %% µÚ1ÐÐ
%\hline
% {0.1} & {189.2265 s} &{ 180.7406 s }&{184.0169 s}\\
% {0.05} & { 370.9381 s} &{319.0172 s}&{368.5205 s} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
% {0.025} & {667.1476 s} &{ 411.4717 s}&{534.2037 s} \\
% {0.0125} & {847.2665 s} &{712.9127 s}& {712.7496 s} \\
%\hline
%\end{tabularx}
%\end{table}
%
%
%
%\begin{table}[H]
%\tabcolsep=9pt
%\small
%\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
%\centering
%\caption{Some comparisons between the different schemes with different spatial collocation points and $\tau=0.00001$ at $T=1$.}\label{Tab522}
%\begin{tabularx}{1.2\textwidth}{XXXXXXX}\hline
%{$N_1\times N_2\times N_3$}&{$L^{2}$} & {$L^{\infty}$} &{CPU (s)}\\ %% µÚ1ÐÐ
%\hline
% {$16\times 16\times 16$} & {1.3836e-09} & {8.7929e-011}&{704.6}\\
% {$32\times 32\times 32$} & {3.7065e-09} & {2.3564e-010}&{}\\
% {$64\times 64\times 64$} & {3.7065e-09} & {2.3564e-010}&{}\\
%\hline
%\end{tabularx}
%\end{table}
%%
%\begin{table}[H]
%\tabcolsep=9pt
%\small
%\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
%\centering
%\caption{The CPU times of different schemes at different time steps with $\tau=10^{-4}$ at $T=1$.}\label{Tab524}
%\begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{XXXXXX}\hline
%{$\tau$ }&{CFPM}& {LCNM \cite{SW17}} &{LCFDM \cite{WGX13}}\\ %% µÚ1ÐÐ
%\hline
% {$8\times 8\times 8$} &{43.9192 s} & { 40.4064 s} &{ 43.0651 s }\\
% {$16\times 16\times 16$}&{152.7979 s} & {160.2599 s} &{ 161.4948 s} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
% {$32\times 32\times 32$} &{651.0581 s} & {692.1300 s} &{654.8137 s} \\
% {$64\times 64\times 64$} &{3667.7916 s}& { 4585.1649 s} &{ 3998.5729 s} \\
%\hline
%\end{tabularx}
%\end{table}
%
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{RM1}
\end{minipage}\ \
\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{RE1}\\
\end{minipage}\\
\caption{The relative errors in the mass (left) and the energy (right) over the time interval $t\in[0,2000]$ with $\tau=0.1$, $\gamma=0.1$ and $N_1=N_2=N_3=16$.}\label{fig523}
\end{figure}
%\subsection{Numerical experiment 2}
% In this subsection, we investigate the numerical behaviors of the LFP scheme of the DGP equation. We consider the following DGP equation
% \begin{align*}
% \text{i}\psi_t+\frac{1}{2}\Delta \psi-V({x})\psi+\beta|\psi|^2\psi+\text{i}\gamma\psi=0,
% \end{align*}
% where $$V({x})=\frac{1}{2}(x^2+\gamma_y^2 y^2+\gamma_z^2 z^2).$$ The initial condition is taken to be \cite{BDM03}
% \begin{align}
% \psi({x},0)=\frac{(\gamma_y\gamma_z)^{1/4}}{\sqrt{(\pi\epsilon_1)^{3/4}}}\exp(-(x^2+\gamma_y y^2+\gamma_z z^2)/(2\epsilon_1)),\ {x}\in \mathbb{R}^3,
% \end{align}
% where $\gamma_y=2.0,\ \gamma_z=4.0,\ \epsilon_1=\frac{1}{4},\ \beta=-0.1.$
%
%In our practice computation, we choose the computation domain $\Omega=[-8,8]^3$ and the periodic boundary conditions. The exact solution is obtained numerically by the TSFP scheme
%under a very small time step $\tau=10^{-5}$ and $N_1=N_2=N_3=100$.
%\subsection{Example 1}
%According to Segur et al. \cite{SHC05}, DNLS equation (\ref{3DNLD_eq:1.1}) admits a spatially constant solution:
%\begin{align}\label{eq:5.3}
%u(t)=Ae^{-\gamma t}\exp\Big\{\text{i}\beta |A|^{2}\Big(\frac{1-e^{-2\gamma t}}{2\gamma}\Big)\Big\},
%\end{align}
%where $A$ is a complex constant.
%
%We solve the equation (\ref{3DNLD_eq:1.1}) by CFPM and CMSM
%with the periodic boundary condition over $\Omega=[0,2\pi]$ with parameters $\gamma=0.005$ and $\beta=2$.
%We set the exact solution (\ref{eq:5.3}) at $t=0$ on the domain $\Omega=[0,2\pi]$ as
%the initial condition.
%Table \ref{Tab511} gives the temporal errors and convergence rates of different schemes with $A=\frac{1}{2}$ and $J=1024$ at $T=1$.
%As illustrated in Table \ref{Tab511}, numerical errors in the $L^{2}$- and $L^{\infty}$-norm are second order of convergence rate in time,
% which confirms the theoretical analysis in previous section and our scheme is more accurate than CMSM.
%Table \ref{Tab512} is provided to investigate the CPU times
%of the schemes. It is clear that CFPM is more efficient than CMSM.
%
%As well known, CFPM and CMSM can preserve the discrete conformal mass conservation.
%Thus, under the definition of (\ref{eq:5.2}), the rates of dissipation $r^{n}$ for both methods are zeros in theory.
%In Fig. \ref{fig511}, we study the computed rates of dissipation of the total conformal mass. In this figure, we observe that the
%computed rates of dissipation are preserved
%to machine precision. It is remarked that we omit the CMPM in Tables \ref{Tab511} and \ref{Tab512} and the rates of dissipation of the total conformal momentum in this example.
%This is due to the fact that the solution (\ref{eq:5.3}) a spatially constant solution which means that
%CMPM has reduced to CMSM and the total conformal momentum vanishes.
%
%\begin{table}[H]
%\tabcolsep=9pt
%\small
%\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
%\centering
%\caption{The temporal errors and convergence rates of different schemes with $J=1024$ at $T=1$.}\label{Tab511}
%\begin{tabularx}{1.1\textwidth}{XXXXXXX}\hline
%{Scheme\ \ }&{$\tau$} &{$L^{2}$} & {Rate} & {$L^{\infty}$} & {Rate}\\ %% µÚ1 ÐÐ
%\hline
% {CFPM} &{0.1} & {1.2795e-04} & {-} & {5.1045e-05}&{-}\\
% {}&{0.05} & {3.1997e-05} & { 1.9996} & {1.2765e-05}&{1.9996} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
% {}&{0.025} & {7.9998e-06} & { 1.9999} & {3.1914e-06}&{1.9999} \\
% {}&{0.0125} & {2.0000e-06} & {2.0000} & {7.9787e-07} & {2.0000} \\
% {CFDM \cite{MNS13}}&{0.1} & {5.1092e-04} & {-} & { 2.0383e-04}&{-}\\
% {}&{0.05} & { 1.2792e-04} & {1.9979} & {5.1032e-05} & {1.9979} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
% {}&{0.025} & {3.1991e-05} & {1.9995} & { 1.2763e-05}&{1.9995} \\
% {}&{0.0125} & {7.9985e-06} & {1.9999} & {3.1909e-06} & {1.9999} \\
%\hline
%\end{tabularx}
%\end{table}
%%
%\begin{table}[H]
%\tabcolsep=9pt
%\small
%\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
%\centering
%\caption{The CPU times of different schemes at different time steps with with $J=1024$ at $T=1$.}\label{Tab512}
%\begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{XXXXX}\hline
%{$\tau$ }&{CFPM}& {CMSM \cite{MNS13}} \\ %% µÚ1ÐÐ
%\hline
% {0.1} & {0.0317 s} &{0.0474 s}\\
% {0.05} & { 0.0537 s} &{ 0.0847 s} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
% {0.025} & { 0.0817 s} &{0.1157 s} \\
% {0.0125} & {0.1353 s} & {0.1888 s} \\
%\hline
%\end{tabularx}
%\end{table}
%
%\begin{figure}[H]
%\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{80mm}
%\includegraphics[width=85mm]{M_r1}
%\end{minipage}
%\caption{The rates of dissipation of the total conformal mass over the time interval $t\in[0,200]$ with $\tau=0.1$ and $J=512$.}\label{fig511}
%\end{figure}
\section{Concluding remarks}
In this paper, we propose a linearized and conservative Fourier pseudo-spectral method for the DNLS equation in 3D.
We show that the scheme is uniquely solvable, and preserves both mass and energy conservation laws.
In order to establish an optimal error estimate for the proposed scheme, we first introduce the
semi-norm equivalence between the Fourier pseudo-spectral method and the finite difference
method. Then, the error estimate for the scheme is analogous to a finite difference discretization.
With the help of the analysis technique presented for a finite difference scheme \cite{SW17} , we show that, without
any restriction on the grid ratio, the linearized pseudo-spectral method is convergent with order $O(N^{-s}+\tau^2)$ in discrete $L^2$-norm.
%obtain the optimal convergence rate,
%without any restrictions on the grid ratio,
%at the order of $O(\tau^2+N^{-s})$ in discrete $L^2$ norm.
Finally, numerical results verify the theoretical analysis.
Furthermore, compared with the IFD scheme, our scheme is more efficient and has a significant advantage in preserving the discrete conservation laws.
The technique presented in this paper can also be used to establish an optimal $L^{2}$-error estimate for the linearized Fourier pseudo-spectral schemes of the coupled nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation in 3D, the dissipative Klein-Gordon-Schr\"{o}dinger equations in 3D, etc.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This work is supported by the National
Natural Science Foundation of China
(Grant No. 11771213),
the National Key Research and
Development Project of China (Grant No.
2016YFC0600310), the Major Projects of
Natural Sciences of University in Jiangsu
Province of China (Grant No.
15KJA110002) and the Priority
Academic Program Development of
Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions.
\begin{thebibliography}{10}
\bibitem{ADK91}
G.D. Akrivis, V.A. Dougalis, and O.A. Karakashian.
\newblock On fully discrete {G}alerkin methods of second-order temporal
accuracy for the nonlinear {S}chr\"odinger equation.
\newblock {\em Numer. Math.}, 59:31--53, 1991.
\bibitem{ADKM98}
G.D. Akrivis, V.A. Dougalis, O.A. Karakashian, and W.R. McKinney.
\newblock Numerical approximation of singular solutions of the damped nonlinear
{S}chr\"odinger equation.
\newblock In {\em ENUMATH}, pages 117--124. World Scientific, 1998.
\bibitem{ABB13}
X.~Antoine, W.Z. Bao, and C.~Besse.
\newblock Computational methods for the dynamics of the nonlinear
{S}chr\"odinger/{G}ross-{P}itaevskii equations.
\newblock {\em Comput. Phys. Commun.}, 184:2621--2633, 2013.
\bibitem{BC13b}
W.Z. Bao and Y.Y. Cai.
\newblock Mathematical theory and numerical methods for {B}ose-{E}instein
condensation.
\newblock {\em Kinet. Relat. Models}, 6:1--135, 2013.
\bibitem{BC13}
W.Z. Bao and Y.Y. Cai.
\newblock Optimal error estimates of finite difference methods for the
{G}ross-{P}itaevskii equation with angular momentum rotation.
\newblock {\em Math. Comp.}, 82:99--128, 2013.
\bibitem{BJ03}
W.Z. Bao and D.~Jaksch.
\newblock An explicit unconditionally stable numerical method for solving
damped nonlinear {S}chr\"{o}dinger equations with a focusing nonlinearity.
\newblock {\em SIAM J. Numer. Anal.}, 41:1406--1426, 2003.
\bibitem{BJM04}
W.Z. Bao, D.~Jaksch, and P.A. Markowich.
\newblock Three dimensional simulation of jet formation in collapsing
condensates.
\newblock {\em J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys.}, 37:329--343, 2003.
\bibitem{BM2018}
A.~Bhatt and B.E. Moore.
\newblock Exponential integrators preserving local conservation laws of pdes
with time-dependent damping/driving forces.
\newblock {\em arXiv preprint}, \:arXiv:1804.02266, 2018.
\bibitem{Boyd01}
J.P. Boyd.
\newblock {\em Chebyshev and {F}ourier Spectral Methods}.
\newblock Dover, Mineola, New York, 2nd edition, 2001.
\bibitem{BR01b}
T.J. Bridges and S.~Reich.
\newblock Multi-symplectic spectral discretizations for the
{Z}akharov-{K}uznetsov and shallow water equations.
\newblock {\em Physica D}, 152/153:491--504, 2001.
\bibitem{Browder65}
F.E. Browder.
\newblock Existence and uniqueness theorems for solutions of nonlinear boundary
value problems, in: Application of nonlinear partial differential equations.
\newblock {\em in: Pro. Symp. Appl. Math., vol. 17, AMS, Providence.}, \:pp.
24--49, 1965.
\bibitem{CHWG15}
J.X. Cai, J.L. Hong, Y.S. Wang, and Y.Z. Gong.
\newblock Two energy-conserved splitting methods for three-dimensional
time-domain {M}axwell's equations and the convergence analysis.
\newblock {\em SIAM. J. Numer. Anal.}, 53:1918--1940, 2015.
\bibitem{CWG16}
J.X. Cai, Y.S. Wang, and Y.Z. Gong.
\newblock Numerical analysis of {AVF} methods for three-dimensional time-domain
{M}axwell's equations.
\newblock {\em J. Sci. Comput.}, 66:141--176, 2016.
\bibitem{CQ82}
C.~Canuto and A.~Quarteroni.
\newblock Approximation results for orthogonal polynomials in {S}obolev spaces.
\newblock {\em Math. Comp.}, 38:67--86, 1982.
\bibitem{CQ01}
J.B. Chen and M.Z. Qin.
\newblock Multi-symplectic {F}ourier pseudospectral method for the nonlinear
{S}chr\"{o}dinger equation.
\newblock {\em Electr. Trans. Numer. Anal.}, 12:193--204, 2001.
\bibitem{CSZ11}
Y.M. Chen, S.H. Song, and H.J. Zhu.
\newblock The multi-symplectic {F}ourier pseudospectral method for solving
two-dimensional {H}amiltonian {PDE}s.
\newblock {\em J. Comput. Appl. Math.}, 236:1354--1369, 2011.
\bibitem{CP01}
R.~Ciegis and V.~Pakalnyte.
\newblock The finite difference scheme for the solution of weakly damped
nonlinear {S}chr\"{o}dinger equation.
\newblock {\em Internat. J. Appl. Sci. Comput.}, 8:127--134, 2001.
\bibitem{DFP81}
M.~Delfour, M.~Fortin, and G.~Payr.
\newblock Finite-difference solutions of a non-linear {S}chr\"{o}dinger
equation.
\newblock {\em J. Comput. Phys.}, 44:277--288, 1981.
\bibitem{GF01}
G.~Fibich.
\newblock Self-focusing in the damped nonlinear {S}chr\"{o}dinger equation.
\newblock {\em SIAM J. Appl. Math.}, 61:1680--1705, 2001.
\bibitem{FZQ16}
H.~Fu, W.E. Zhou, X.~Qian, S.H. Song, and L.Y. Zhang.
\newblock Conformal structure-preserving method for damped nonlinear
{S}chr\"{o}dinger equation.
\newblock {\em Chin. Phys. B}, 25:110201, 2016.
\bibitem{GRH80}
M.V. Goldman, K.~Rypdal, and B.~Hafizi.
\newblock Dimensionality and dissipation in langmuir collapse.
\newblock {\em Phys. Fluids}, 23:945--955, 1980.
\bibitem{GCW14}
Y.Z. Gong, J.X. Cai, and Y.S. Wang.
\newblock Multi-symplectic {F}ourier pseudospectral method for the {K}awahara
equation.
\newblock {\em Commun. Comput. Phys.}, 16:35--55, 2014.
\bibitem{GWWC17}
Y.Z. Gong, Q.~Wang, Y.S. Wang, and J.X. Cai.
\newblock A conservative {F}ourier pseudo-spectral method for the nonlinear
{S}chr\"{o}dinger equation.
\newblock {\em J. Comput. Phys.}, 328:354--370, 2017.
\bibitem{HNO06}
P.C. Hansen, J.G. Nagy, and D.P. O'leary.
\newblock {\em Deblurring Images: Matrices, Spectra, and Filtering, Chapter 4}.
\newblock SIAM, \, 2006.
\bibitem{HK95}
A.~Hasegawa and Y.~Kodama.
\newblock {\em Solitons in Optical Communications}.
\newblock Oxford University, USA, 1995.
\bibitem{HDY17}
W.P. Hu, Z.C. Deng, and T.T. Yin.
\newblock Almost structure-preserving analysis for weakly linear damping
nonlinear {S}chr\"{o}dinger equation with periodic perturbation.
\newblock {\em Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simulat.}, 42:298--312, 2017.
\bibitem{IJB81}
S.R.K. Iyengar, G.~Jayaraman, and V.~Balasubramanian.
\newblock Variable mesh difference schemes for solving a nonlinear
{S}chr\"{o}dinger equation with a linear damping term.
\newblock {\em Comput. Math. Appl.}, 40:1375--1385, 2000.
\bibitem{JCW17}
C.L. Jiang, W.J. Cai, and Y.S. Wang.
\newblock Optimal error estimates of a conformal {F}ourier pseudo-spectral
method for the damped nonlinear {S}chr\"odinger equation.
\newblock {\em Numer. Methods Partial Differential Eq.}, 00:1--33, 2018.
\bibitem{JCWL17}
C.L. Jiang, W.J. Cai, Y.S. Wang, and H.C. Li.
\newblock A sixth order energy-conserved method for three-dimensional
time-domain {M}axwell's equations.
\newblock {\em arXiv preprint}, \:arXiv:1705.08125, 2017.
\bibitem{KZCDH10}
L.H. Kong, J.J. Zhang, Y.~Cao, Y.L. Duan, and H.~Huang.
\newblock Semi-explicit symplectic partitioned {R}unge-{K}utta {F}ourier
pseudo-spectral scheme for {K}lein-{G}ordon-{S}chr\"{o}dinger equations.
\newblock {\em Comput. Phys. Commun.}, 181:1369--1377, 2010.
\bibitem{LW15}
Y.W. Li and X.Y. Wu.
\newblock General local energy-preserving integrators for solving
multi-symplectic {H}amiltonian {PDE}s.
\newblock {\em J. Comput. Phys.}, 301:141--166, 2015.
\bibitem{McLachlan01}
R.I. McLachlan and M.~Perlmutter.
\newblock Conformal {H}amiltonian systems.
\newblock {\em J. Geom. Phys.}, 39:276--300, 2001.
\bibitem{Moore09}
B.E. Moore.
\newblock Conformal multi-symplectic integration methods for forced-damped
semi-linear wave equations.
\newblock {\em Math. Comput. Simulat.}, 80:20--28, 2009.
\bibitem{MNS13}
B.E. Moore, L.~Nore{\~n}a, and C.M. Schober.
\newblock Conformal conservation laws and geometric integration for damped
{H}amiltonian {PDE}s.
\newblock {\em J. Comput. Phys.}, 232:214--233, 2013.
\bibitem{Peranich81}
L.S. Peranich.
\newblock A finite difference scheme for solving a non-linear {S}chr\"{o}dinger
equation with a linear damping term.
\newblock {\em J. Comput. Phys.}, 68:501--505, 1987.
\bibitem{SHC05}
H.~Segur, D.~Henderson, J.~Carter, J.~Hammack, C.M. Li, D.~Pheiff, and
K.~Socha.
\newblock Stabilizing the {B}enjamin-{F}eir instability.
\newblock {\em J. Fluid Mech.}, 539:229--271, 2005.
\bibitem{ST06}
J.~Shen and T.~Tang.
\newblock {\em Spectral and High-Order Methods with Applications}.
\newblock Science Press, Beijing, 2006.
\bibitem{SW17}
W.W. Sun and J.L. Wang.
\newblock Optimal error analysis of {C}rank-{N}icolson schemes for a coupled
nonlinear {S}chr\"{o}dinger system in 3{D}.
\newblock {\em J. Comput. Appl. Math.}, 317:685--699, 2017.
\bibitem{Temam12}
R.~Temam.
\newblock {\em Infinite-Dimensional Dynamical Systems in Mechanics and
Physics}.
\newblock Springer Science \& Business Media, New York, 2nd edition, 2012.
\bibitem{MT84}
M.~Tsutsumi.
\newblock Nonexistence of global solutions to the {C}auchy problem for the
damped nonlinear {S}chr\"{o}dinger equations.
\newblock {\em SIAM J. Math. Anal.}, 15:357--366, 1984.
\bibitem{WGX13}
T.C. Wang, B.L. Guo, and Q.B. Xu.
\newblock Fourth-order compact and energy conservative difference schemes for
the nonlinear {S}chr\"{o}dinger equation in two dimensions.
\newblock {\em J. Comput. Phys.}, 243:382--399, 2013.
\bibitem{xiang98}
X.M. Xiang.
\newblock The long time behaviour of spectral approximate solution for
nonlinear {S}chr\"{o}dinger equation with weak damping.
\newblock {\em Numer. Math. J. Chin. Uni.}, 8:165--176, 1999.
\bibitem{zhang04}
F.Y. Zhang.
\newblock Long-time behavior of finite difference solutions of
three-dimensional nonlinear {S}chr\"{o}dinger equation with weakly damped.
\newblock {\em J. Comput. Math.}, 22:593--604, 2004.
\bibitem{ZL01}
F.Y. Zhang and S.J. Lu.
\newblock Long-time behavior of finite difference solutions of a nonlinear
{S}chr\"{o}dinger equation with weakly damped.
\newblock {\em J. Comput. Math.}, 19:393--406, 2001.
\bibitem{ZWZ11}
R.P. Zhang, X.J. Yu, and G.Z. Zhao.
\newblock A new finite difference scheme for a dissipative cubic nonlinear
{S}chr\"{o}dinger equation.
\newblock {\em Chin. Phys. B}, 20:030204, 2011.
\bibitem{zhou90}
Y.L. Zhou.
\newblock {\em Applications of Discrete Functional Analysis to the Finite
Difference Method}.
\newblock International Academic Publishers, Beijing, 1990.
\end{thebibliography}
%\bibliographystyle{plain}
%\bibliography{ref}
\end{document}
\subsection{Example 1}
In this example, we study single soliton evaluation of (\ref{eq:1.1}) with the parameters $\beta=2$ and $\gamma=0.005$.
The initial condition without damping is chosen as
\begin{align}
&u(x,0)=\text{sech}(x)\exp(\text{i}2x),
\end{align}
and the periodic boundary condition.
The \emph{exact} solution $u(x,T)$ is obtained numerically by (\ref{eq:2.10}) under a very small
time step $\tau=10^{-5}$ and the space step $h=10^{-4}$ with $\gamma=0.005$.
Tables \ref{Tab521}-\ref{Tab522} give the temporal and spatial errors and convergence rates of different schemes with $\gamma=0.005$
at $T=1$, respectively. The CPU times of different schemes at different collocation points are provided in Table \ref{Tab524}.
As illustrated in Table \ref{Tab521}, all of the methods are second order of convergence rate in time, which confirms the theoretical analysis.
%Although CMPM and CMSM possess smaller errors,
But, we find that our scheme is the most efficient from Table \ref{Tab522}.
In addition, from Table \ref{Tab524}, we can see clearly that our scheme is convergent with the spectral accuracy in space.
% and
%the spatial error is negligible and the error is dominated by the time dis-
%cretization error .
~Whereas, CMPM and CMSM are only second order of convergence rate.
We should note that, after $J=300$, the spatial error of CFPM does not decrease and is dominated by the time discretization error.
It confirms that, for the sufficiently smooth problem, the Fourier pseudo-spectral method is of arbitrary order of accuracy.
%Further, we should note that the numerical errors of CMPM and CMSM in Table \ref{Tab521} are the same.
%It is due to the fact that we only consider the first five decimal places for errors.% and the time discrete method of both methods are same.
%The second one is that $L^{\infty}$ error for CFPM is smaller than $L^{\infty}$ one. This phenomenon also occurs in \cite{CSZ11,GWWC17,WW17}.
%If we want to give reasonable interpretation, further research is need.
In Fig. \ref{fig521}, we plot the soliton solutions computed by CFPM at $T=0,\ T=100$ and $T=200$ with $\tau=0.01$ and $J=512$.
In order to show the effect of damping, the evaluation of the soliton solutions without damping is investigated in Fig. \ref{fig521} (a).
As illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig521} (a), we can observe that the propagation of solitons is travelling without any dissipation and
the shape of the solitons is preserved accurately. Whereas, in Fig. \ref{fig521} (b), we find that, when we consider the damping, amplitudes of the solitons
decrease with the time lapses.
Fig. \ref{fig522} shows the computed rates of dissipation of the total conformal invariants over the time interval $t\in[0,200]$.
As can be seen from Fig. \ref{fig522} (a), the rates of dissipation of the mass computed by CFPM and CMSM is preserved to machine round-off error and
are several
orders of magnitude smaller than the ones provided by CMPM. In Fig. \ref{fig522} (b), one can see that CMPM can preserve the rates of dissipation of the momentum exactly
and CFPM can preserve it better than CMSM.
\begin{table}[H]
\tabcolsep=9pt
\small
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
\centering
\caption{The temporal errors and convergence rates of different schemes with $h=10^{-4}$ and $\gamma=0.005$ at $T=1$.}\label{Tab521}
\begin{tabularx}{1.1\textwidth}{XXXXXX}\hline
{Scheme\ \ }&{$\tau$} &{$L^{2}$} & {Rate} & {$L^{\infty}$} & {Rate} \\ %% µÚ1 ÐÐ
\hline
{CFPM} &{0.05} & {5.5360e-02} & {-} & {3.4437e-02}&{-}\\
{}&{0.025} & {1.3791e-02} & {2.0051} & {8.4273e-02}&{2.0308} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
{}&{0.0125} & {3.4440e-03} & {2.0015} & {2.0955e-03}&{2.0077} \\
{}&{0.00625} & {8.6077e-04} & {2.0004} & {5.2318e-04} & {2.0019} \\
{CMSM \cite{MNS13}}&{0.05} & {4.8072e-02} & {-} & {3.2000e-02}&{-}\\
{}&{0.025} & {1.1929e-02} & {2.0107} & {7.8051e-03} & {2.0355} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
{}&{0.0125} & {2.9765e-03} & {2.0028} & {1.9393e-03}&{2.0088}\\
{}&{0.00625} & {7.4369e-04} & {2.0008} & {4.8406e-04} & {2.0023} \\
{CMPM \cite{FZQ16}}&{0.05} & {4.8072e-02} & {-} & {3.2000e-02}&{-}\\
{}&{0.025} & {1.1929e-02} & {2.0107} & {7.8051e-03} & {2.0356} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
{}&{0.0125} & {2.9765e-03} & {2.0028} & {1.9393e-03}&{2.0088} \\
{}&{0.00625} & {7.4370e-04} & {2.0008} & { 7.4370e-04} & {2.0023} \\
\hline
\end{tabularx}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[H]
\tabcolsep=9pt
\small
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
\centering
\caption{The spatial errors and convergence rates of different schemes with $\tau=10^{-5}$ and $\gamma=0.005$ at $T=1$.}\label{Tab522}
\begin{tabularx}{1.1\textwidth}{XXXXXX}\hline
{Scheme\ \ }&{$J$} &{$L^{2}$} & {Rate} & {$L^{\infty}$} & {Rate} \\ %% µÚ1ÐÐ
\hline
{CFPM} &{50} & {9.6191e-01} & {-} & {4.4008e-01}&{-}\\
{} &{100} & {4.6474e-02} & {4.3714} & {1.4256e-02}&{3.4297}\\
{} &{200} & { 2.6540e-06} & {14.096} & {8.9054e-07}&{ 13.9666}\\
{} &{300} & {1.5994e-10} & {23.9644} & {8.3626e-11}&{22.8706}\\
{}&{600} & { 2.2813e-11} & {-} & {1.3986e-11}&{-} \\ %% µÚ2 ÐÐ
{}&{1200} & {1.7179e-11} & {-} & { 1.0348e-11}&{-} \\
{}&{2400} & {2.2082e-11} & {-} & {1.4374e-11} & {-}\\
{CMSM \cite{MNS13}}&{300} & {4.4829e-01} & {-} & {2.9904e-01}&{-}\\
{}&{600} & {1.1729e-01} & {1.9344} & {8.1441e-02} & {1.8765} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
{}&{1200} & {2.9603e-02} & {1.9862} & {2.0799e-02}&{1.9692} \\
{}&{2400} & {7.4175e-03} & {1.9968} & {5.2265e-03} & {1.9926} \\
{CMPM \cite{FZQ16}}&{300} & {4.2578e-01} & {-} & {2.7897e-01}&{-}\\
{}&{600} & {1.1080e-01} & {1.9421} & {7.5496e-02} &{1.8856} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
{}&{1200} & {2.7928e-02} & {1.9882} & {1.9237e-02}&{1.9725} \\
{}&{2400} & {6.9954e-03} & {1.9973} & {4.8340e-03} & {1.9926} \\
\hline
\end{tabularx}
\end{table}
%\begin{table}[H]
%\tabcolsep=9pt
%\small
%\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
%\centering
%\caption{The CPU times of different schemes at different time steps with $J=600000, \gamma=0.005$ and $T=1$.}\label{Tab523}
%\begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{XXXXX}\hline
%{$\tau$ }&{CFPM}& {CMPM \cite{FZQ16}} & {CMSM \cite{MNS13}} \\ %% µÚ1ÐÐ
%\hline
% {0.05} & {47.2399 s} & {82.3278 s}&{69.5802 s}\\
% {0.025} & {75.3841 s} & {144.8793 s}&{ 119.9044 s} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
% {0.0125} & {126.2269 s} & {228.9817 s}&{193.3243 s} \\
% {0.00625} & {220.4249 s} & {405.1900 s} & {349.1992 s} \\
%\hline
%\end{tabularx}
%\end{table}
\begin{table}[H]
\tabcolsep=9pt
\small
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
\centering
\caption{The CPU times of different schemes at different collocation points $J$ with $\tau=10^{-5}, \gamma=0.005$ and $T=1$.}\label{Tab524}
\begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{XXXXX}\hline
{$\tau$ }&{CFPM}& {CMPM \cite{FZQ16}} & {CMSM \cite{MNS13}} \\ %% µÚ1ÐÐ
\hline
{300} & {45.3304 s} & {75.3257 s}& {52.4909 s}\\
{600} & {68.5166 s} & {128.4843 s}&{95.5488 s} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
{1200} & {103.0106 s} & {205.4571 s}&{150.2710 s} \\
{2400} & {183.4027 s} & {318.2072 s} & {251.9306 s} \\
\hline
\end{tabularx}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{70mm}
(a)\includegraphics[width=70mm]{s11}
%{\footnotesize (a) $\gamma=0$.}
\end{minipage}\ \
\begin{minipage}[t]{70mm}
(b)\includegraphics[width=70mm]{s12}\\
%{\footnotesize (b) $\gamma=0.005$.}
\end{minipage}
\caption{The soliton solutions computed by CFPM at different times with $\tau=0.01$ and $J=512$: (a) $\gamma=0$, (b) $\gamma=0.005$.}\label{fig521}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{70mm}
(a)\includegraphics[width=70mm]{M_r2}
%{\footnotesize (a) The conformal mass.}
\end{minipage}\ \
\begin{minipage}[t]{70mm}
(b)\includegraphics[width=70mm]{I_r2}\\
%{\footnotesize (b) The conformal momentum.}
\end{minipage}
\caption{The rates of dissipation of the total conformal invariants over the time interval $t\in[0,200]$ with $\gamma=0.005$, $\tau=0.01$ and $J=512$: (a) mass, (b) momentum.}\label{fig522}
\end{figure}
%\subsection{Example 2}
%In this example, we study two-solitons collision of DNLS (\ref{eq:1.1}) with parameters $\beta=2$ and $\gamma=0.01$.
%We consider the following initial condition without the damping
%\begin{align}
%u(x,0)=\text{sech}(x+35)\exp(\text{i}(x+35))+\text{sech}(x-35)\exp(0.05\text{i}(x-35)),
%\end{align}
%and the periodic boundary condition.
%%\begin{align}
%%u(-60,t)=u(60,t).
%%\end{align}
%
%We set $J=512$ and $\tau=0.01$. Fig. \ref{fig531} provides propagation of the solitons by CFPM.
%As illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig531} (a), the amplitudes of the solitons
%decrease with the time lapses, which results from the existence of the linear damping.
%However, we can observed that the phase space structure of the two solitons can been preserved well and two solitons leave the interaction region without any disturbances
%in their identities. This fact can been confirmed in Fig. \ref{fig531} (b) again.
%The computed rates of dissipation of the total conformal invariants over the time interval $t\in[0,60]$ are displayed in Fig. \ref{fig532}. From Fig. \ref{fig532} (a),
%we can observe that CFPM and CMSM preserve the dissipation rate of mass, but CMPM destroys
%it.% In addition, compared with CMSM, our method provide smallest residual error.
%As illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig532} (b), CMPM preserves the dissipation rate of momentum exactly and
%CFPM can preserve it better than CMSM.
%
%
%\begin{figure}[H]
%\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{70mm}
%\includegraphics[width=70mm]{eg3}
%{\footnotesize (a) The solitons propagation over the time interval $t\in[0,60]$.}
%\end{minipage}\ \
%\begin{minipage}[t]{70mm}
%\includegraphics[width=70mm]{eg32}\\
%{\footnotesize (b) The soliton solutions at $T=0,T=30$ and $T=60$.}
%\end{minipage}
%\caption{The propagation of the solitons by CFPM with $\tau=0.01$ and $J=512$.}\label{fig531}
%\end{figure}
%
%\begin{figure}[H]
%\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{70mm}
%(a)\includegraphics[width=70mm]{M_r3}
%%{\footnotesize (a) The conformal mass.}
%\end{minipage}\ \
%\begin{minipage}[t]{70mm}
%(b)\includegraphics[width=70mm]{I_r3}\\
%%{\footnotesize (b) The conformal momentum.}
%\end{minipage}
%\caption{The rates of dissipation of the total conformal invariants over the time interval $t\in[0,60]$ with $\tau=0.01$ and $J=512$: (a) mass, (b) momentum.}\label{fig532}
%\end{figure}
%
%\section{Concluding remarks}
%
%In this paper, we propose a Fourier pseudo-spectral method that preserves the conformal mass conservation law of the DNLS equation.
%By using the energy method and the semi-norm equivalence between
%the Fourier pseudo-spectral method and the finite difference method,
%we prove that the proposed scheme is unconditionally convergent with the convergence order of $O(\tau^{2}+J^{1-r})$ in the discrete $L^{\infty}$-norm.
%The analysis techniques used in this paper can be
%provided to establish the optimal error estimate in the discrete $L^{\infty}$-norm for the Fourier pseudo-spectral scheme
%studied in Ref. \cite{WW17}. Furthermore, by the analogous argument, we can well
%establish the $L^{\infty}$ error estimate of the conformal
%Fourier pseudo-spectral schemes for other linear dissipative PDEs in one dimension,
% such as the dissipative Klein-Gordon-Schr\"{o}dinger equations and the dissipative Zakharov system, etc.
%\section*{Acknowledgments}
%This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos.
%41231173 and 41504078).
%\begin{figure}[H]
%\centering\begin{minipage}[t]{60mm}
%\includegraphics[width=60mm]{Fig_7}\\
%{\footnotesize (e) Errors in invariants $\mathcal{E}_{5w}$.} %Blue line: $\mathcal{E}_{5x}$; Green line: $\mathcal{E}_{5y}$;
%%Read line: $\mathcal{E}_{5z}$.}
%\end{minipage}
%\caption{The errors in energy invariants vs time.}\label{fig_611}
%\end{figure}
%\subsection{Example 2}
%
%\begin{align}
%&a(t)=\exp(-2\gamma t),\ \Omega(t)=4t+1/(4\gamma)(-1+\exp(-4\gamma t)),\ \xi=a(t)(x-4t),\\
%&u(x,t)=a(t)sech(\xi)\exp(\text{i}(2x-\Omega(t)))
%\end{align}
%
%\begin{table}[H]
%\tabcolsep=9pt
%\small
%\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
%\centering
%\caption{The temporal convergence orders of different schemes at different time steps with $J=60000, \gamma=1.0e-4$ and $T=1$.}\label{Tab411}
%\begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{XXXXXXX}\hline
%{Scheme\ \ }&{$J$} &{$L^{2}$} & {Order} & {$L^{\infty}$} & {Order} &{CPU(s)}\\ %% µÚ1 ÐÐ
%\hline
% {Scheme~(\ref{NNLSW1})} &{0.05} & {5.5655e-2} & {-} & {3.4662e-2}&{-}&{3.9272}\\
% {}&{0.025} & {1.3904e-2} & {2.0010} & {8.5064e-3}&{2.0267}&{6.0849} \\ %% µÚ2 ÐÐ
% {}&{0.0125} & {3.5163e-3} & {1.9833} & {2.1387e-3}&{1.9918}&{10.1162} \\
% {}&{0.00625} & {9.3113e-4} & {1.9170} & {5.5993e-4} & {1.9334}&{18.3999} \\
% {FDM\cite{}} &{0.05} & {5.5661e-2} & {-} & {3.4666e-2}&{-}&{3.8232}\\
% {}&{0.025} & {1.3908e-2} & {2.0007} & {8.5091e-3}&{2.0264}&{6.1230} \\ %% µÚ2 ÐÐ
% {}&{0.0125} & {3.5210e-3} & {1.9819} & {2.1419e-3}&{1.9901}&{10.1735} \\
% {}&{0.00625} & {9.3588e-4} & {1.9116} & {5.6264e-4} & {1.9286}&{18.1429} \\
% {MCM\cite{}}&{0.05} & {4.8315e-2} & {-} & {3.2230e-2}&{-}&{5.7770}\\
% {}&{0.025} & {1.2007e-2} & {2.0085} & {7.8791e-3} & {2.0323}&{9.1276} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
% {}&{0.0125} & {3.0194e-3} & {1.9916} & {1.9756e-3}&{1.9957}&{16.1014} \\
% {}&{0.00625} & {7.8788e-4} & {1.9382} & {5.1301e-4} & {1.9453}&{28.1473} \\
% %{Standard method}&{0.1} & {1.8092e-05} & {-} & {3.2326e-05}&{-}\\
%% {}&{0.05} & {1.1324e-06} & {3.9978} & {2.0235e-06} & {3.9978} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
%% {}&{0.025} & {7.0806e-08} & {3.9995} & {1.2652e-07}&{3.9994} \\
%% {}&{0.0125} & {4.42552-09} & {3.9999} & {7.9076e-09} & {3.9999} \\
%\hline
%\end{tabularx}
%\end{table}
%\begin{align}
%-1+2y\tanh(y)=0
%\end{align}
%
%
%
%\begin{table}[H]
%\tabcolsep=9pt
%\small
%\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
%\centering
%\caption{The spatial convergence orders of different schemes at different time steps with $\tau=1.0e-6, \gamma=1.0e-4$ and $T=1$.}\label{Tab411}
%\begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{XXXXXXX}\hline
%{Scheme\ \ }&{$J$} &{$L^{2}$} & {Order} & {$L^{\infty}$} & {Order} &{CPU(s)}\\ %% µÚ1 ÐÐ
%\hline
% {Scheme~(\ref{NNLSW1})} &{64} & {4.6009e-1} & {-} & {2.2044e-1}&{-}&{72.5006}\\
% {}&{128} & {4.4759e-3} & {6.6836} & {1.2886e-3}&{7.4185}&{101.4565} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
% {}&{256} & {1.5733e-4} & {4.8303} & {6.9845e-5}&{4.2055}&{166.3356} \\
% {}&{512} & {1.5733e-4} & {-} & { 6.9973e-5} & {-}&{304.9756} \\
% {FDM\cite{}} &{64} & {1.6407} & {-} & {8.9251e-1}&{-}&{71.9489}\\
% {}&{128} & {9.9624e-1} & {-} & {8.3136e-1}&{-}&{100.8750} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
% {}&{256} & {2.8494e-1} & {1.8058} & {1.9655e-1}&{2.0806}&{169.4294} \\
% {}&{512} & {6.9549e-2} & {2.0346} & {4.6312e-2} & {2.0854}&{304.8432} \\
% {}&{1024} & {1.7319e-2} & {2.0057} & {1.1435e-2} & {2.0179}&{584.6266} \\
% {MCM\cite{}}&{64} & {4.8315e-2} & {-} & {3.2230e-2}&{-}&{5.7770}\\
% {}&{0.025} & {1.2007e-2} & {2.0085} & {7.8791e-3} & {2.0323}&{9.1276} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
% {}&{0.0125} & {3.0194e-3} & {1.9916} & {1.9756e-3}&{1.9957}&{16.1014} \\
% {}&{0.00625} & {7.8788e-4} & {1.9382} & {5.1301e-4} & {1.9453}&{28.1473} \\
% %{Standard method}&{0.1} & {1.8092e-05} & {-} & {3.2326e-05}&{-}\\
%% {}&{0.05} & {1.1324e-06} & {3.9978} & {2.0235e-06} & {3.9978} \\ %% µÚ2ÐÐ
%% {}&{0.025} & {7.0806e-08} & {3.9995} & {1.2652e-07}&{3.9994} \\
%% {}&{0.0125} & {4.42552-09} & {3.9999} & {7.9076e-09} & {3.9999} \\
%\hline
%\end{tabularx}
%\end{table}
\bibliographystyle{plain}
\bibliography{ref}
\end{document}