Well-Conditioned Birkhoff-Collocation Methods for Elliptic-type Problems in Multiple DimensionsThanks: Funding: The research of the second and fourth authors is partially supported by Singapore MOE AcRF Tier 2 Grant: MOE-T2EP20224-0012. The third author is partially supported by Nature Science Foundation of China grant No. 12271365. The first author would like to acknowledge the support of China Scholarship Council (CSC, No. 202508310113) to visit Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, and work on this topic.

Shunchang Li ^†^†thanks: Department of Mathematics, Shanghai Normal University, Shanghai 200234, China. Zixuan Gao ^†^†thanks: Division of Mathematical Sciences, School of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, Nanyang Technological University, 637371, Singapore. Yujian Jiao²²footnotemark: 2 Li-Lian Wang³³footnotemark: 3 ^†^†thanks: Corresponding author. Email: lilian@ntu.edu.sg (L. Wang). The first two authors (S. Li and Z. Gao) contribute equally to this work.

Abstract

Collocation methods based on Birkhoff interpolation at Gaussian-type points have been proven to be well-conditioned for initial and boundary value problems [Wang et al., SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 36 (2014)]. This development was regarded as revolutionary in pseudospectral (PS) optimal control, effectively rendering earlier PS methods using Lagrange interpolation “obsolete” [I. Ross, J. Guid. Control Dyn. 47 (2024)]. However, extending this one-dimensional construction, which relies on inverting the leading differential operator in the discrete sense, to multiple dimensions is not possible. This paper aims to resolve the long-standing issue of ill-conditioning in multidimensional collocation methods for second-order elliptic-type problems. The key is to show that the second-order differentiation matrix (DM) and its inverse, namely, the PS integration matrix (PSIM) constructed from Birkhoff interpolation at Legendre-Gauss-Lobatto (LGL) points, are both similar to symmetric negative definite matrices. This, in turn, enables stable diagonalisation of the non-symmetric, dense and ill-conditioned PSIM and DM even with thousands of LGL points, and then construct optimal Birkhoff-preconditioners for well-conditioned collocation methods for elliptic problems. Notably, we find that it is essential to properly incorporate the variable coefficients into the diagonalisation and the construction of preconditioners, particularly for highly anisotropic elliptic problems involving high-contrast, oscillatory, or degenerating coefficients. We carry out spectral analysis and present extensive numerical results demonstrating the well-conditioning and stability of the proposed Birkhoff-collocation methods for various challenging second-order elliptic-type problems, including large-scale problems in two and three dimensions. In a nutshell, the proposed Birkhoff-collocation schemes make collocation methods practical and establish them as compelling high-order solvers of choice.

keywords

Birkhoff interpolation, stable diagonalisation, Birkhoff-preconditioners, well-conditioned Birkhoff-collocation schemes, spectral analysis

^†^†runningheads: Birkhoff-Preconditioners / S. Li, Z. Gao, Y. Jiao and L. Wang

AMS

65N35, 65N22, 65F05, 35J05

1 Introduction

The spectral collocation method can be viewed as a global finite-difference method on Gaussian-type points [13, 14], with an appealing plug-and-play feature: derivatives at the collocation points are simply replaced by the corresponding differentiation matrices. This makes the method particularly attractive for variable-coefficient and nonlinear problems, and it has also proved advantageous as a local solver in hierarchical Poincaré-Steklov (HPS) spectral element methods [23, 15]. However, the resulting linear systems are typically dense and ill-conditioned, rendering high-order computations increasingly expensive and potentially unstable. Indeed, it was observed in [15] that collocation-based HPS spectral element methods become less efficient and even unstable as the number of collocation points within each element increases. Ill-conditioning thus remains a major obstacle to the practical use of spectral collocation methods.

This issue in one dimension was successfully resolved by Wang et al. [34], where the key was to introduce suitable Birkhoff interpolation problems that led to the so-called Birkhoff basis polynomials for constructing perfect preconditioners. This work has had a far-reaching impact on the subsequent developments of well-conditioned spectral collocation and pseudospectral methods, with important applications to pseudospectral (PS) optimal control (see [24, 21, 27, 28] and [32, Chapter 4]). In particular, Ross [28] described the work [34] as “pioneering” and “revolutionary”, effectively rendering earlier Lagrange-based PS methods “obsolete”. It is noteworthy that very recently, Javeed et al. [16] extended this integration-preconditioning approach to an $\mathcal{O}(n)$ -applicable preconditioner with $n+1$ collocation points for one-dimensional first-order variable-coefficient problems.

In the past decades, several attempts have been made to alleviate the ill-conditioning of multidimensional spectral collocation systems using finite-difference or finite-element preconditioners [7, 19, 20, 25, 26]. In particular, Fang et al. [11] developed efficient finite-difference preconditioners for self-adjoint elliptic problems with separable variable coefficients. However, it is more natural and practical to consider the preconditioners based on consistent collocation discretisation, but unfortunately, the one-dimensional construction in [34] cannot be generalized to multiple dimensions. In fact, a direct spectral analysis (see Remark 3.2) shows that tensor-product Birkhoff basis functions do not alleviate the ill-conditioning of the resulting collocation systems, but only alter the eigenvalue distributions of the usual Lagrange collocation system. In this paper, we introduce new tools to address the long-standing ill-conditioning of multidimensional Legendre collocation methods. The main idea and contributions are as follows.

(i)

We derive two important identities for the second-order DM $\mathbf{D}^{(2)}$ and its inverse PSIM $\mathbf{B}=(\mathbf{D}^{(2)})^{-1};$ see Lemma 2.1. These identities allow us to identify a symmetric negative definite matrix $\mathbf{S}_{c},$ similar to $\mathbf{B}_{c}:=\mathbf{C}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{B}\mathbf{C}^{-\frac{1}{2}},$ where the positive diagonal matrix $\mathbf{C}$ is to incorporate the variable coefficients. The symmetric matrix $\mathbf{S}_{c}$ admits a stable orthogonal diagonalisation, which in turn yields stable diagonalisation of the non-symmetric matrices $\mathbf{B}$ and $\mathbf{D}^{(2)};$ see Theorem 2.1.

(ii)

The stable diagonalisation provides the key ingredients for the construction of multidimensional Birkhoff preconditioners. The basic idea is to approximate the principal part of the elliptic operator by a separable one. For example, in two dimensions, we consider

(1)

{\mathcal{L}}_{0}:=-a_{11}(x,y)\partial_{x}^{2}-a_{22}(x,y)\partial_{y}^{2}\;\;\;\Rightarrow\;\;\;\widehat{\mathcal{L}}_{0}:=-a(x)\partial_{x}^{2}-b(y)\partial_{y}^{2},

on $\Omega=(-1,1)^{2}$ , where

(2)

a(x)=\frac{1}{2}\int_{-1}^{1}a_{11}(x,y)\,{\rm d}y,\qquad b(y)=\frac{1}{2}\int_{-1}^{1}a_{22}(x,y)\,{\rm d}x.

The explicit inversion of the Lagrange or Birkhoff collocation systems associated with $\widehat{\mathcal{L}}_{0}$ , obtained through the stable diagonalisation in (i) with $c=a,b$ , then yields the corresponding (right) Birkhoff preconditioners for ${\mathcal{L}}_{0}$ , and more generally for second-order elliptic-type operators $\mathcal{L}$ ; see (26) and Theorem 3.1. We further carry out a spectral analysis of the preconditioned collocation matrices and establish eigenvalue clustering under suitable conditions. In particular, we prove the well-conditioning of the preconditioned collocation systems in some special setting.

(iii)

We apply the proposed collocation methods to a broad range of challenging elliptic-type problems in two and three dimensions, including (a) problems with highly oscillatory coefficients or strongly anisotropic operators, with coefficient contrasts up to $O(10^{10})$ ; (b) elliptic problems on deformed triangles and tetrahedra obtained through singular Duffy transformations; and (c) elliptic problems on domains with curved boundaries or surfaces using Gordon-Hall transformations. In all these cases, we find that it is essential to properly incorporate the variable coefficients into the construction of the preconditioners, as outlined in (ii). The proposed preconditioners remain robust and stable across all the challenging test cases, yielding either uniformly bounded or substantially reduced condition numbers together with nearly $N$ -independent GMRES iteration counts. By contrast, the original unpreconditioned collocation schemes fail to converge in most of these cases. As a by-product, the collocation system for the Helmholtz operator ${\mathcal{L}}[u]=-\Delta u+\gamma u$ , with a real constant $\gamma$ , on $(-1,1)^{d}$ , $d=2,3$ , can be explicitly inverted through the diagonalisation developed in (i). As an application, we employ the stable collocation solver for the spatial discretisation of the time-dependent Allen-Cahn equation with a very small phase-separation parameter. The method is competitive with existing adaptive spectral methods and, for complicated initial data, can outperform the adaptive approach.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we introduce and develop two key one-dimensional tools for forthcoming multidimensional constructions in Sections 3 and 4. In Section 3, we present the detailed construction of the preconditioners in two dimensions, conduct the spectral analysis, and provide ample convincing numerical evidence. We then extend the framework to three dimensions in Section 4. Section 5 is for conclusion and final remarks.

We conclude this introductory section with some notation to be used throughout this paper. The scalars, vectors, and matrices are denoted by italic, bold italic, and bold upright letters, respectively; for example, $f$ , $\bm{u}=(u_{i})$ , and $\mathbf{A}=(A_{ij})$ . Let $\mathbb{P}_{N}$ denote the space of polynomials of degree at most $N$ , and let $L_{k}$ be the Legendre polynomial of degree $k$ . We use $\mathbf{I}_{n}$ for the $n\times n$ identity matrix. For $\mathbf{M}\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$ , $\mathbf{M}^{\intercal}$ , $\|\mathbf{M}\|_{2}$ , and $\kappa_{2}(\mathbf{M})=\|\mathbf{M}\|_{2}\|\mathbf{M}^{-1}\|_{2}$ denote its transpose, Euclidean norm, and $2$ -norm condition number, respectively. We also use $\otimes$ for the Kronecker product and $\operatorname{vec}(\cdot)$ for the vectorization operator.

2 Two key tools for constructing multidimensional preconditioners

In this section, we introduce two indispensable techniques for the construction of multidimensional preconditioners in the forthcoming sections. The first is to compute the inverses of differentiation matrices by introducing suitable Birkhoff interpolation problems [34]. The second is to diagonalise the differentiation matrices and their inverse matrices in a stable manner.

2.1 Stable inversion of differential matrices via Birkhoff interpolation

Let $\{x_{j},\omega_{j}\}_{j=0}^{N}$ (with $x_{0}=-1,x_{N}=1$ ) be the Legendre-Gauss-Lobatto (LGL) nodes and quadrature weights. Then the LGL quadrature rule enjoys the exactness

(3)

\int_{-1}^{1}\phi(x){\rm d}x=\sum_{j=0}^{N}\phi(x_{j})\omega_{j},\quad\forall\phi\in\mathbb{P}_{2N-1}.

Let $\{\ell_{j}(x)\}_{j=0}^{N}$ be the Lagrange interpolation basis polynomials such that $\ell_{j}(x)\in\mathbb{P}_{N}$ and $\ell_{j}(x_{i})=\delta_{ij}$ . Define the corresponding differentiation matrices of order $k\geq 1$ as

(4)

\mathbf{D}^{(k)}=\big(d_{ij}^{(k)}:=\ell_{j}^{(k)}(x_{i})\big)_{1\leq i,j\leq N-1},\quad\widetilde{\mathbf{D}}^{(k)}=\big(d_{ij}^{(k)}:=\ell_{j}^{(k)}(x_{i})\big)_{0\leq i,j\leq N},

where the former involves only the interior LGL points. In particular, we denote $\mathbf{D}:=\mathbf{D}^{(1)}$ and $\widetilde{\mathbf{D}}:=\widetilde{\mathbf{D}}^{(1)}.$ In what follows, we focus on $k=2.$ It is known that the matrix $\mathbf{D}^{(2)}$ is nonsingular and its $(N-1)$ eigenvalues are all negative and distinct, satisfying (see e.g., [2, 35]):

(5)

-c_{N}\frac{N^{4}}{4\pi^{2}}=\lambda_{1}<\dots<\lambda_{N-1}<-\frac{\pi^{2}}{4}<0,

where $c_{N}\approx 1$ for sufficiently large $N$ . As a result, the condition number of $\mathbf{D}^{(2)}$ grows like $\mathcal{O}(N^{4}).$

Wang et al. [34] introduced a stable way to compute the inverse of $\mathbf{D}^{(2)}$ through suitable Birkhoff interpolation [22]. More precisely, we consider the Birkhoff interpolation problem: Find $p\in\mathbb{P}_{N}$ such that for any $u\in C^{2}(-1,1),$

(6)

p(-1)=u(-1);\quad p^{\prime\prime}(x_{j})=u^{\prime\prime}(x_{j}),\quad 1\leq j\leq N-1;\quad p(1)=u(1).

According to [34, Section 3], the interpolant $p$ is uniquely determined by

p(x)=u(-1)B_{0}(x)+\sum_{j=1}^{N-1}u^{\prime\prime}(x_{j})B_{j}(x)+u(1)B_{N}(x),\quad x\in[-1,1],

where $B_{0}(x)=(1-x)/2,B_{N}(x)=(1+x)/2,$ and $B_{j}\in{\mathbb{P}}_{N}$ satisfy

B_{j}(\pm 1)=0,\quad B^{\prime\prime}_{j}(x_{i})=\delta_{ij},\quad 1\leq i,j\leq N-1.

This implies $B_{j}(x)$ solve the boundary value problems:

(7)

B_{j}^{\prime\prime}(x)=\tilde{\ell}_{j}(x),\quad x\in(-1,1);\quad B_{j}(\pm 1)=0,

where $\tilde{\ell}_{j}\in{\mathbb{P}}_{N-2}$ are the Lagrange interpolation polynomials only involving the interior LGL points. The relation (7) is essential for stable computation of $B_{j}$ via integration in [34]:

(8)

B_{j}(x)=(\beta_{1j}-\beta_{0j})\frac{x+1}{2}+\sum_{k=0}^{N-2}\beta_{kj}\frac{\partial_{x}^{-2}L_{k}(x)}{\gamma_{k}},\quad 1\leq j\leq N-1,

where $\gamma_{k}=2/(2k+1),\,\partial_{x}^{-2}L_{k}(x)=\int_{-1}^{x}\int_{-1}^{t}L_{k}(s){\rm d}s{\rm d}t,$ and

\beta_{kj}=\Big(L_{k}(x_{j})-\frac{1-(-1)^{N+k}}{2}L_{N-1}(x_{j})-\frac{1+(-1)^{N+k}}{2}L_{N}(x_{j})\Big)\omega_{j}.

Correspondingly, we introduce the $k$ th-order integration matrices as the counterparts of the differentiation matrices defined in (4):

\mathbf{B}^{(k)}=(b_{ij}^{(k)}:=B_{j}^{(k)}(x_{i}))_{1\leq i,j\leq N-1},\quad\widetilde{\mathbf{B}}^{(k)}=(b_{ij}^{(k)}:=B_{j}^{(k)}(x_{i}))_{0\leq i,j\leq N}.

Remarkably, $\mathbf{B}=\mathbf{B}^{(0)}$ is the inverse of $\mathbf{D}^{(2)}$ (see [34, Theorem 3.3]):

(9)

\mathbf{D}^{(2)}\mathbf{B}=\mathbf{B}\mathbf{D}^{(2)}=\mathbf{I}_{N-1}.

In fact, the formula (8) provides a very stable way to compute $\mathbf{B}=(\mathbf{D}^{(2)})^{-1}$ for large $N.$ The implication of (9) is two-fold [34]: (i) it provides a perfect preconditioner for the ill-conditioned collocation method for the second-order BVPs; and (ii) it offers a basis for constructing well-conditioned collocation methods. For example, consider the simple BVP: $-u^{\prime\prime}+\gamma\,u=f$ in $(-1,1)$ with $u(\pm 1)=h_{\pm},$ where $\gamma,h_{\pm}$ are given constants and $f\in C(-1,1).$ The coefficient matrix of the preconditioned system reads

(10)

\mathbf{B}(-\mathbf{D}^{(2)}+\gamma\mathbf{I}_{N-1})=-\mathbf{I}_{N-1}+\gamma\mathbf{B}.

We infer from (5) and (9) that its eigenvalues are $-1-\gamma/\lambda_{j}=\mathcal{O}(1),$ so it is well-conditioned. In fact, $-\mathbf{I}_{N-1}+\gamma\mathbf{B}$ corresponds to the collocation scheme directly using $\{B_{j}\}$ as basis functions.

2.2 Stable diagonalisation of differentiation and integration matrices

As demonstrated in (10), the stable inversion of $\mathbf{D}^{(2)}$ yields optimal preconditioners for second-order BVPs in one dimension. However, this strategy cannot be extended to multiple dimensions. Indeed, as to be shown in Remark 3.2, the use of a Birkhoff interpolating basis does not improve the conditioning of the collocation system, but instead alters its eigenvalue distribution. In higher dimensions, the key lies in the stable diagonalisation of the dense, nonsymmetric, and ill-conditioned matrices $\mathbf{D}^{(2)}$ and $\mathbf{B}$ , while properly incorporating the variable coefficients in the principal part of the elliptic operator.

We begin by establishing the following key identities.

Lemma 2.1.

Let $\{x_{i},\omega_{i}\}_{i=0}^{N}$ be the Legendre-Gauss-Lobatto nodes and weights as before, and let $\mathbf{W}={\rm diag}(\omega_{1},\ldots,\omega_{N-1}).$ Then we have

(11)

\mathbf{W}\mathbf{D}^{(2)}=\mathbf{D}^{(2)\intercal}\mathbf{W},\quad\mathbf{W}\mathbf{B}=\mathbf{B}^{\intercal}\mathbf{W}.

Proof.

For any vectors $\bm{u}=(u_{1},\dots,u_{N-1})^{\intercal}\in\mathbb{R}^{N-1}$ and $\bm{v}=(v_{1},\dots,v_{N-1})^{\intercal}\in\mathbb{R}^{N-1}$ , let $P(x),Q(x)\in\mathbb{P}_{N}^{0}=\{\phi\in\mathbb{P}_{N}\,:\,\phi(\pm 1)=0\}$ be the corresponding Lagrange interpolating polynomials satisfying

P(x_{i})=u_{i},\quad Q(x_{i})=v_{i},\quad 1\leq i\leq N-1.

Then one verifies readily that

\mathbf{D}^{(2)}\bm{u}=\big(P^{\prime\prime}(x_{1}),\ldots,P^{\prime\prime}(x_{N-1})\big)^{\intercal},\quad\mathbf{D}^{(2)}\bm{v}=\big(Q^{\prime\prime}(x_{1}),\ldots,Q^{\prime\prime}(x_{N-1})\big)^{\intercal}.

Since $PQ^{\prime\prime},\,P^{\prime\prime}Q\in\mathbb{P}_{2N-2}$ and $P(\pm 1)=Q(\pm 1)=0$ , we derive immediately from the exactness of the LGL quadrature (3) and integration by parts that

(12)

\begin{split}\bm{u}^{\intercal}\mathbf{W}(\mathbf{D}^{(2)}\bm{v})&=\sum_{i=1}^{N-1}\omega_{i}P(x_{i})Q^{\prime\prime}(x_{i})=\sum_{i=0}^{N}\omega_{i}P(x_{i})Q^{\prime\prime}(x_{i})\\ &=\int_{-1}^{1}P(x)Q^{\prime\prime}(x)\,{\rm d}x=\int_{-1}^{1}P^{\prime\prime}(x)Q(x)\,{\rm d}x\\ &=\sum_{i=1}^{N-1}\omega_{i}P^{\prime\prime}(x_{i})Q(x_{i})=(\mathbf{D}^{(2)}\bm{u})^{\intercal}\mathbf{W}\bm{v}=\bm{u}^{\intercal}\,\mathbf{D}^{(2)\intercal}\,\mathbf{W}\bm{v},\end{split}

for any $\bm{u},\bm{v}\in\mathbb{R}^{N-1},$ which implies $\mathbf{W}\mathbf{D}^{(2)}=\mathbf{D}^{(2)\intercal}\,\mathbf{W}$ . In view of (9), we have

\mathbf{W}\mathbf{B}^{-1}=\mathbf{B}^{-\intercal}\mathbf{W}\quad\Rightarrow\quad\mathbf{B}^{\intercal}\mathbf{W}=\mathbf{W}\mathbf{B},

which completes the proof.

Remark 2.1.

It follows from the derivations in (12) that the identities in (11) hold only for the Legendre-Gauss-Lobatto case, since integration by parts may not extend to the general Jacobi case with a nonuniform weight function.

Remarkably, the identities (11) enable us to identify a similar, symmetric negative definite matrix that admits stable diagonalisation of the differentiation and integration matrices, with a positive diagonal matrix naturally incorporated into the construction.

Theorem 2.1.

Let $\mathbf{W}={\rm diag}(\omega_{1},\ldots,\omega_{N-1})$ be the same as above, and $\mathbf{C}={\rm diag}(c_{1},\ldots,c_{N-1})$ with all $c_{i}>0.$ Introduce the matrices

(13)

\mathbf{B}_{c}:=\mathbf{C}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{B}\mathbf{C}^{-\frac{1}{2}},\quad\mathbf{S}_{c}:=\mathbf{W}^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{B}_{c}\mathbf{W}^{-\frac{1}{2}}.

Then the matrix $\mathbf{S}_{c}$ is symmetric negative definite, which admits the orthogonal diagonalisation:

(14)

\mathbf{S}_{c}=\mathbf{Q}_{c}\mathbf{\Sigma}_{c}\mathbf{Q}_{c}^{\intercal},\;\;\;{\rm where}\;\;\;\mathbf{Q}_{c}^{\intercal}\mathbf{Q}_{c}=\mathbf{I}_{N-1},\;\;\mathbf{\Sigma}_{c}={\rm diag}(\sigma_{c,1},\ldots,\sigma_{c,N-1}),

leading to the diagonalisations:

(15)

\mathbf{B}\mathbf{C}^{-1}=\mathbf{V}_{c}\mathbf{\Sigma}_{c}\mathbf{V}_{c}^{-1},\quad\mathbf{C}\mathbf{D}^{(2)}=\mathbf{V}_{c}\mathbf{\Sigma}_{c}^{-1}\mathbf{V}_{c}^{-1},

where

(16)

\mathbf{V}_{c}=\mathbf{C}^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{W}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{Q}_{c},\quad\mathbf{V}_{c}^{-1}=\mathbf{Q}_{c}^{\intercal}\mathbf{W}^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{C}^{-\frac{1}{2}}.

Proof.

Using $\mathbf{W}\mathbf{B}=\mathbf{B}^{\intercal}\mathbf{W}$ from Lemma 2.1, we obtain

\begin{split}\mathbf{W}\mathbf{B}_{c}&=\mathbf{W}\mathbf{C}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{B}\mathbf{C}^{-\frac{1}{2}}=\mathbf{C}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{W}\mathbf{B}\mathbf{C}^{-\frac{1}{2}}=\mathbf{C}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{B}^{\intercal}\mathbf{W}\mathbf{C}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\\ &=\mathbf{C}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{B}^{\intercal}\mathbf{C}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{W}=\mathbf{B}_{c}^{\intercal}\mathbf{W},\end{split}

which implies

\begin{split}\mathbf{S}^{\intercal}_{c}&=\mathbf{W}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{B}^{\intercal}_{c}\mathbf{W}^{\frac{1}{2}}=\mathbf{W}^{-\frac{1}{2}}(\mathbf{W}\mathbf{B}_{c}\mathbf{W}^{-1})\mathbf{W}^{\frac{1}{2}}=\mathbf{W}^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{B}_{c}\mathbf{W}^{-\frac{1}{2}}=\mathbf{S}_{c}.\end{split}

Thus, $\mathbf{S}_{c}$ is a symmetric matrix. As $\mathbf{C}$ is positive diagonal, $\mathbf{B}_{c}$ is negative definite, so is $\mathbf{S}_{c}$ . Hence it admits the orthogonal eigendecomposition (14). Then by the definition (13), we find

\mathbf{B}_{c}=\mathbf{W}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{S}_{c}\mathbf{W}^{\frac{1}{2}}=\mathbf{W}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{Q}_{c}\mathbf{\Sigma}_{c}\mathbf{Q}_{c}^{\intercal}\mathbf{W}^{\frac{1}{2}},

\mathbf{B}\mathbf{C}^{-1}=\mathbf{C}^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{W}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{S}_{c}\mathbf{W}^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{C}^{-\frac{1}{2}}=\mathbf{C}^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{W}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{Q}_{c}\mathbf{\Sigma}_{c}\mathbf{Q}_{c}^{\intercal}\mathbf{W}^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{C}^{-\frac{1}{2}}=\mathbf{V}_{c}\mathbf{\Sigma}_{c}\mathbf{V}_{c}^{-1},

where $\mathbf{V}_{c},\mathbf{V}_{c}^{-1}$ are given in (16). Therefore, the diagonalisation of $\mathbf{C}\mathbf{D}^{(2)}$ is a direct consequence of (9).

Remark 2.2.

The matrix $\mathbf{C}$ in Theorem 2.1 is to incorporate the variable coefficients in the diagonalisation, which turns to be essential for the highly anisotropic or degenerating elliptic problems.

It is clear that if $\mathbf{C}=\mathbf{I}_{N-1},$ we have the diagonalisation of $\mathbf{D}^{(2)}$ and $\mathbf{B}$ from the above. In this case, we omit the subscript $c$ and simply denote $\mathbf{S}=\mathbf{S}_{c},\mathbf{Q}=\mathbf{Q}_{c}$ and similarly for other ones. According to the Davis-Kahan perturbation theorem [6], the diagonalisation of $\mathbf{B}$ through the similar matrix $\mathbf{S}$ is nearly independent of the conditioning of $\mathbf{B},$ but more on the perturbation of the invariant eigenspaces governed by the size of the matrix perturbation relative to the spectral gap. In Figure 1, we depict the relative symmetry error $\|\mathbf{S}-\mathbf{S}^{\intercal}\|_{2}/\|\mathbf{S}\|_{2}$ and orthogonality error $\|\mathbf{Q}^{\intercal}\mathbf{Q}-\mathbf{I}\|_{2}$ for $N$ up to $16384,$ which shows this diagonalisation process is stable even for very large $N.$

Figure 1: Symmetry and orthogonality errors against polynomial degree

N

. Left:

\|\mathbf{S}-\mathbf{S}^{\intercal}\|_{2}/\|\mathbf{S}\|_{2}

. Right:

\|\mathbf{Q}^{\intercal}\mathbf{Q}-\mathbf{I}\|_{2}

We conclude this section with the following result on the conditioning of the matrix $\mathbf{V}$ in the diagonalisation.

Corollary 2.1.

Let $\mathbf{W}$ and $\mathbf{V}$ be the matrices as defined in Theorem 2.1 with $\mathbf{C}=\mathbf{I}_{N-1}$ . Then their condition numbers grow like $\kappa_{2}(\mathbf{V})=\sqrt{\kappa_{2}(\mathbf{W})}=\mathcal{O}(\sqrt{N}).$

Proof.

Since $\mathbf{Q}$ is orthogonal and $\mathbf{V}=\mathbf{W}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{Q}$ , we have $\|\mathbf{V}\|_{2}=\|\mathbf{W}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\|_{2}$ and $\|\mathbf{V}^{-1}\|_{2}=\|\mathbf{W}^{\frac{1}{2}}\|_{2}.$ Hence,

\kappa_{2}(\mathbf{V})=\|\mathbf{V}\|_{2}\|\mathbf{V}^{-1}\|_{2}=\|\mathbf{W}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\|_{2}\|\mathbf{W}^{\frac{1}{2}}\|_{2}=\sqrt{\kappa_{2}(\mathbf{W})}.

Recall the following bounds for the LGL weights (see e.g. [33]):

\frac{c_{1}}{N^{2}}\leq\omega_{j}\leq\frac{c_{2}}{N},\quad 0\leq j\leq N,

where $c_{1}$ and $c_{2}$ are positive constants independent of $N$ . Hence, $\kappa_{2}({\mathbf{W}})=\mathcal{O}(N).$ This completes the proof.

3 Birkhoff preconditioners in two dimensions

With the two building blocks in place, we are now ready to construct Birkhoff preconditioners in multiple dimensions. To fix ideas, we focus on two dimensions in this section.

3.1 General setup

We begin with a general setup, and consider

(17)

\mathcal{L}u=f\quad\text{in }\;\Omega=(-1,1)^{2};\quad u=g\quad\text{on }\;\partial\Omega,

where $\mathcal{L}$ is a second-order differential operator. Since the preconditioners are constructed from the equations at the interior collocation points, we assume $g=0$ ; nonhomogeneous boundary data can be incorporated into the right-hand side.

Let $\{x_{i}\}_{i=0}^{N}$ and $\{y_{j}\}_{j=0}^{N}$ be the LGL points in two coordinate directions. Then it is standard to formulate the collocation scheme on the tensorial grids, and represent the numerical solution in terms of the tensorial Lagrange and Birkhoff bases as

(18)

u_{N}(x,y)=\sum_{i,j=1}^{N-1}u_{ij}\ell_{i}(x)\ell_{j}(y)=\sum_{i,j=1}^{N-1}\widehat{u}_{ij}B_{i}(x)B_{j}(y).

Let

\bm{u}=\operatorname{vec}\bigl((u_{ij})_{i,j=1}^{N-1}\bigr),\quad\widehat{\bm{u}}=\operatorname{vec}\bigl((\widehat{u}_{ij})_{i,j=1}^{N-1}\bigr),\quad\bm{f}=\operatorname{vec}\bigl((f(x_{i},y_{j}))_{i,j=1}^{N-1}\bigr).

The corresponding Lagrange- and Birkhoff-collocation systems are

(19)

\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}\bm{u}=\bm{f}\;\;\;\text{(LCOL)};\quad\mathbf{A}_{\rm B}\widehat{\bm{u}}=\bm{f}\;\;\;\text{(BCOL)},

where $\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}$ and $\mathbf{A}_{\rm B}$ denote the coefficient matrices of LCOL and BCOL, respectively. Note that we can recover the nodal values from BCOL via $\bm{u}=(\mathbf{B}\otimes\mathbf{B})\widehat{\bm{u}}.$ The main objective of this paper is to construct suitable right preconditioners: $\mathbf{P}_{\rm L},\mathbf{P}_{\rm B}$ from the stable orthogonalisation in Theorem 2.1, leading to the preconditioned system:

(20)

\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}\bm{v}=\bm{f}\;\;\;\text{(PLCOL)};\quad\mathbf{A}_{\rm B}\mathbf{P}_{\rm B}\widehat{\bm{v}}=\bm{f}\;\;\;\text{(PBCOL)}.

Then we evaluate

(21)

\bm{u}=\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}\bm{v}\;\;\;\text{(PLCOL)};\quad\bm{u}=(\mathbf{B}\otimes\mathbf{B})(\mathbf{P}_{\rm B}\widehat{\bm{v}})\;\;\;\text{(PBCOL)}.

We shall present the explicit forms of the matrices and linear systems once the operator ${\mathcal{L}}$ is specified for the cases to be considered later.

3.2 Elliptic problems with separable variable coefficients

We first consider the operator $\mathcal{L}$ (17) in the following separable form:

(22)

\mathcal{L}[u]=-a(x)\partial_{xx}u-b(y)\partial_{yy}u+c(x)d(y)u\quad\text{in }\;\Omega=(-1,1)^{2},

where $a$ , $b$ , $c$ , $d$ are continuous functions, and there exists a constant $\beta$ such that

(23)

0<a(x),\,b(y)\leq\beta,\quad c(x)d(y)\geq 0\quad\text{in }\;\Omega.

Note that here the coefficients $a,b$ may be degenerate, i.e., $a(\pm 1)=b(\pm 1)=0.$ As highlighted in (1)–(2), our Birkhoff preconditioners for more general problems will be constructed by inverting the principal part, $-a(x)\partial_{xx}u-b(y)\partial_{yy}u$ , using the stable diagonalisation established in Theorem 2.1. We therefore start with this motivating case in (22)-(23).

Introduce the diagonal coefficient matrices

(24)

\mathbf{C}_{a}=\operatorname{diag}(a(x_{1}),\ldots,a(x_{N-1})),\quad\mathbf{C}_{b}=\operatorname{diag}(b(y_{1}),\ldots,b(y_{N-1})),

and likewise for $\mathbf{C}_{c}$ and $\mathbf{C}_{d}$ . The Lagrange and Birkhoff collocation matrices in (19) are respectively given by


(25a)	$\displaystyle\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}$	$\displaystyle=-\mathbf{I}_{N-1}\otimes(\mathbf{C}_{a}\mathbf{D}^{(2)})-(\mathbf{C}_{b}\mathbf{D}^{(2)})\otimes\mathbf{I}_{N-1}+\mathbf{C}_{d}\otimes\mathbf{C}_{c}=\mathbf{K}_{\rm L}+\mathbf{C}_{d}\otimes\mathbf{C}_{c},$
(25b)	$\displaystyle\mathbf{A}_{\rm B}$	$\displaystyle=-\mathbf{B}\otimes\mathbf{C}_{a}-\mathbf{C}_{b}\otimes\mathbf{B}+(\mathbf{C}_{d}\mathbf{B})\otimes(\mathbf{C}_{c}\mathbf{B})=\mathbf{K}_{\rm B}+(\mathbf{C}_{d}\mathbf{B})\otimes(\mathbf{C}_{c}\mathbf{B}),$

where $\mathbf{K}_{\rm L}$ and $\mathbf{K}_{\rm B}$ denote the matrices of the corresponding principal parts.

We define the inverses of $\mathbf{K}_{\rm L}$ and $\mathbf{K}_{\rm B}$ as the right preconditioners in (20), that is,


(26a)	$\displaystyle\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}$	$\displaystyle:=\mathbf{K}_{\rm L}^{-1}=-\big(\mathbf{I}_{N-1}\otimes(\mathbf{C}_{a}\mathbf{D}^{(2)})+(\mathbf{C}_{b}\mathbf{D}^{(2)})\otimes\mathbf{I}_{N-1}\big)^{-1},$
(26b)	$\displaystyle\mathbf{P}_{\rm B}$	$\displaystyle:=\mathbf{K}_{\rm B}^{-1}=-\big(\mathbf{B}\otimes\mathbf{C}_{a}+\mathbf{C}_{b}\otimes\mathbf{B}\big)^{-1}.$

Remarkably, they admit explicit tensor-product representations in terms of the matrices arising from the stable diagonalisation in Theorem 2.1. Such representations can be implemented without explicitly forming any two-dimensional Kronecker-product matrices. By reshaping the input vector into an $(N-1)^{2}$ array, the Kronecker-product transformations are reduced to one-dimensional matrix multiplications, while the diagonal factors are applied entry-wise. More precisely, we define the following matrices as in (13):

(27)

\mathbf{B}_{\nu}=\mathbf{C}_{\nu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{B}\mathbf{C}_{\nu}^{-\frac{1}{2}},\quad\mathbf{S}_{\nu}=\mathbf{W}^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{B}_{\nu}\mathbf{W}^{-\frac{1}{2}},\quad\nu=a,b.

Then by Theorem 2.1, we have the orthogonal diagonalisation: $\mathbf{S}_{\nu}=\mathbf{Q}_{\nu}\mathbf{\Sigma}_{\nu}\mathbf{Q}_{\nu}^{\intercal},$ where

(28)

\mathbf{Q}_{\nu}^{\intercal}\mathbf{Q}_{\nu}=\mathbf{I}_{N-1},\quad\mathbf{\Sigma}_{\nu}=\operatorname{diag}(\sigma_{\nu,1},\ldots,\sigma_{\nu,N-1}),\quad\sigma_{\nu,k}<0.

Then we have the following explicit representations of the Birkhoff preconditioners.

Theorem 3.1.

The preconditioners given in (26) admit the explicit representations:


(29a)	$\displaystyle\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}$	$\displaystyle=\mathbf{K}_{\rm L}^{-1}=-(\mathbf{V}_{b}\otimes\mathbf{V}_{a})\,\mathbf{\Lambda}_{\rm L}\,(\mathbf{V}_{b}^{-1}\otimes\mathbf{V}_{a}^{-1}),$
(29b)	$\displaystyle\mathbf{P}_{\rm B}$	$\displaystyle=\mathbf{K}_{\rm B}^{-1}=-(\mathbf{C}_{b}^{-1}\otimes\mathbf{C}_{a}^{-1})\,(\mathbf{V}_{b}\otimes\mathbf{V}_{a})\,\mathbf{\Lambda}_{\rm B}\,(\mathbf{V}_{b}^{-1}\otimes\mathbf{V}_{a}^{-1}),$

where

(30)

\mathbf{\Lambda}_{\rm L}=\operatorname{diag}\big(\tfrac{\sigma_{a,i}\sigma_{b,j}}{\sigma_{a,i}+\sigma_{b,j}}\big)_{i,j=1}^{N-1},\quad\mathbf{\Lambda}_{\rm B}=\operatorname{diag}\big(\tfrac{1}{\sigma_{a,i}+\sigma_{b,j}}\big)_{i,j=1}^{N-1},

and

\mathbf{V}_{\nu}=\mathbf{C}_{\nu}^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{W}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{Q}_{\nu},\quad\mathbf{V}_{\nu}^{-1}=\mathbf{Q}_{\nu}^{\intercal}\,\mathbf{W}^{\frac{1}{2}}\,\mathbf{C}_{\nu}^{-\frac{1}{2}},\quad\nu=a,b.

Proof.

From Theorem 2.1, we have

(31)

\mathbf{B}\mathbf{C}_{\nu}^{-1}=\mathbf{V}_{\nu}\mathbf{\Sigma}_{\nu}\mathbf{V}_{\nu}^{-1},\quad\mathbf{C}_{\nu}\mathbf{D}^{(2)}=\mathbf{V}_{\nu}\mathbf{\Sigma}_{\nu}^{-1}\mathbf{V}_{\nu}^{-1}.

We first consider $\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}$ . Recall that for any conformable matrices $\mathbf{M}_{1}$ , $\mathbf{M}_{2}$ , $\mathbf{N}_{1}$ and $\mathbf{N}_{2}$ , we have

(32)

(\mathbf{M}_{1}\otimes\mathbf{N}_{1})(\mathbf{M}_{2}\otimes\mathbf{N}_{2})=(\mathbf{M}_{1}\mathbf{M}_{2})\otimes(\mathbf{N}_{1}\mathbf{N}_{2}).

Thus, by (25a),

	$\displaystyle\mathbf{K}_{\rm L}$	$\displaystyle=-\mathbf{I}_{N-1}\otimes\bigl(\mathbf{V}_{a}\mathbf{\Sigma}_{a}^{-1}\mathbf{V}_{a}^{-1}\bigr)-\bigl(\mathbf{V}_{b}\mathbf{\Sigma}_{b}^{-1}\mathbf{V}_{b}^{-1}\bigr)\otimes\mathbf{I}_{N-1}$
		$\displaystyle=-(\mathbf{V}_{b}\mathbf{V}_{b}^{-1})\otimes\bigl(\mathbf{V}_{a}\mathbf{\Sigma}_{a}^{-1}\mathbf{V}_{a}^{-1}\bigr)-\bigl(\mathbf{V}_{b}\mathbf{\Sigma}_{b}^{-1}\mathbf{V}_{b}^{-1}\bigr)\otimes(\mathbf{V}_{a}\mathbf{V}_{a}^{-1})$
		$\displaystyle=-(\mathbf{V}_{b}\otimes\mathbf{V}_{a})\big(\mathbf{\Sigma}_{b}^{-1}\otimes\mathbf{I}_{N-1}+\mathbf{I}_{N-1}\otimes\mathbf{\Sigma}_{a}^{-1}\big)(\mathbf{V}_{b}^{-1}\otimes\mathbf{V}_{a}^{-1}).$

Hence, using the property:

(33)

(\mathbf{M}\otimes\mathbf{N})^{-1}=\mathbf{M}^{-1}\otimes\mathbf{N}^{-1},

we find readily that

\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}=\mathbf{K}_{\rm L}^{-1}=-(\mathbf{V}_{b}\otimes\mathbf{V}_{a})\big(\mathbf{\Sigma}_{b}^{-1}\otimes\mathbf{I}_{N-1}+\mathbf{I}_{N-1}\otimes\mathbf{\Sigma}_{a}^{-1}\big)^{-1}(\mathbf{V}_{b}^{-1}\otimes\mathbf{V}_{a}^{-1}).

Since $\mathbf{\Sigma}_{a}$ and $\mathbf{\Sigma}_{b}$ are diagonal,

\big(\mathbf{\Sigma}_{b}^{-1}\otimes\mathbf{I}_{N-1}+\mathbf{I}_{N-1}\otimes\mathbf{\Sigma}_{a}^{-1}\big)^{-1}=\mathbf{\Lambda}_{\rm L}.

This gives the stated representation of $\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}$ in (29a).

We next consider $\mathbf{P}_{\rm B}$ . Using $\mathbf{B}\mathbf{C}_{\nu}^{-1}=\mathbf{V}_{\nu}\mathbf{\Sigma}_{\nu}\mathbf{V}_{\nu}^{-1},$ we obtain $\mathbf{B}=\mathbf{V}_{\nu}\mathbf{\Sigma}_{\nu}\mathbf{V}_{\nu}^{-1}\mathbf{C}_{\nu}.$ Therefore, by (32),

(34)	$\displaystyle\mathbf{K}_{\rm B}$	$\displaystyle=-\mathbf{B}\otimes\mathbf{C}_{a}-\mathbf{C}_{b}\otimes\mathbf{B}=-(\mathbf{V}_{b}\mathbf{\Sigma}_{b}\mathbf{V}_{b}^{-1}\mathbf{C}_{b})\otimes\mathbf{C}_{a}-\mathbf{C}_{b}\otimes(\mathbf{V}_{a}\mathbf{\Sigma}_{a}\mathbf{V}_{a}^{-1}\mathbf{C}_{a})$
		$\displaystyle=-(\mathbf{V}_{b}\otimes\mathbf{V}_{a})(\mathbf{\Sigma}_{b}\otimes\mathbf{I}_{N-1}+\mathbf{I}_{N-1}\otimes\mathbf{\Sigma}_{a})(\mathbf{V}_{b}^{-1}\mathbf{C}_{b}\otimes\mathbf{V}_{a}^{-1}\mathbf{C}_{a})$
		$\displaystyle=-(\mathbf{V}_{b}\otimes\mathbf{V}_{a})(\mathbf{\Sigma}_{b}\otimes\mathbf{I}_{N-1}+\mathbf{I}_{N-1}\otimes\mathbf{\Sigma}_{a})(\mathbf{V}_{b}^{-1}\otimes\mathbf{V}_{a}^{-1})(\mathbf{C}_{b}\otimes\mathbf{C}_{a}).$

Consequently, by (33),

(35)

\mathbf{P}_{\rm B}=-(\mathbf{C}_{b}^{-1}\otimes\mathbf{C}_{a}^{-1})(\mathbf{V}_{b}\otimes\mathbf{V}_{a})(\mathbf{\Sigma}_{b}\otimes\mathbf{I}_{N-1}+\mathbf{I}_{N-1}\otimes\mathbf{\Sigma}_{a})^{-1}(\mathbf{V}_{b}^{-1}\otimes\mathbf{V}_{a}^{-1}).

Since $(\mathbf{\Sigma}_{b}\otimes\mathbf{I}_{N-1}+\mathbf{I}_{N-1}\otimes\mathbf{\Sigma}_{a})^{-1}=\mathbf{\Lambda}_{\rm B},$ the stated representation of $\mathbf{P}_{\rm B}$ follows.

Remark 3.1.

Following the lines in the proof of Theorem 3.1, we can show that the collocation matrices $\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}$ and $\mathbf{A}_{\rm B}$ in (25) for the simple operator: $\mathcal{L}[u]=-\Delta u+\gamma u$ with constant $\gamma,$ can be explicitly inverted through the diagonalisation in Theorem 2.1 with $\mathbf{C}=\mathbf{I}_{N-1}$ and corresponding $\mathbf{\Sigma}=\operatorname{diag}(\sigma_{1},\ldots,\sigma_{N-1})$ and $\mathbf{V}$ in (16). Then we have

\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}^{-1}=(\mathbf{V}\otimes\mathbf{V})\mathbf{\Lambda}_{\rm L}(\mathbf{V}^{-1}\otimes\mathbf{V}^{-1}),\quad\mathbf{A}_{\rm B}^{-1}=(\mathbf{V}\otimes\mathbf{V})\mathbf{\Lambda}_{\rm B}(\mathbf{V}^{-1}\otimes\mathbf{V}^{-1}).

where

\mathbf{\Lambda}_{\rm L}=\operatorname{diag}\big(\tfrac{\sigma_{i}\sigma_{j}}{\gamma\sigma_{i}\sigma_{j}-\sigma_{i}-\sigma_{j}}\big)_{i,j=1}^{N-1},\quad\mathbf{\Lambda}_{\rm B}=\operatorname{diag}\big(\tfrac{1}{\gamma\sigma_{i}\sigma_{j}-\sigma_{i}-\sigma_{j}}\big)_{i,j=1}^{N-1},

if $\gamma\sigma_{i}\sigma_{j}\not=\sigma_{i}+\sigma_{j}$ for any pair $(i,j).$ Thus, PLCOL and PBCOL schemes reduce to the direct solvers.

3.3 Elliptic problems with general variable coefficients

In general, we consider the variable coefficient problem

(36)

{\mathcal{L}}[u]:=-\nabla\cdot(\mathbf{A}(x,y)\nabla u)+\mathbf{r}(x,y)\cdot\nabla u+s(x,y)u=f(x,y),\quad(x,y)\in\Omega,

subject to homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions, where we assume $\mathbf{A}=(a_{ij})_{i,j=1}^{2}$ is symmetric and positive definite (SPD) and $a_{ij}\in C^{1}(\Omega),r_{i},s,f\in C(\Omega)$ . Define

q_{1}=r_{1}-\partial_{x}a_{11}-\partial_{y}a_{12},\quad q_{2}=r_{2}-\partial_{x}a_{12}-\partial_{y}a_{22}.

The corresponding Lagrange and Birkhoff collocation matrices in (19) are


	$\displaystyle\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}={}$	$\displaystyle-\mathbf{C}_{11}(\mathbf{I}_{N-1}\otimes\mathbf{D}^{(2)})-2\mathbf{C}_{12}(\mathbf{D}\otimes\mathbf{D})-\mathbf{C}_{22}(\mathbf{D}^{(2)}\otimes\mathbf{I}_{N-1})$
(37a)			$\displaystyle+\mathbf{Q}_{1}(\mathbf{I}_{N-1}\otimes\mathbf{D})+\mathbf{Q}_{2}(\mathbf{D}\otimes\mathbf{I}_{N-1})+\breve{\mathbf{S}},$
	$\displaystyle\mathbf{A}_{\rm B}={}$	$\displaystyle-\mathbf{C}_{11}(\mathbf{B}\otimes\mathbf{I}_{N-1})-2\mathbf{C}_{12}(\mathbf{D}\mathbf{B}\otimes\mathbf{D}\mathbf{B})-\mathbf{C}_{22}(\mathbf{I}_{N-1}\otimes\mathbf{B})$
(37b)			$\displaystyle+\mathbf{Q}_{1}(\mathbf{B}\otimes\mathbf{D}\mathbf{B})+\mathbf{Q}_{2}(\mathbf{D}\mathbf{B}\otimes\mathbf{B})+\breve{\mathbf{S}}(\mathbf{B}\otimes\mathbf{B}),$

where $\mathbf{C}_{ij}$ , $\mathbf{Q}_{i}$ , and $\breve{\mathbf{S}}$ are the diagonal matrices obtained by evaluating $a_{ij}$ , $q_{i}$ , and $s$ , respectively, at the interior tensorial LGL points. Recall that $\mathbf{D}$ is the first-order DM defined in (4).

To construct the preconditioners, we set

(38)

a(x):=\bar{a}_{11}(x)=\frac{1}{2}\int_{-1}^{1}a_{11}(x,y)\,{\rm d}y,\quad b(y):=\bar{a}_{22}(y)=\frac{1}{2}\int_{-1}^{1}a_{22}(x,y)\,{\rm d}x,

and define the diagonal matrices $\mathbf{C}_{a},\mathbf{C}_{b}$ as in (24). Then the corresponding right preconditioners $\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}$ and $\mathbf{P}_{\rm B}$ are given in (26) but with these coefficient matrices.

3.4 Eigenvalue analysis

We now carry out spectral analysis of the preconditioned collocation matrices $\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}$ and $\mathbf{A}_{\rm B}\mathbf{P}_{\rm B}$ in (20) for both separable and general variable-coefficient problems.

For any square matrix $\mathbf{A}$ , let $\lambda(\mathbf{A})$ denote its spectrum. It is clear that by (15), (27) and (31),

(39)

\lambda(\mathbf{B}\mathbf{C}_{\nu}^{-1})=\{\sigma_{\nu,k}\}_{k=1}^{N-1};\quad\lambda(\mathbf{C}_{\nu}\mathbf{D}^{(2)})=\{\sigma_{\nu,k}^{-1}\}_{k=1}^{N-1},\quad\nu=a,b.

Moreover, by (29a),

(40)

\lambda(\mathbf{K}_{\rm L})=\{-(\sigma_{a,i}^{-1}+\sigma_{b,j}^{-1})\}_{i,j=1}^{N-1};\quad\lambda(\mathbf{P}_{\rm L})=\{-(\sigma_{a,i}^{-1}+\sigma_{b,j}^{-1})^{-1}\}_{i,j=1}^{N-1},

and by (34)-(35),

(41)

\begin{split}&\lambda(\mathbf{K}_{\rm B}(\mathbf{C}_{b}\otimes\mathbf{C}_{a})^{-1})=\{-(\sigma_{a,i}+\sigma_{b,j})\}_{i,j=1}^{N-1};\quad\lambda((\mathbf{C}_{b}\otimes\mathbf{C}_{a})\mathbf{P}_{\rm B})=\{-(\sigma_{a,i}+\sigma_{b,j})^{-1}\}_{i,j=1}^{N-1}.\end{split}

Remark 3.2.

If $\mathbf{C}_{a}=\mathbf{C}_{b}=\mathbf{I}_{N-1},$ we find from Theorem 2.1 that $\sigma_{a,k}=\sigma_{b,k}=\sigma_{k}=\lambda_{k}^{-1}$ with $\{\lambda_{k}\}$ given by (5). Furthermore, if $cd=\gamma$ is a positive constant in (22) (i.e., ${\mathcal{L}}=-\Delta+\gamma$ ), then $\mathbf{A}_{\rm L},\mathbf{A}_{\rm B}$ in (25) reduce to

(42)

\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}=\mathbf{K}_{\rm L}+\gamma\mathbf{I}_{N-1}\otimes\mathbf{I}_{N-1},\quad\mathbf{A}_{\rm B}=\mathbf{K}_{\rm B}+\gamma\mathbf{B}\otimes\mathbf{B},

whose spectra are respectively

(43)

\begin{split}&\lambda(\mathbf{A}_{\rm L})=\big\{\gamma-(\lambda_{i}+\lambda_{j})\big\}_{i,j=1}^{N-1};\quad\lambda(\mathbf{A}_{\rm B})=\big\{\tfrac{\gamma}{\lambda_{i}\lambda_{j}}-\tfrac{1}{\lambda_{i}}-\tfrac{1}{\lambda_{j}}\big\}_{i,j=1}^{N-1}.\end{split}

Then we infer from (5) that both coefficient matrices of the Lagrange and Birkhoff collocation schemes have the conditioning ${\mathcal{O}}(N^{4}).$ However, their eigenvalue distributions are nearly reversed: the eigenvalues of $\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}$ range from $\mathcal{O}(1)$ to $\mathcal{O}(N^{4})$ , whereas those of $\mathbf{A}_{\rm B}$ range from $\mathcal{O}(N^{-4})$ to $\mathcal{O}(1)$ .

Proposition 3.1.

For both separable and variable-coefficient problems, the matrices of PLCOL and PBCOL in (25) and (37) are identical:

(44)

\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}=\mathbf{A}_{\rm B}\mathbf{P}_{\rm B}.

Proof.

Let $\mathbf{T}=\mathbf{B}\otimes\mathbf{B}.$ Using $\mathbf{D}^{(2)}\mathbf{B}=\mathbf{I}_{N-1}$ and (32)-(33), one verifies readily from the corresponding collocation matrices that

\mathbf{A}_{\rm B}=\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}\mathbf{T},\quad\mathbf{K}_{\rm B}=\mathbf{K}_{\rm L}\mathbf{T},

where $\mathbf{K}_{\rm L}=\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}^{-1}$ and $\mathbf{K}_{\rm B}=\mathbf{P}_{\rm B}^{-1}.$ Therefore, $\mathbf{A}_{\rm B}\mathbf{P}_{\rm B}=\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}\mathbf{T}(\mathbf{K}_{\rm L}\mathbf{T})^{-1}=\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}.$

Remark 3.3.

It is noteworthy that, in exact arithmetic, the identity (44) holds, whereas in finite-precision arithmetic, computations involving $\mathbf{B}$ and $\mathbf{A}_{\rm B}\mathbf{P}_{\rm B}$ are relatively stable when $N$ is very large.

Importantly, we can estimate eigenvalue distributions of the preconditioned collocation matrices. Again, we first consider the separable coefficient case.

Theorem 3.2.

Consider the separable variable-coefficient problem (22). If

(45)

a,b,c,d\in C[-1,1],\quad a(x),b(y)>0,\quad c(x)d(y)\geq 0,

then all eigenvalues $\lambda\in\lambda(\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}\mathbf{P}_{\rm L})=\lambda(\mathbf{A}_{\rm B}\mathbf{P}_{\rm B})$ are real and $\lambda\geq 1.$ If in addition

(46)

0<\alpha\leq a(x),\,b(y)\leq\beta,\quad 0\leq q_{\min}\leq c(x)d(y)\leq q_{\max},

then we have the bounds

(47)

1+\frac{2\pi^{2}q_{\min}}{\beta c_{N}N^{4}}\leq\lambda<1+\frac{2q_{\max}}{\alpha\pi^{2}},

where $c_{N}$ is the constant appearing in the eigenvalue bound (5) for $\mathbf{D}^{(2)}$ .

Proof.

By Proposition 3.1, it suffices to consider $\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}$ . Define $\mathbf{C}=\mathbf{C}_{d}\otimes\mathbf{C}_{c}$ and

(48)

\mathbf{H}=(\mathbf{W}\mathbf{C}_{b}^{-1})\otimes(\mathbf{W}\mathbf{C}_{a}^{-1}),\quad(\bm{u},\bm{v})_{\mathbf{H}}=\bm{v}^{\intercal}\mathbf{H}\bm{u},\quad\|\bm{u}\|_{\mathbf{H}}=\sqrt{\bm{u}^{\intercal}\mathbf{H}\bm{u}}.

By (45) and the positivity of the LGL quadrature weights, $\mathbf{W}\mathbf{C}_{a}^{-1}$ and $\mathbf{W}\mathbf{C}_{b}^{-1}$ are positive diagonal matrices, and hence $\mathbf{H}$ is positive definite. Let $(\lambda,\bm{v})$ be an eigenpair of $\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}$ , and set $\bm{u}=\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}\bm{v}$ . As $\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}=\mathbf{K}_{\rm L}^{-1}$ given in (26a), one has

\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}\bm{u}=\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}\bm{v}=\lambda\bm{v}=\lambda\mathbf{K}_{\rm L}\bm{u}.

Using (25a), one obtains $\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}\bm{u}=\mathbf{K}_{\rm L}\bm{u}+\mathbf{C}\bm{u}$ , which implies

(49)

(\lambda-1)\mathbf{K}_{\rm L}\bm{u}=\mathbf{C}\bm{u},\quad(\lambda-1)(\mathbf{H}\mathbf{K}_{\rm L})\bm{u}=(\mathbf{H}\mathbf{C})\bm{u}.

Then by (25a) and (32), we have

\mathbf{H}\mathbf{K}_{\rm L}=-(\mathbf{W}\mathbf{C}_{b}^{-1})\otimes(\mathbf{W}\mathbf{D}^{(2)})-(\mathbf{W}\mathbf{D}^{(2)})\otimes(\mathbf{W}\mathbf{C}_{a}^{-1}).

By Lemma 2.1, $\mathbf{W}\mathbf{D}^{(2)}$ is symmetric, and the identity (12) shows that $-\mathbf{W}\mathbf{D}^{(2)}$ is positive definite. Using (45), $\mathbf{W}\mathbf{C}_{a}^{-1}$ and $\mathbf{W}\mathbf{C}_{b}^{-1}$ are positive diagonal matrices. Therefore, both Kronecker-product terms above are symmetric positive definite, so is $\mathbf{H}\mathbf{K}_{\rm L}$ . Moreover, as $\mathbf{C}$ is diagonal and positive semidefinite, the matrix $\mathbf{H}\mathbf{C}$ is also symmetric positive semidefinite. Let $\bm{w}=(\mathbf{H}\mathbf{K}_{\rm L})^{\frac{1}{2}}\bm{u}.$ Multiplying the generalized eigenvalue equation in (49) by $(\mathbf{H}\mathbf{K}_{\rm L})^{-\frac{1}{2}}$ , we obtain

(\lambda-1)\bm{w}=(\mathbf{H}\mathbf{K}_{\rm L})^{-\frac{1}{2}}(\mathbf{H}\mathbf{C})(\mathbf{H}\mathbf{K}_{\rm L})^{-\frac{1}{2}}\bm{w}.

Note that the matrix on the right-hand side is symmetric positive semidefinite, so $\lambda$ is real and $\lambda\geq 1$ .

We next derive bounds in (47). Using the identity $\mathbf{W}\mathbf{D}^{(2)}=\mathbf{D}^{(2)\intercal}\mathbf{W}$ in Lemma 2.1, one verifies readily that the matrix $\widehat{\mathbf{S}}:=\mathbf{W}^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{D}^{(2)}\mathbf{W}^{-\frac{1}{2}}$ similar to $\mathbf{D}^{(2)}$ is symmetric. Hence, $\lambda(\widehat{\mathbf{S}})=\lambda(\mathbf{D}^{(2)})$ . By (5), the Rayleigh quotient of $-\widehat{\mathbf{S}}$ satisfies

\frac{\pi^{2}}{4}<\frac{\bm{y}^{\intercal}(-\widehat{\mathbf{S}})\bm{y}}{\bm{y}^{\intercal}\bm{y}}\leq\frac{c_{N}N^{4}}{4\pi^{2}},\quad\forall\,\bm{0}\not=\bm{y}\in\mathbb{R}^{N-1},

so taking $\bm{y}=\mathbf{C}^{\frac{1}{2}}_{\nu}\bm{z}$ yields

(50)

\frac{\pi^{2}}{4}<\frac{-\bm{z}^{\intercal}\mathbf{C}_{\nu}^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{W}^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{D}^{(2)}\mathbf{W}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{C}_{\nu}^{\frac{1}{2}}\bm{z}}{\bm{z}^{\intercal}\mathbf{C}_{\nu}\bm{z}}\leq\frac{c_{N}N^{4}}{4\pi^{2}}.

Since $\mathbf{W}$ and $\mathbf{C}_{\nu}$ are diagonal, we have

(51)

\mathbf{C}_{\nu}^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{W}^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{D}^{(2)}\mathbf{W}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{C}_{\nu}^{\frac{1}{2}}=\bigl(\mathbf{W}^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{C}_{\nu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\bigr)\bigl(\mathbf{C}_{\nu}\mathbf{D}^{(2)}\bigr)\bigl(\mathbf{C}_{\nu}^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{W}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\bigr).

From (46), we find $\alpha\bm{z}^{\intercal}\bm{z}\leq\bm{z}^{\intercal}\mathbf{C}_{\nu}\bm{z}\leq\beta\bm{z}^{\intercal}\bm{z}$ , which, together with (50)-(51), leads to

\frac{\alpha\pi^{2}}{4}<\frac{-\bm{z}^{\intercal}\bigl(\mathbf{W}^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{C}_{\nu}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\bigr)\bigl(\mathbf{C}_{\nu}\mathbf{D}^{(2)}\bigr)\bigl(\mathbf{C}_{\nu}^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{W}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\bigr)\bm{z}}{\bm{z}^{\intercal}\bm{z}}\leq\frac{\beta c_{N}N^{4}}{4\pi^{2}}.

As the matrix $-(\mathbf{W}^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{C}_{\nu}^{-\frac{1}{2}})(\mathbf{C}_{\nu}\mathbf{D}^{(2)})(\mathbf{C}_{\nu}^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{W}^{-\frac{1}{2}})$ is similar to $-\mathbf{C}_{\nu}\mathbf{D}^{(2)},$ we have from (39) that

\lambda(-\mathbf{C}_{\nu}\mathbf{D}^{(2)})=\{-\sigma_{\nu,k}^{-1}\}_{k=1}^{N-1}\subseteq(\tfrac{\alpha\pi^{2}}{4},\tfrac{\beta c_{N}N^{4}}{4\pi^{2}}],\quad\nu=a,b.

Then by (39)-(40),

(52)

\lambda(\mathbf{K}_{\rm L})=\big\{-(\sigma_{a,i}^{-1}+\sigma_{b,j}^{-1})\big\}_{i,j=1}^{N-1}\subseteq(\tfrac{\alpha\pi^{2}}{2},\tfrac{\beta c_{N}N^{4}}{2\pi^{2}}].

Since $\mathbf{H}\mathbf{K}_{\rm L}$ is SPD, the matrix $\widehat{\mathbf{K}}_{\rm L}:=\mathbf{H}^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{K}_{\rm L}\mathbf{H}^{-\frac{1}{2}}$ is SPD and has the same spectrum as $\mathbf{K}_{\rm L}$ . Similarly, we define the symmetric positive semidefinite matrix $\widehat{\mathbf{C}}:=\mathbf{H}^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{C}\mathbf{H}^{-\frac{1}{2}}$ . Taking $\bm{\xi}=\mathbf{H}^{\frac{1}{2}}\bm{u}$ , we obtain from (46) and (52) that

(53)

\frac{\alpha\pi^{2}}{2}<\frac{\bm{\xi}^{\intercal}\widehat{\mathbf{K}}_{\rm L}\bm{\xi}}{\bm{\xi}^{\intercal}\bm{\xi}}\leq\frac{\beta c_{N}N^{4}}{2\pi^{2}},\quad q_{\min}\leq\frac{\bm{\xi}^{\intercal}\widehat{\mathbf{C}}\bm{\xi}}{\bm{\xi}^{\intercal}\bm{\xi}}\leq q_{\max}.

By (49), we have

(54)

(\lambda-1)\bm{\xi}^{\intercal}\widehat{\mathbf{K}}_{\rm L}\bm{\xi}=(\lambda-1)\bm{\xi}^{\intercal}\mathbf{H}^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{K}_{\rm L}\bm{u}=\bm{\xi}^{\intercal}\mathbf{H}^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{C}\bm{u}=\bm{\xi}^{\intercal}\widehat{\mathbf{C}}\bm{\xi}.

Combining (53)-(54) yields

\frac{2\pi^{2}q_{\min}}{\beta c_{N}N^{4}}\leq\lambda-1=\frac{\bm{\xi}^{\intercal}\widehat{\mathbf{C}}\bm{\xi}}{\bm{\xi}^{\intercal}\bm{\xi}}\frac{\bm{\xi}^{\intercal}\bm{\xi}}{\bm{\xi}^{\intercal}\widehat{\mathbf{K}}_{\rm L}\bm{\xi}}<\frac{2q_{\max}}{\alpha\pi^{2}},

which completes the proof of (47).

As a direct consequence of Theorem 3.2, the eigenvalues of the preconditioned matrices are confined in a finite interval for the following special case, in sharp contrast to the eigenvalue distributions of the unpreconditioned collocation matrices described in Remark 3.2. Indeed, in this setting, we recover the same perfect preconditioning property as in the one-dimensional case (10).

Corollary 3.1.

Consider the LCOL and BCOL collocation matrices $\mathbf{A}_{\rm L},\mathbf{A}_{\rm B}$ in (42), and the corresponding Birkhoff preconditioners in (26) for ${\mathcal{L}}[u]=-\Delta u+\gamma u$ with constant $\gamma\geq 0$ , that is,

(55)

\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}=-(\mathbf{I}_{N-1}\otimes\mathbf{D}^{(2)}+\mathbf{D}^{(2)}\otimes\mathbf{I}_{N-1})^{-1},\quad\mathbf{P}_{\rm B}=-(\mathbf{B}\otimes\mathbf{I}_{N-1}+\mathbf{I}_{N-1}\otimes\mathbf{B})^{-1}.

Then all eigenvalues $\lambda\in\lambda(\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}\mathbf{P}_{\rm L})=\lambda(\mathbf{A}_{\rm B}\mathbf{P}_{\rm B})$ are real and concentrated around $1:$

(56)

1+\frac{2\pi^{2}\gamma}{c_{N}N^{4}}\leq\lambda<1+\frac{2\gamma}{\pi^{2}},

where $c_{N}\approx 1$ for $N\gg 1.$

The eigenvalue analysis of the preconditioning for the general elliptic problem (36) is, however, more involved than that for the separable variable-coefficient case. After all, the preconditioners are built upon certain separable forms. For completeness, we feel compelled to present the main result here, with the detailed proof given in Appendix A. Assume that the variable coefficients in (36) satisfy the following conditions:

(i)

$\mathbf{A}=(a_{ij})$ with $a_{ij}\in C^{1}(\overline{\Omega})$ is uniformly symmetric positive definite on $\overline{\Omega},$ and $\bar{a}_{11}(x),\bar{a}_{22}(y)$ in (38) are uniformly bounded: $0<\alpha_{0}\leq\bar{a}_{11}(x),\bar{a}_{22}(y)\leq\beta_{0}.$ Moreover, we have $s\in C(\overline{\Omega})$ and $0<s_{\min}\leq s(x,y)\leq s_{\max}$ .
(ii)

$f\in L^{2}(\Omega)$ and $\mathcal{L}[u]=f,$ with homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions has the $H^{2}$ -solution such that

(57) $\|u\|_{H^{2}(\Omega)}\leq C_{A}\|f\|_{L^{2}(\Omega)},$

where the constant $C_{A}>0$ , independent of $f$ .

In general, we have the following uniform bounds for the preconditioned collocation matrices, and refer to Appendix A for the detailed proof.

Theorem 3.3.

Assume the elliptic problem (36) satisfy the above conditions (i)-(ii). Then there exist constants $C_{1},C_{2}>0$ , independent of $N$ , such that for every $\lambda\in\lambda(\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}\mathbf{P}_{\rm L})=\lambda(\mathbf{A}_{\rm B}\mathbf{P}_{\rm B}),$ one has

(58)

0<C_{1}\leq|\lambda|\leq C_{2}.

Remark 3.4.

Theorem 3.2 is a special case of Theorem 3.3, but in the former setting, we can better characterize the dependence of the bounds on the parameters with a simpler and different proof.

It is noteworthy that eigenvalue clustering and $N$ -independent bounds do not by themselves guarantee good conditioning for a nonsymmetric matrix, but they can be indicative of rapid GMRES convergence, particularly when the matrix is nearly normal or possesses a well-conditioned eigenvector basis. Indeed, extensive numerical tests in Subsection 3.5 below demonstrate that the GMRES solver converges within only a small number of iterations.

At this stage, we can only show the well-conditioning in a relatively simpler scenario. Its proof is given in Appendix B.

Theorem 3.4.

Under the setting and conditions of Theorem 3.2, we further assume $c(x)d(y)\equiv s$ for some constant $s\geq 0.$ Then we have

(59)

\kappa_{2}(\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}\mathbf{P}_{\rm L})=\kappa_{2}(\mathbf{A}_{\rm B}\mathbf{P}_{\rm B})={\mathcal{O}}(1),

which holds uniformly for $N$ .

In Figure 2, we present numerical illustrations of the eigenvalue distributions and condition numbers of the original LCOL and BCOL systems and their corresponding preconditioned systems for two sets of variable coefficients. The first row corresponds to the separable problem (22) with

a(x)=2-\sin x,\quad b(y)=2+\cos y,\quad c(x)=x^{2}+1,\quad d(y)=y^{2}+2,

whereas the second row corresponds to the general elliptic problem (36) with

\mathbf{A}(x,y)=\begin{bmatrix}3+\sin(\pi x)\cos(\pi y)&0.2x^{2}y^{2}\\ 0.2x^{2}y^{2}&2+e^{xy}\end{bmatrix},\quad\mathbf{r}(x,y)=\begin{bmatrix}-\sin(\pi y)\cos(\pi x)\\ \sin(\pi x)\cos(\pi y)\end{bmatrix},

and $s(x,y)=1+x^{2}+y^{2}$ . In both cases, the spectra of the preconditioned matrices remain uniformly bounded away from the origin. For the separable problem, the eigenvalues are real and tightly clustered, whereas for the general problem they may be complex, in agreement with Theorems 3.2-3.3. For the separable problem in the first row, the coefficient assumptions satisfy the conditions of Theorem 3.4, and the condition numbers of the preconditioned systems remain of order $\mathcal{O}(1)$ , as predicted by the theorem. For the general variable-coefficient problem in the second row, although the analysis for uniform well-conditioning analytically appears challenging and open, the numerical results likewise exhibit $\mathcal{O}(1)$ condition-number behavior.

Figure 2: Eigenvalue distributions and condition numbers for the separable (top row) and general variable-coefficient (bottom row) problems. The first three columns show the eigenvalue distributions at

N=40,80,120

, from left to right:

\lambda(\mathbf{A}_{\rm L})

\lambda(\mathbf{A}_{\rm B})

, and

\lambda(\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}\mathbf{P}_{\rm L})=\lambda(\mathbf{A}_{\rm B}\mathbf{P}_{\rm B})

. The fourth column shows the corresponding Euclidean

2

-norm condition numbers against

N

3.5 Numerical results

In what follows, we present numerical experiments to assess the accuracy and efficiency of the preconditioned collocation schemes through comparison with unpreconditioned counterparts. We employ the GMRES method with a tolerance of $10^{-12}$ to solve all collocation systems. The tests cover two-dimensional separable problems with highly oscillatory and high-contrast coefficients, Duffy-transformed problems with geometric singularities, and a nonlinear Allen-Cahn problem, providing a range of tests for the robustness and effectiveness of the proposed preconditioners. All computations are performed in MATLAB on a desktop with an Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-11700F processor at 2.50 GHz and 32 GB RAM. Here, “Error” denotes the relative infinity-norm error, while “/” indicates failure to converge within 6000 iterations. These computational settings and conventions are used throughout all subsequent numerical experiments unless otherwise stated.

3.5.1 Highly oscillatory and high contrast variable coefficients

We consider (22) with $f\equiv 1$ and homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions on $\partial\Omega$ with $\Omega=(-1,1)^{2},$ and take two sets of coefficients $a,b,c,d:$ (i):

	$\displaystyle a_{1}(x)$	$\displaystyle=1+10e^{-\cos x}\int_{-1}^{x}e^{\cos t}\sin(500t^{2})\,{\rm d}t,$		$\displaystyle b_{1}(y)=0.002+0.001\cos(32\pi y),$
	$\displaystyle c_{1}(x)$	$\displaystyle=5+4\cos(32\pi x),$		$\displaystyle d_{1}(y)=5+4\sin(32\pi y),$

with highly oscillatory $a_{1}(x)$ ; and (ii): $a_{2}(x)=\exp(12x),b_{2}(y)=c_{2}(x)=d_{2}(y)=1,$ where the contrast between $a_{2},b_{2}$ is $e^{24}\approx 2.7\times 10^{10}.$

We compare the performance of six collocation schemes: LCOL, BCOL, PLCOL, and PBCOL in (19)-(20), where the coefficient matrices ${\mathbf{A}}_{\rm L},\,{\mathbf{A}}_{\rm B}$ are defined in (25) and the Birkhoff preconditioners ${\mathbf{P}}_{\rm L},\,{\mathbf{P}}_{\rm B}$ in (26), respectively; the other two schemes are the Laplace-preconditioned variants LPLCOL and LPBCOL. In the latter two schemes, the variable coefficients $a_{i},\,b_{i}$ ( $i=1,2$ ) are not incorporated into the orthogonal diagonalisation in Theorem 2.1, so

(60)

\begin{split}\widetilde{\mathbf{P}}_{\rm L}&=-\big(\mathbf{I}_{N-1}\otimes\mathbf{D}^{(2)}+\mathbf{D}^{(2)}\otimes\mathbf{I}_{N-1}\big)^{-1},\quad\widetilde{\mathbf{P}}_{\rm B}=-(\mathbf{B}\otimes\mathbf{I}_{N-1}+\mathbf{I}_{N-1}\otimes\mathbf{B})^{-1}.\end{split}

Refer to caption — Figure 3: Representative features of the two separable test problems. Top: $a_{1}(x)$ , $u_{1}(x,y)$ , and $u_{1}(x,0)$ . Bottom: $a_{2}(x)$ , $u_{2}(x,y)$ , and $u_{2}(x,0)$ .

As the exact solutions are unavailable, we compute reference solutions using PBCOL, the best-performing scheme, with $N=4096$ . In Figure 3, we display the coefficients $a_{1}$ and $a_{2}$ , together with the corresponding reference solutions. The highly oscillatory coefficients induce pronounced small-scale oscillations in $u_{1}$ , whereas the large coefficient contrast in $a_{2}(x)=\exp(12x)$ gives rise to a sharp boundary layer in $u_{2}$ near $x=-1$ . Resolving these fine-scale structures requires stable computations at large values of $N$ .

Figure 4: Condition numbers (left column) and GMRES residual histories (right column) for the highly oscillatory problem

u_{1}

(top row) and the high-contrast problem

u_{2}

(bottom row).

In Figure 4, we compare the conditioning and decay of GMRES residuals against iteration numbers of six schemes for two examples. In both cases, the conventional Laplace preconditioners in (60) fail to improve the conditioning of the resulting systems, which behave like the original unpreconditioned LCOL and BCOL. In contrast, PBCOL and PLCOL exhibit nearly identical condition numbers, consistent with the algebraic equivalence established in Proposition 3.1. PBCOL remains well conditioned, while PLCOL shows only a mild deterioration for large $N$ . The GMRES residual histories in Figure 4 (right column) display the same overall trend. LCOL, BCOL, LPLCOL, and LPBCOL converge very slowly, whereas the residuals for PLCOL and PBCOL decay rapidly, with the two methods exhibiting nearly identical convergence behavior, also illustrate that, for nonsymmetric systems, GMRES convergence is not strongly correlated with the matrix condition number alone; spectral distribution and nonnormality also matter.

In Table 1, we compare the performance of six schemes in a more quantitative manner, where GMRES is terminated when the stopping tolerance $10^{-12}$ is reached or when the number of iterations exceeds $6000$ . Again, we observe that the original LCOL and BCOL schemes, as well as the Laplace-preconditioned LPLCOL and LPBCOL schemes, fail to converge for moderately large $N$ , whereas PLCOL and PBCOL remain convergent, with PBCOL exhibiting greater stability and the best overall performance. Indeed, for the first example, the PBCOL errors exhibit exponential decay once the oscillations are adequately resolved for $N>64$ .

We reiterate that properly incorporating the variable principal coefficients into the diagonalisation used to construct the preconditioners is essential for both good conditioning and rapid iterative convergence.

Table 1: Errors, GMRES iteration counts, and CPU time (s) for the two-dimensional separable problems using the six collocation methods.

		LCOL		LPLCOL		PLCOL		BCOL		LPBCOL		PBCOL
	$N$	Iter	Time	Iter	Time	Iter	Time	Iter	Time	Iter	Time	Iter	Time	Error
$u_{1}$	8	40	0.024	39	0.006	28	0.026	48	0.021	39	0.007	28	0.021	1.07e+00
	16	100	0.032	114	0.012	38	0.028	148	0.030	114	0.012	38	0.023	8.77e $-$ 01
	32	359	0.120	304	0.079	40	0.033	398	0.132	305	0.071	40	0.030	1.62e+00
	64	1020	5.852	408	0.961	43	0.078	1091	6.906	408	0.997	43	0.078	1.14e+00
	128	2633	180.9	497	6.605	44	0.253	3028	250.0	497	6.659	41	0.202	1.88e $-$ 01
	256	/	/	540	22.60	38	0.833	/	/	540	23.40	39	0.773	1.52e $-$ 02
	512	/	/	549	55.04	37	2.584	/	/	549	59.54	38	2.552	6.59e $-$ 05
	1024	/	/	551	352.0	36	13.51	/	/	551	379.0	37	13.78	1.82e $-$ 08
$u_{2}$	8	39	0.004	37	0.010	8	0.005	41	0.004	37	0.006	9	0.006	8.86e $-$ 01
	16	175	0.014	164	0.023	9	0.008	176	0.016	164	0.018	10	0.005	7.03e $-$ 01
	32	668	0.273	681	0.288	10	0.006	648	0.269	690	0.346	11	0.013	3.41e $-$ 01
	64	2517	32.65	2919	41.27	10	0.027	2329	25.03	2919	49.86	11	0.024	2.56e $-$ 02
	128	/	/	/	/	11	0.033	/	/	/	/	11	0.020	1.39e $-$ 03
	256	/	/	/	/	20	0.136	/	/	/	/	11	0.068	8.69e $-$ 05
	512	/	/	/	/	44	1.590	/	/	/	/	11	0.559	5.46e $-$ 06
	1024	/	/	/	/	162	44.90	/	/	/	/	11	3.904	3.40e $-$ 07

3.5.2 Elliptic problems on triangles using Duffy transformations

As an important testing case, we consider the elliptic problem on a triangle $\mathcal{T}=\triangle ABC$ with vertices $\{(x_{i},y_{i})\}_{i=1}^{3}$ :

(61)

{\mathcal{L}}[u]:=-\nabla\cdot\bigl(\mathbf{A}\nabla u\bigr)+\mathbf{r}\cdot\nabla u+su=f\quad\text{in }\mathcal{T};\quad u=0\quad\text{on }\partial\mathcal{T},

where $\mathbf{A}$ is SPD, $\mathbf{r}=(r_{1},r_{2})^{\intercal}$ is bounded, and $s\geq 0$ that satisfy the conditions in Subsection 3.3. We adapt the Duffy transformation [10] to map $\mathcal{T}$ onto $\Omega=(-1,1)^{2}$ , and then apply the proposed preconditioned collocation solver to the transformed problem corresponding to (61). This approach is analogous to the use of tensor-product Legendre polynomial bases on rectangles in [29], rather than the orthogonal Koornwinder polynomials employed in [9]. Such a singular collapsed-coordinate mapping leads to a clustering of collocation points near the singular vertex (see Figure 5). This substantially worsens the conditioning of the collocation system compared with that on a rectangular domain. We next demonstrate that the proposed preconditioners effectively overcome this difficulty and remain robust even for a highly deformed obtuse triangle with an interior angle of $160^{\circ}$ (see Figure 5 (left)).

We first present some details on the transformed elliptic problems and form of preconditioners. The Duffy transformation takes the form:

(62)

\mathbf{x}(\xi_{1},\xi_{2})=\begin{bmatrix}x(\xi_{1},\xi_{2})\\[6.0pt] y(\xi_{1},\xi_{2})\end{bmatrix}=\begin{bmatrix}x_{1}+(x_{2}-x_{1})\frac{(1+\xi_{1})(1-\xi_{2})}{4}+(x_{3}-x_{1})\frac{1+\xi_{2}}{2}\\[4.0pt] y_{1}+(y_{2}-y_{1})\frac{(1+\xi_{1})(1-\xi_{2})}{4}+(y_{3}-y_{1})\frac{1+\xi_{2}}{2}\end{bmatrix},

which collapses the edge $\xi_{2}=1$ of $\Omega$ to the vertex $C$ of $\mathcal{T}$ . In fact, it is a composition of Duffy transformation: $\Omega\to\mathcal{T}_{\rm ref}$ (with vertices $(0,0),(1,0),(0,1)$ ) and an affine mapping: $\mathcal{T}_{\rm ref}\to\mathcal{T},$ as shown in Figure 5. Accordingly, the Jacobian matrix can be factorized as

\mathbf{J}=\mathbf{J}_{\rm a}\,\mathbf{J}_{\rm r}=\begin{bmatrix}x_{2}-x_{1}&x_{3}-x_{1}\\ y_{2}-y_{1}&y_{3}-y_{1}\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}\tfrac{1-\xi_{2}}{4}&-\tfrac{1+\xi_{1}}{4}\\[2.0pt] 0&\tfrac{1}{2}\end{bmatrix}.

Thus, one verifies readily that

(63)

\mathbf{J}^{-1}=\mathbf{J}_{\rm r}^{-1}\,\mathbf{J}_{\rm a}^{-1}=\frac{1}{\mathbb{J}_{\rm r}}\begin{bmatrix}\tfrac{1}{2}&\tfrac{1+\xi_{1}}{4}\\[5.69054pt] 0&\tfrac{1-\xi_{2}}{4}\end{bmatrix}\times\frac{1}{\mathbb{J}_{\rm a}}\begin{bmatrix}y_{3}-y_{1}&x_{1}-x_{3}\\ y_{1}-y_{2}&x_{2}-x_{1}\end{bmatrix},

where the Jacobian determinants are

(64)

\mathbb{J}_{\rm r}=\tfrac{1-\xi_{2}}{8},\quad\mathbb{J}_{\rm a}=2{|\mathcal{T}|},\quad\mathbb{J}=\mathbb{J}_{\rm a}\,\mathbb{J}_{\rm r}=\tfrac{(1-\xi_{2})|\mathcal{T}|}{4},

with $|\mathcal{T}|$ being the area of $\mathcal{T}.$

Figure 5: Affine and Duffy transformations from a general triangular domain to the reference square. The vertex

C

is mapped to the edge

C_{1}C_{2}

under the inverse Duffy transformation. The obtuse triangle with

\angle A=160^{\circ}

is of interest in the test.

For clarity, we denote $\hat{u}(\bm{\xi})=u(\mathbf{x})$ and likewise for $\hat{f}$ and $\hat{s}$ . Also denote $\widehat{\nabla}=(\partial_{\xi_{1}},\partial_{\xi_{2}})^{\intercal}.$ Then the problem (61) on $\mathcal{T}$ is converted to the following problem on $\Omega:$

(65)

\hat{\mathcal{L}}[\hat{u}]:=-\tfrac{1}{\mathbb{J}}\widehat{\nabla}\cdot\big(\mathbb{J}\hat{\mathbf{A}}\widehat{\nabla}\hat{u}\big)+\hat{\mathbf{r}}\cdot\widehat{\nabla}\hat{u}+\hat{s}\,\hat{u}=\hat{f}\quad\text{in }\Omega;\quad\hat{u}=0\quad\text{on }\partial\Omega,

where $\hat{\mathbf{A}}=\mathbf{J}^{-1}\mathbf{A}\bigl(\mathbf{x}(\bm{\xi})\bigr)\mathbf{J}^{-\intercal}$ and $\hat{\mathbf{r}}=\mathbf{J}^{-1}\mathbf{r}\bigl(\mathbf{x}(\bm{\xi})\bigr).$ In view of the singular factors, we multiply (65) by $\mathbb{J}^{2}$ , and formulate it in the non-divergence form:

(66)

{\mathbb{J}}^{2}\hat{\mathcal{L}}[\hat{u}]=-\sum_{i,j=1}^{2}\tilde{a}_{ij}\partial_{\xi_{i}\xi_{j}}\hat{u}+\mathbf{b}\cdot\widehat{\nabla}\hat{u}+\mathbb{J}^{2}\hat{s}\,\hat{u}=\mathbb{J}^{2}\hat{f},

where

(67)

\displaystyle\tilde{\mathbf{A}}=\mathbb{J}^{2}\hat{\mathbf{A}}=\mathbb{J}^{2}\mathbf{J}^{-1}\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{x}(\bm{\xi}))\mathbf{J}^{-\intercal}:=(\tilde{a}_{ij}(\bm{\xi}))_{i,j=1}^{2},\quad\mathbf{b}=\mathbb{J}^{2}\hat{\mathbf{r}}-\mathbb{J}\,\widehat{\nabla}\cdot\bigl(\mathbb{J}\hat{\mathbf{A}}\bigr),

With the separation in (63)-(64), we can rewrite

\tilde{\mathbf{A}}=\begin{bmatrix}\tfrac{1}{2}&\tfrac{1+\xi_{1}}{4}\\[5.69054pt] 0&\tfrac{1-\xi_{2}}{4}\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}\breve{a}_{11}&\breve{a}_{12}\\[5.69054pt] \breve{a}_{12}&\breve{a}_{22}\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}\tfrac{1}{2}&0\\[5.69054pt] \tfrac{1+\xi_{1}}{4}&\tfrac{1-\xi_{2}}{4}\end{bmatrix},\quad\breve{\mathbf{A}}:=\mathbb{J}^{2}_{\rm a}\mathbf{J}^{-1}_{\rm a}\mathbf{A}\mathbf{J}^{-\intercal}_{\rm a},

and direct calculation leads to

(68)

\begin{split}\tilde{a}_{11}&=\tfrac{1}{16}\left[4\breve{a}_{11}+4(1+\xi_{1})\breve{a}_{12}+(1+\xi_{1})^{2}\breve{a}_{22}\right],\\[2.84526pt] \tilde{a}_{12}&=\tfrac{1-\xi_{2}}{16}\left[2\breve{a}_{12}+(1+\xi_{1})\breve{a}_{22}\right],\quad\tilde{a}_{22}=\tfrac{(1-\xi_{2})^{2}}{16}\breve{a}_{22}.\end{split}

It is important to note that $\breve{\mathbf{A}}$ is SPD, which does not involve the degenerate factor $1-\xi_{2}.$ Moreover, we can verify similarly that there is no negative power of $1-\xi_{2}$ in $\mathbb{J}\widehat{\nabla}\cdot(\mathbb{J}\hat{\mathbf{A}})$ and $\mathbf{b}.$

With the above preparations, we are now ready to construct the preconditioners in (26) for the corresponding Lagrange and Birkhoff collocation systems arising from (66)-(67). Define the averaged coefficients to be incorporated in the diagonalisation:


(69a)			$\displaystyle\bar{a}_{11}(\xi_{1}):=\frac{1}{32}\int_{-1}^{1}\left[4\breve{a}_{11}+4(1+\xi_{1})\breve{a}_{12}+(1+\xi_{1})^{2}\breve{a}_{22}\right]\,{\rm d}\xi_{2},$
(69b)			$\displaystyle\bar{a}_{22}(\xi_{2}):=\frac{(1-\xi_{2})^{2}}{32}\int_{-1}^{1}\breve{a}_{22}\,{\rm d}\xi_{1},$

so we derive the preconditioners (26) by setting $a=\bar{a}_{11}$ and $b=\bar{a}_{22}.$

We now compare the collocation schemes for solving (61) on the triangle $\mathcal{T}$ with vertices $A(0,0)$ , $B(1,0),$ and $C(\cot\omega,1),$ where $\omega=\angle A$ and the area $|\mathcal{T}|=1/2.$ We consider the problem (61) with a smooth source term: $f(x,y)=10^{4}\exp(-\tfrac{x^{2}+y^{2}}{0.05^{2}}),$ and two sets of coefficients: Case (i): $\mathbf{A}=\mathbf{I}_{2},\mathbf{r}=\mathbf{0},s=100;$ and Case (ii):

\mathbf{A}=\begin{bmatrix}3+\sin(\pi x)\cos(\pi y)&0.2x^{2}y^{2}\\[4.0pt] 0.2x^{2}y^{2}&2+e^{xy}\end{bmatrix},\;\;\mathbf{r}=\begin{bmatrix}-\sin(\pi y)\cos(\pi x)\\[4.0pt] \sin(\pi x)\cos(\pi y)\end{bmatrix},\;\;s=1+x^{2}+y^{2}.

The reference solution is computed by the PBCOL method with $N=4096$ .

In the comparison, the collocation schemes: LCOL^⋆ and BCOL^⋆ refer to the Lagrange and Birkhoff collocation methods for (65) (without multiplying the Jacobian $\mathbb{J}^{2}$ ), while the other four schemes (i.e., LCOL, BCOL, PLCOL, and PBCOL) are for (66).

Figure 6: Condition numbers of the collocation matrices for problem (61) on the triangle with one interior angle

\omega=90^{\circ}

and

\omega=160^{\circ}

. Left: the constant coefficient Case (i). Right: the variable-coefficient Case (ii).

We compare the condition numbers of the coefficient matrices, and GMRES iteration counts, computational time (in seconds) for six schemes for two sets of coefficients and two choices of $\omega=90^{\circ},160^{\circ}.$ When $\omega=160^{\circ},$ the obtuse triangle $\mathcal{T}$ has the interior angles: $\angle A=160^{\circ},\angle B\approx 15^{\circ},$ and $\angle C\approx 5^{\circ},$ so $\mathcal{T}$ is highly skewed and strongly deformed. This provides a stringent test of the robustness of the collocation schemes with respect to geometric distortion. Moreover, even for smooth $f$ , the solution may have limited regularity due to corner singularities. Near $A=(0,0)$ , the leading singular behavior is $u(r,\theta)\sim r^{\pi/\omega}\sin(\pi\theta/\omega)$ , where $(r,\theta)$ are local polar coordinates. Hence, for $\omega=160^{\circ}$ , the singular exponent is $\pi/\omega=9/8$ , while for $\omega=90^{\circ}$ , a resonant term of the form $r^{2}\log r$ may arise (see e.g., [5, 12]).

In Figure 6, we depict the condition numbers of six schemes, and observe that condition numbers of PLCOL and PBCOL grow like $\mathcal{O}(N),$ while the other two pairs behave like $\mathcal{O}(N^{4}),$ $\mathcal{O}(N^{6})$ or $\mathcal{O}(N^{8})$ for all cases. Indeed, this shows our Birkhoff preconditioners remain highly effective even for this challenging, strongly deformed geometry and the associated singular transformation. The results in Table 2 (for $\omega=90^{\circ}$ ) and Table 3 (for $\omega=160^{\circ}$ ) clearly indicate the necessity of preconditioning.

Table 2: GMRES iteration counts, CPU time (s) and relative

L^{\infty}

-errors/convergence order of PBCOL for (61) on

\mathcal{T}

with

\omega=90^{\circ}

		LCOL^⋆		BCOL^⋆		LCOL		BCOL		PLCOL		PBCOL
	$N$	Iter	Time	Iter	Time	Iter	Time	Iter	Time	Iter	Time	Iter	Time	Error	Rate
Case (i)	64	1666	15.14	1938	20.56	1317	9.673	937	5.007	23	0.036	23	0.044	8.78e $-$ 05	-
	128	5367	725.7	5771	846.1	3789	360.2	2537	166.6	23	0.066	23	0.069	5.57e $-$ 06	3.98
	256	/	/	/	/	/	/	/	/	23	0.386	23	0.502	3.50e $-$ 07	3.99
	512	/	/	/	/	/	/	/	/	22	1.332	23	1.402	2.15e $-$ 08	4.02
	1024	/	/	/	/	/	/	/	/	22	8.054	23	9.208	1.31e $-$ 09	4.04
	2048	/	/	/	/	/	/	/	/	23	62.15	24	73.58	8.22e $-$ 11	3.99
Case (ii)	64	1856	18.81	1935	20.42	1498	10.83	941	6.567	21	0.036	21	0.020	8.44e $-$ 05	-
	128	5987	905.8	5768	844.3	4295	444.9	2556	197.8	22	0.058	22	0.066	5.35e $-$ 06	3.98
	256	/	/	/	/	/	/	/	/	23	0.383	22	0.410	3.36e $-$ 07	3.99
	512	/	/	/	/	/	/	/	/	22	1.302	23	1.239	2.07e $-$ 08	4.03
	1024	/	/	/	/	/	/	/	/	23	8.044	24	8.442	1.26e $-$ 09	4.04
	2048	/	/	/	/	/	/	/	/	24	58.52	25	64.27	7.89e $-$ 11	3.99

Table 3: GMRES iteration counts, CPU time (s) and relative

L^{\infty}

-errors/convergence order of PBCOL for (61) on

\mathcal{T}

with

\omega=160^{\circ}

		LCOL^⋆		BCOL^⋆		LCOL		BCOL		PLCOL		PBCOL
	$N$	Iter	Time	Iter	Time	Iter	Time	Iter	Time	Iter	Time	Iter	Time	Error	Rate
Case (i)	64	2304	25.34	2463	32.56	1341	8.811	1141	7.472	88	0.094	88	0.098	4.65e $-$ 03	-
	128	/	/	/	/	3851	356.7	3225	253.2	92	0.436	93	0.352	9.85e $-$ 04	2.24
	256	/	/	/	/	/	/	/	/	95	2.040	96	1.839	2.08e $-$ 04	2.24
	512	/	/	/	/	/	/	/	/	98	4.839	99	4.606	4.37e $-$ 05	2.25
	1024	/	/	/	/	/	/	/	/	100	33.90	100	37.41	8.78e $-$ 06	2.32
	2048	/	/	/	/	/	/	/	/	102	234.5	102	274.1	1.54e $-$ 06	2.52
Case (ii)	64	2399	31.79	2414	29.37	1489	12.17	1116	7.042	90	0.101	90	0.139	4.34e $-$ 03	-
	128	/	/	/	/	4256	447.2	3163	260.1	94	0.380	95	0.351	9.20e $-$ 04	2.24
	256	/	/	/	/	/	/	/	/	96	1.939	97	1.848	1.94e $-$ 04	2.24
	512	/	/	/	/	/	/	/	/	99	4.701	100	4.820	4.09e $-$ 05	2.25
	1024	/	/	/	/	/	/	/	/	101	30.69	101	37.46	8.21e $-$ 06	2.32
	2048	/	/	/	/	/	/	/	/	103	237.3	103	258.2	1.43e $-$ 06	2.52

We also observe from the last column of two tables that the convergence rates of PBCOL are roughly $\mathcal{O}(N^{-4})$ and $\mathcal{O}(N^{-2.25})$ for $\omega=90^{\circ},160^{\circ},$ respectively. Under the transformation (62), the solution of (66): $\hat{u}\sim(1-\xi_{2})^{\frac{\pi}{\omega}}$ on $(-1,1)^{2},$ so the tensorial Legendre polynomial approximation has a convergence $O(N^{-\frac{2\pi}{\omega}})$ in $L^{\infty}$ -norm (see e.g., [31]), i.e., the convergence order for $\omega=160^{\circ}$ is about $\mathcal{O}(N^{-\frac{9}{4}})$ as shown in Table 3. For $\omega=90^{\circ},$ we have logarithmic singularity $\hat{u}\sim(1-\xi_{2})^{2}\log(1-\xi_{2}),$ so the best possible convergence order in $L^{\infty}$ -norm is $\mathcal{O}(N^{-4}),$ according to [31], which has a good agreement with the last column in Table 2.

3.5.3 Application to Allen-Cahn equation

It is known that time discretisation of many time-dependent problems by implicit-explicit (IMEX) schemes requires the solution of a second-order elliptic problem at each time step. The proposed approach makes collocation methods practical and compelling alternatives for such applications. As an illustration, we consider the Allen-Cahn equation and demonstrate that it is competitive with the adaptive spectral methods in [30], while offering clear advantages for more complex initial data.

Consider the Allen-Cahn equation as in [30]:

(70)

u_{t}=\gamma\big(\Delta u-\tfrac{1}{\eta^{2}}f(u)\big),\quad f(u)=u^{3}-u,\quad(\bm{x},t)\in\Omega\times(0,T],

where $\Omega=(-1,1)^{2}$ . The equation is supplemented with the homogeneous Dirichlet boundary condition and the initial condition $u(\bm{x},0)=u_{0}(\bm{x}).$ Here $\gamma>0$ is a time-scaling parameter, and the parameter $\eta>0$ controls the diffuse-interface thickness.

Let $t_{n}=n\tau$ and denote by $u^{n}$ the approximation to $u(\cdot,t_{n})$ . We adopt the same temporal discretisation as in [30]:

(71)

\displaystyle\tfrac{3u^{n+1}-4u^{n}+u^{n-1}}{2\tau}

\displaystyle+\tfrac{\gamma S}{\eta^{2}}(u^{n+1}-2u^{n}+u^{n-1})-\gamma\Delta u^{n+1}=-\tfrac{\gamma}{\eta^{2}}[2f(u^{n})-f(u^{n-1})],

where $S>0$ is the stabilization parameter. Thus, at each time step, we solve

(72)

(\tfrac{3}{2\tau}+\tfrac{\gamma S}{\eta^{2}}-\gamma\Delta)u^{n+1}=F^{n},

where

F^{n}=(\tfrac{2}{\tau}+\tfrac{2\gamma S}{\eta^{2}})u^{n}-(\tfrac{1}{2\tau}+\tfrac{\gamma S}{\eta^{2}})u^{n-1}-\tfrac{\gamma}{\eta^{2}}[2f(u^{n})-f(u^{n-1})].

Here, we use the Birkhoff collocation scheme for (72). According to Remark 3.1, we can explicitly invert the system using the stable diagonalisation, precomputed only once. As a result, PBCOL becomes a direct solver, and the time-marching is very efficient and stable for large $N$ .

We first test the shrinkage of a circular domain under the same setting as the moving-mesh spectral method in [30, Subsection 4.1], where the physical domain is $[0,256]^{2};$ the initial radius is $R_{0}=100,$ and $\gamma=\eta=1.$ Note that the exact radius evolves as $R^{2}(t)=R_{0}^{2}-2t$ . After mapping the physical domain to $[-1,1]^{2}$ , the parameters become $\gamma=\tfrac{1}{128^{2}}\approx 6.10351\times 10^{-5}$ and $\eta=\tfrac{1}{128}\approx 0.0078$ . Similar to [30], we take $S=1,\tau=10^{-2}$ and the initial data to be

u_{0}(x,y)=\tanh\big(\!-\tfrac{\sqrt{x^{2}+y^{2}}-R_{0}/128}{\sqrt{2}\eta}\big)(1-x^{4})(1-y^{4}).

In Figure 7, we compare the shrinkage of the circular domain between PBCOL (with a $300^{2}$ grid) and the moving mesh method (with a $65^{2}$ grid) in [30] in comparable computational time up to $T=5000$ . Our approach takes about $2748$ seconds, while the moving mesh takes about $3000$ seconds. Moreover, we observe from Figure 7 (middle) that PBCOL perfectly fits the exact radius $R^{2}(t)=R_{0}^{2}-2t,$ so it is more accurate. It is also evident that the collocation approach is much easier to implement.

We next conduct a more challenging test for an initial data involving $40$ randomly distributed circular domains:

u_{0}(x,y)=\tanh(-\tfrac{d(x,y)}{\sqrt{2}\eta})(1-x^{4})(1-y^{4}),\quad d(x,y)=\min_{1\leq k\leq 40}\big\{\sqrt{(x-x_{k})^{2}+(y-y_{k})^{2}}-R_{k}\big\},

where the centers $(x_{k},y_{k})$ are randomly sampled in $[-0.7,0.7]^{2}$ and likewise for the radii $R_{k}\in[0.05,0.13]$ . In such a complicated situation, we find the moving-mesh spectral method becomes unstable with so many interior interfaces to track and move the meshes towards. However, as shown in Figure 8, PBCOL with a $300^{2}$ grid produces very accurate results, and the (numerical) free energy decreases monotonically throughout the simulation. The total computational time up to $T=800$ (with $\tau=0.01$ and $80000$ time steps) is about $7$ minutes.

4 Birkhoff preconditioners in three dimensions

In this section, we extend the two-dimensional preconditioning framework to three-dimensional elliptic problems. Similarly, we first construct the preconditioners for separable variable problems and then consider general variable-coefficient problems, followed by numerical experiments.

4.1 Construction of Birkhoff preconditioners

We first consider

(73)

\mathcal{L}_{3}[u]=-a(x)u_{xx}-b(y)u_{yy}-c(z)u_{zz}+q(x,y,z)u,\quad(x,y,z)\in\Omega=(-1,1)^{3},

where the coefficients are given continuous functions such that $0<\alpha\leq a(x),\,b(y),\,c(z)\leq\beta,$ and $0\leq q_{\rm min}\leq q(x,y,z)\leq q_{\rm max}$ . Let

\mathbf{C}_{a}=\operatorname{diag}\bigl(a(x_{i})\bigr),\quad\mathbf{C}_{b}=\operatorname{diag}\bigl(b(y_{j})\bigr),\quad\mathbf{C}_{c}=\operatorname{diag}\bigl(c(z_{k})\bigr)

be the corresponding coefficient matrices, and $\mathbf{C}_{q}=\operatorname{diag}\bigl(q(x_{i},y_{j},z_{k})\bigr)$ denote the three-dimensional diagonal evaluation matrix of $q$ . With the same tensor-product ordering as in Section 3, the Lagrange-collocation and Birkhoff-collocation matrices are


(74a)	$\displaystyle\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}^{(3)}={}$	$\displaystyle-\mathbf{I}_{N-1}\otimes\mathbf{I}_{N-1}\otimes(\mathbf{C}_{a}\mathbf{D}^{(2)})-\mathbf{I}_{N-1}\otimes(\mathbf{C}_{b}\mathbf{D}^{(2)})\otimes\mathbf{I}_{N-1}$
	$\displaystyle-(\mathbf{C}_{c}\mathbf{D}^{(2)})\otimes\mathbf{I}_{N-1}\otimes\mathbf{I}_{N-1}+\mathbf{C}_{q},$
(74b)	$\displaystyle\mathbf{A}_{\rm B}^{(3)}={}$	$\displaystyle-\mathbf{B}\otimes\mathbf{B}\otimes\mathbf{C}_{a}-\mathbf{B}\otimes\mathbf{C}_{b}\otimes\mathbf{B}-\mathbf{C}_{c}\otimes\mathbf{B}\otimes\mathbf{B}+\mathbf{C}_{q}(\mathbf{B}\otimes\mathbf{B}\otimes\mathbf{B}).$

As in the two-dimensional case, we construct the right preconditioners from the second-order principal parts of (74) as in (26), that is,


(75a)	$\displaystyle\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}^{(3)}={}$	$\displaystyle-\big[\mathbf{I}_{N-1}\otimes\mathbf{I}_{N-1}\otimes(\mathbf{C}_{a}\mathbf{D}^{(2)})+\mathbf{I}_{N-1}\otimes(\mathbf{C}_{b}\mathbf{D}^{(2)})\otimes\mathbf{I}_{N-1}$
	$\displaystyle\hskip 56.9055pt+(\mathbf{C}_{c}\mathbf{D}^{(2)})\otimes\mathbf{I}_{N-1}\otimes\mathbf{I}_{N-1}\big]^{-1},$
(75b)	$\displaystyle\mathbf{P}_{\rm B}^{(3)}={}$	$\displaystyle-\big[\mathbf{B}\otimes\mathbf{B}\otimes\mathbf{C}_{a}+\mathbf{B}\otimes\mathbf{C}_{b}\otimes\mathbf{B}+\mathbf{C}_{c}\otimes\mathbf{B}\otimes\mathbf{B}\big]^{-1}.$

The diagonalized representations follow from the one-dimensional construction in Theorem 2.1:

\mathbf{C}_{\nu}\mathbf{D}^{(2)}=\mathbf{V}_{\nu}\mathbf{\Sigma}_{\nu}^{-1}\mathbf{V}_{\nu}^{-1},\quad\mathbf{B}\mathbf{C}_{\nu}^{-1}=\mathbf{V}_{\nu}\mathbf{\Sigma}_{\nu}\mathbf{V}_{\nu}^{-1},\quad\nu=a,b,c,

where $\mathbf{\Sigma}_{\nu}=\operatorname{diag}(\sigma_{\nu,1},\ldots,\sigma_{\nu,N-1}).$ Then as a direct extension of Theorem 3.1, we have


(76a)			$\displaystyle\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}^{(3)}=-(\mathbf{V}_{c}\otimes\mathbf{V}_{b}\otimes\mathbf{V}_{a})\mathbf{\Lambda}_{\rm L}^{(3)}(\mathbf{V}_{c}^{-1}\otimes\mathbf{V}_{b}^{-1}\otimes\mathbf{V}_{a}^{-1}),$
(76b)			$\displaystyle\mathbf{P}_{\rm B}^{(3)}=-(\mathbf{C}_{c}^{-1}\mathbf{V}_{c}\otimes\mathbf{C}_{b}^{-1}\mathbf{V}_{b}\otimes\mathbf{C}_{a}^{-1}\mathbf{V}_{a})\mathbf{\Lambda}_{\rm B}^{(3)}(\mathbf{V}_{c}^{-1}\otimes\mathbf{V}_{b}^{-1}\otimes\mathbf{V}_{a}^{-1}),$

where

(77)

\mathbf{\Lambda}_{\rm L}^{(3)}=\operatorname{diag}\big(\tfrac{\sigma_{a,i}\sigma_{b,j}\sigma_{c,k}}{\sigma_{b,j}\sigma_{c,k}+\sigma_{a,i}\sigma_{c,k}+\sigma_{a,i}\sigma_{b,j}}\big)_{i,j,k=1}^{N-1},\quad\mathbf{\Lambda}_{\rm B}^{(3)}=\operatorname{diag}\big(\tfrac{1}{\sigma_{b,j}\sigma_{c,k}+\sigma_{a,i}\sigma_{c,k}+\sigma_{a,i}\sigma_{b,j}}\big)_{i,j,k=1}^{N-1}.

Therefore, the three-dimensional separable construction requires only the three one-dimensional stable diagonalisations associated with $a,b$ and $c$ , while the remaining operations are diagonal tensor-product operations.

For general variable-coefficient problem, i.e., (36) in three dimensions. We construct the preconditioners by taking the diagonal principal coefficients using their directional averages. Like (38), we set

(78)

a(x)=\bar{a}_{11}(x)=\frac{1}{4}\int_{-1}^{1}\int_{-1}^{1}a_{11}(x,y,z)\,{\rm d}y\,{\rm d}z,

and likewise, $b(y)=\bar{a}_{22}(y)$ and $c(z)=\bar{a}_{33}(z)$ . The corresponding one-dimensional coefficient matrices $\mathbf{C}_{a}$ , $\mathbf{C}_{b}$ , and $\mathbf{C}_{c}$ are then constructed from these averaged coefficients and substituted directly into the three-dimensional preconditioners (75). Thus, the non-separable variable-coefficient case retains the same computational structure as the separable construction above.

Remark 4.1.

The analysis of eigenvalue distributions and conditioning, and estimates in two dimensions in Subsection 3.4 can be extended to three dimensions without significant difficulty.

4.2 Numerical results

We now assess the performance of the proposed preconditioned collocation methods, and focus on solving variable-coefficient problems resulting from coordinate transformations of the three-dimensional modified Helmholtz problems:

(79)

-\Delta u+\gamma u=f\quad\text{in }\;\widehat{\Omega};\quad u=0\quad\text{on }\;\partial\widehat{\Omega},\quad\gamma\geq 0,

where $\widehat{\Omega}$ is a tetrahedron or a curved hexahedron, as illustrated in Figure 9. We adopt the 3D Duffy and Gordon-Hall transformations to covert (79) to the reference hexahedron $\Omega=(-1,1)^{3}.$

We first consider (79) on the tetrahedron $\widehat{\Omega}=\operatorname{conv}\{(0,0,0),(1,0,0),(0,1,0),(0,0,1)\},$ with $\gamma=100,f(x,y,z)=10^{4}\exp\big(\!-\tfrac{x^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2}}{0.05^{2}}\big).$ The reference solution is computed by PBCOL with $N=512$ . Like (62), the three-dimensional Duffy transformation reads

(80)

\mathbf{x}(\bm{\xi})=\begin{bmatrix}\dfrac{(1+\xi_{1})(1-\xi_{2})(1-\xi_{3})}{8},\dfrac{(1+\xi_{2})(1-\xi_{3})}{4},\dfrac{1+\xi_{3}}{2}\end{bmatrix}^{\intercal},\quad\bm{\xi}=(\xi_{1},\xi_{2},\xi_{3})^{\intercal}\in\Omega,

which collapses the top surface of $\Omega$ to the vertex $(0,0,1)$ of $\widehat{\Omega}$ (see Figure 9). Following the same process as in Subsection 3.5.2, we can obtain the mapped variable coefficient problems on $\Omega$ and construct the collocation systems. Here, we omit the details.

Figure 10 (left) shows the numerical results for the three-dimensional Duffy-transformed problem. The left panel shows the isosurface of the numerical solution at $u=0.2$ for $N=512$ , which captures the localized corner singularity near the origin. The middle panel displays the error isosurface at $4\times 10^{-9}$ for $N=128$ , showing that the numerical error remains small even near the collapsed region of the Duffy transformation. More importantly, the right panel shows that the condition numbers of $\mathrm{LCOL}^{\star}$ and $\mathrm{BCOL}^{\star}$ grow approximately as $\mathcal{O}(N^{10})$ and $\mathcal{O}(N^{8})$ , respectively, while those of LCOL and BCOL exhibit a much slower $\mathcal{O}(N^{4})$ growth. By contrast, the condition numbers of PLCOL and PBCOL remain substantially smaller and increase only mildly with $N$ , demonstrating the effectiveness of the proposed preconditioners for the three-dimensional Duffy-transformed problem.

Table 4: GMRES iteration counts, and CPU time (s) and relative

L^{\infty}

-errors/convergence order of PBCOL for (79) on

\widehat{\Omega}

$N$ LCOL^⋆ BCOL^⋆ LCOL BCOL PLCOL PBCOL Iter Time Iter Time Iter Time Iter Time Iter Time Iter Time Error Rate 8 222 0.078 326 0.136 98 0.020 221 0.064 22 0.017 22 0.022 8.04e $-$ 01 - 16 1350 8.722 2593 35.30 309 0.523 1259 7.932 24 0.022 24 0.034 6.96e $-$ 02 3.53 32 / / / / 1077 47.79 / / 25 0.226 25 0.440 5.05e $-$ 03 3.79 64 / / / / 3868 2573 / / 25 0.924 25 1.821 3.16e $-$ 04 4.00 128 / / / / / / / / 24 7.367 24 10.79 2.07e $-$ 05 3.93 256 / / / / / / / / 24 79.49 23 114.9 1.23e $-$ 06 4.07

Table 4 reports the comparison similar to Table 2 in two dimensions. Indeed, we also observe the good performance of PLCOL and PBCOL, and particularly, PBCOL captures and resolves the leading corner singularity with the expected order ${\mathcal{O}}(N^{-4})$ as in the last column of Table 2.

Finally, we consider (79) on a curved hexahedral domain $\widehat{\Omega}$ with $f=\cosh(4x)\cosh(4y)\cosh(z)$ and $\gamma=1,$ where $\widehat{\Omega}$ is generated from the reference cube $\Omega=(-1,1)^{3}$ by the Gordon-Hall transformation (see Figure 9 (right)):

(81)

\mathbf{x}=\mathbf{T}(\bm{\xi})=\big(r(\xi_{3})\xi_{1},\;r(\xi_{3})\xi_{2},\;\xi_{3}+\tfrac{\alpha}{2}(1+\xi_{3})\big(1-\tfrac{\xi_{1}^{2}+\xi_{2}^{2}}{2}\big)\big)^{\intercal},\;\;\;r(\xi_{3})=\tfrac{1-\xi_{3}}{2}+\rho\tfrac{1+\xi_{3}}{2},

where $\alpha,\rho>0$ are two tuning geometric parameters. In the test, we take $\alpha=0.85$ and $\rho=1.25.$

Note that unlike the Duffy transformation, the Gordon-Hall mapping (81) is regular, so we directly formulate the scheme and construct the preconditioners based on the transformed problem (see (65)) without multiplying the Jacobian (see (66)).

The reference solution is computed by PBCOL with $N=512$ . The left and middle panels in Figure 11 display representative solution slices and the pointwise error distribution, respectively, showing that the numerical solution remains accurate over the curved domain. More importantly, the right panel indicates that the condition numbers of LCOL and BCOL grow approximately as $\mathcal{O}(N^{4})$ and $\mathcal{O}(N^{8})$ , respectively, whereas those of PLCOL and PBCOL remain nearly constant. This demonstrates the effectiveness of the proposed preconditioners for the nonseparable coefficients induced by the Gordon-Hall transformation.

We provide in Table 5 a more quantitative comparison of the collocation schemes. As in the two-dimensional cases, the results again demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed preconditioning techniques, which accurately resolve the corner singularity within the optimal approximability of tensorial polynomial bases.

Table 5: Errors, GMRES iteration counts, and CPU time (s) for the 3D Gordon-Hall problem.

$N$	LCOL		BCOL		PLCOL		PBCOL
$N$	Iter	Time	Iter	Time	Iter	Time	Iter	Time	Error	Rate
8	52	0.015	144	0.040	18	0.243	18	0.271	1.81e $-$ 01	-
16	202	0.213	1098	5.649	23	0.504	23	0.521	1.88e $-$ 02	3.27
32	763	25.13	/	/	25	1.204	25	1.354	1.74e $-$ 03	3.43
64	2872	1394	/	/	27	3.171	27	3.838	1.83e $-$ 04	3.25
128	/	/	/	/	28	14.21	28	18.29	1.73e $-$ 05	3.39
256	/	/	/	/	32	135.3	28	152.6	1.98e $-$ 06	3.13

5 Conclusion

In this work, we resolve the long-standing issue of ill-conditioning of multidimensional Legendre collocation methods for second-order elliptic problems. The key to the success of the proposed approach is the stable diagonalisation of the underlying differentiation and integration matrices through a judiciously constructed similar symmetric matrix that properly incorporates the variable coefficients of the principal part. We justify the effectiveness of the proposed preconditioning technique through spectral and conditioning analyses, and demonstrate its robustness with extensive numerical tests on a variety of challenging elliptic-type problems.

This work is our first attempt in this direction, with significant implications and some follow-up issues and aspects worthy of in-depth investigation, for instance,

(i)

Here, we only considered the second-order elliptic problems with Dirichlet boundary, but the idea and framework can be extended to other boundary conditions, and fourth-order problems (for which the usual collocation method suffers from even severer ill-conditioning).
(ii)

The preconditioning on triangles and tetrahedra sheds light on, and may provide a foundation for, effective preconditioning of spectral element methods on unstructured meshes [17, 18]. Indeed, effective preconditioners are needed for high-order element methods in various formulations (see e.g., [15, 4, 8, 1, 3]), and our approach may offer a more natural high-order alternative to the low-order preconditioning strategies employed therein.

We shall report further developments along these lines in future work.

Appendix A Proof of Theorem 3.3

In this section, we provide the detailed proof of Theorem 3.3. We first decompose the Lagrange-collocation operator into its second-order principal part, first-order part, and zeroth-order term. We then establish two auxiliary estimates in two lemmas: the first gives a uniform equivalence between the second-order principal part and the separable reference operator, while the second controls the first-order part in terms of the same reference operator. Finally, these estimates are combined with the stability assumption to derive the uniform spectral bounds for the preconditioned matrix.

We first introduce two auxiliary estimates needed in the proof. In view of Proposition 3.1, it is sufficient to consider $\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}$ . We decompose the Lagrange-collocation matrix in (37a) as $\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}=\mathbf{A}_{{\rm L},2}+\mathbf{A}_{{\rm L},1}+\breve{\mathbf{S}},$ where


(82a)	$\displaystyle\mathbf{A}_{{\rm L},2}={}$	$\displaystyle-\mathbf{C}_{11}(\mathbf{I}_{N-1}\otimes\mathbf{D}^{(2)})-2\mathbf{C}_{12}(\mathbf{D}\otimes\mathbf{D})-\mathbf{C}_{22}(\mathbf{D}^{(2)}\otimes\mathbf{I}_{N-1}),$
(82b)	$\displaystyle\mathbf{A}_{{\rm L},1}={}$	$\displaystyle\mathbf{Q}_{1}(\mathbf{I}_{N-1}\otimes\mathbf{D})+\mathbf{Q}_{2}(\mathbf{D}\otimes\mathbf{I}_{N-1}).$

The analysis relies on two auxiliary estimates. The first establishes the uniform equivalence between the second-order principal part $\mathbf{A}_{{\rm L},2}$ and the separable reference operator $\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}^{-1}$ , while the second controls the first-order part $\mathbf{A}_{{\rm L},1}$ in terms of the same reference operator. Throughout this section, the superscript $*$ denotes complex conjugation, while the superscript ${\rm H}$ denotes the conjugate transpose.

A.1 Uniform equivalence between $\mathbf{A}_{{\rm L},2}$ and $\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}^{-1}$

We first establish a uniform equivalence between the full second-order principal part $\mathbf{A}_{{\rm L},2}$ and the separable reference operator $\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}^{-1}$ . This estimate provides the main control of the principal part in the subsequent spectral analysis.

Lemma A.1.

For the general variable-coefficient problem (36), define

(83)

\mathbf{A}_{0}(x,y)=\operatorname{diag}\bigl(\bar{a}_{11}(x),\bar{a}_{22}(y)\bigr),\quad\mathbf{R}(x,y)=\mathbf{A}_{0}^{-\frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{A}\mathbf{A}_{0}^{-\frac{1}{2}}.

Assume that both $\mathbf{A}$ and $\mathbf{A}_{0}$ are uniformly positive definite. Then there exist positive constants $c_{1},c_{2}$ , independent of $N$ , such that

(84)

c_{1}\|\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}^{-1}\bm{v}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}}\leq\|\mathbf{A}_{{\rm L},2}\bm{v}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}}\leq c_{2}\|\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}^{-1}\bm{v}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}},\quad\forall\,\bm{v}\in\mathbb{C}^{(N-1)^{2}},

where ${\mathbf{H}}=(\mathbf{W}\mathbf{C}_{b}^{-1})\otimes(\mathbf{W}\mathbf{C}_{a}^{-1})$ and $\|\bm{v}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}}=\sqrt{\bm{v}^{\rm H}{\mathbf{H}}\bm{v}}.$

Proof.

By the definition of $\mathbf{R}(x,y)$ in (83), we know that it is SPD, thus if we denote the two eigenvalues of $\mathbf{R}$ as $\mu_{1}(x,y)$ and $\mu_{2}(x,y)$ , then there exist positive constants $m,M$ such that $m<\mu_{1},\mu_{2}<M$ holds for all $(x,y)\in\Omega$ . Here we define

\varphi(x,y):=\frac{\operatorname{tr}\mathbf{R}(x,y)}{\|\mathbf{R}(x,y)\|_{F}^{2}},\quad{\rm and}\quad\rho_{A}:=\sup_{(x,y)\in\Omega}\|\varphi\mathbf{R}-\mathbf{I}_{2}\|_{F},

where $\|\cdot\|_{F}$ is the Frobenius norm. Since $\mathbf{R}(x,y)$ is SPD with eigenvalues $\mu_{1}$ and $\mu_{2}$ , it is clear that

(85)

\operatorname{tr}\mathbf{R}=\mu_{1}+\mu_{2},\quad\|\mathbf{R}(x,y)\|_{F}^{2}=\mu_{1}^{2}+\mu_{2}^{2}\quad\Rightarrow\quad\varphi=\tfrac{\mu_{1}+\mu_{2}}{\mu_{1}^{2}+\mu_{2}^{2}}.

Then, the eigenvalues of the shifted matrix $\varphi\mathbf{R}-\mathbf{I}_{2}$ are precisely $\varphi\mu_{1}-1$ and $\varphi\mu_{2}-1$ and

\|\varphi\mathbf{R}-\mathbf{I}_{2}\|_{F}^{2}=(\varphi\mu_{1}-1)^{2}+(\varphi\mu_{2}-1)^{2}=\dfrac{(\mu_{1}-\mu_{2})^{2}}{(\mu_{1}^{2}+\mu_{2}^{2})},

which leads to $\rho_{A}<1$ .

(86)

\mathscr{H}_{0,h}v_{N}=\begin{bmatrix}\bar{a}_{11}v_{N,xx}&\sqrt{\bar{a}_{11}\bar{a}_{22}}\,v_{N,xy}\\ \sqrt{\bar{a}_{11}\bar{a}_{22}}\,v_{N,xy}&\bar{a}_{22}v_{N,yy}\end{bmatrix},

and for a matrix-valued grid function $\mathbf{G}$ , set

\|\mathbf{G}\|_{{\mathbf{H}},F}^{2}:=\sum_{i,j=1}^{N-1}\frac{\omega_{i}\omega_{j}}{\bar{a}_{11}(x_{i})\bar{a}_{22}(y_{j})}\|\mathbf{G}(x_{i},y_{j})\|_{F}^{2}.

By the definition of $\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}^{-1}$ in (26a), at each interior node $(x_{i},y_{j})$ , we have

(87)

(\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}^{-1}\bm{v})_{ij}=-a_{i}v_{N,xx}(x_{i},y_{j})-b_{j}v_{N,yy}(x_{i},y_{j}),

where $a_{i}:=\bar{a}_{11}(x_{i}),b_{j}:=\bar{a}_{22}(y_{j}).$ By the definition of ${\mathbf{H}}$ , it is clear that ${\mathbf{H}}$ is diagonal, and its diagonal entry corresponding to the tensor-product node $(x_{i},y_{j})$ is $\frac{\omega_{i}\omega_{j}}{a_{i}b_{j}}.$ Therefore,

(88)		$\displaystyle\\|\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}^{-1}\bm{v}\\|_{{\mathbf{H}}}^{2}$	$\displaystyle=\sum_{i,j=1}^{N-1}\frac{\omega_{i}\omega_{j}}{a_{i}b_{j}}\left\|a_{i}v_{N,xx}(x_{i},y_{j})+b_{j}v_{N,yy}(x_{i},y_{j})\right\|^{2}$
(88)			$\displaystyle=\sum_{i,j=1}^{N-1}\omega_{i}\omega_{j}\Big(\frac{a_{i}}{b_{j}}\|v_{N,xx}\|^{2}+\frac{b_{j}}{a_{i}}\|v_{N,yy}\|^{2}+2\operatorname{Re}\bigl(v_{N,xx}v_{N,yy}^{*}\bigr)\Big)(x_{i},y_{j}).$

On the other hand, by the definition of $\mathscr{H}_{0,h}v_{N}$ in (83) and (86), we obtain that at each interior node $(x_{i},y_{j})$ ,

\|\mathscr{H}_{0,h}v_{N}(x_{i},y_{j})\|_{F}^{2}=a_{i}^{2}|v_{N,xx}|^{2}+2a_{i}b_{j}|v_{N,xy}|^{2}+b_{j}^{2}|v_{N,yy}|^{2},

which leads to

(89)

\|\mathscr{H}_{0,h}v_{N}\|_{{\mathbf{H}},F}^{2}=\sum_{i,j=1}^{N-1}\omega_{i}\omega_{j}\Big(\frac{a_{i}}{b_{j}}|v_{N,xx}|^{2}+2|v_{N,xy}|^{2}+\frac{b_{j}}{a_{i}}|v_{N,yy}|^{2}\Big)(x_{i},y_{j}).

Since $v_{N}|_{\partial\Omega}=0,$ integration by parts twice gives

(90)

\int_{\Omega}|v_{N,xy}|^{2}\,dxdy=\Re\int_{\Omega}v_{N,xx}v_{N,yy}^{*}\,dxdy=\Re\sum_{i,j=1}^{N-1}\omega_{i}\omega_{j}v_{N,xx}(x_{i},y_{j})v_{N,yy}^{*}(x_{i},y_{j}),

where the first equality follows from integration by parts and the homogeneous boundary condition, while the second follows from the exactness of the tensor-product LGL quadrature. In addition, the boundary-node contributions of $|v_{N,xy}|^{2}$ are nonnegative, and therefore

\sum_{i,j=1}^{N-1}\omega_{i}\omega_{j}|v_{N,xy}(x_{i},y_{j})|^{2}\leq\int_{\Omega}|v_{N,xy}|^{2}\,dxdy=\Re\sum_{i,j=1}^{N-1}\omega_{i}\omega_{j}v_{N,xx}(x_{i},y_{j})v_{N,yy}^{*}(x_{i},y_{j}).

Consequently, by (88)–(89), we have

(91)

\|\mathscr{H}_{0,h}v_{N}\|_{{\mathbf{H}},F}\leq\|\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}^{-1}\bm{v}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}}.

Moreover, we define $\mathbf{\varphi}=\operatorname{diag}(\varphi(x_{i},y_{j}))_{i,j=1}^{N-1}.$ By (83) and (86) one has

\operatorname{tr}\left((\varphi\mathbf{R}-\mathbf{I}_{2})^{\intercal}\mathscr{H}_{0,h}v_{N}\right)=(\varphi a_{11}-\bar{a}_{11})v_{N,xx}+2\varphi a_{12}v_{N,xy}+(\varphi a_{22}-\bar{a}_{22})v_{N,yy}.

According to the definition of $\mathbf{A}_{{\rm L},2}$ in (82a), at each interior LGL node one has

(\mathbf{A}_{{\rm L},2}\bm{v})_{ij}=-\bigl(a_{11}v_{N,xx}+2a_{12}v_{N,xy}+a_{22}v_{N,yy}\bigr)(x_{i},y_{j}),

Therefore, combining (87), we obtain that

\displaystyle(\mathbf{\varphi}\mathbf{A}_{{\rm L},2}\bm{v}-\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}^{-1}\bm{v})_{ij}=-[(\varphi a_{11}-\bar{a}_{11})v_{N,xx}+2\varphi a_{12}v_{N,xy}+(\varphi a_{22}-\bar{a}_{22})v_{N,yy}](x_{i},y_{j}),

which implies that $-(\mathbf{\varphi}\mathbf{A}_{{\rm L},2}\bm{v}-\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}^{-1}\bm{v})_{ij}=\operatorname{tr}\left((\varphi\mathbf{R}-\mathbf{I}_{2})^{\intercal}\mathscr{H}_{0,h}v_{N}\right).$ By the Frobenius Cauchy–Schwarz inequality, we have

\left|\operatorname{tr}\left((\varphi\mathbf{R}-\mathbf{I}_{2})^{\intercal}\mathscr{H}_{0,h}v_{N}\right)\right|\leq\|\varphi\mathbf{R}-\mathbf{I}_{2}\|_{F}\|\mathscr{H}_{0,h}v_{N}\|_{F}.

By the definition of $\rho_{A}$ , it leads to

(92)

\left|(\mathbf{\varphi}\mathbf{A}_{{\rm L},2}\bm{v}-\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}^{-1}\bm{v})_{ij}\right|\leq\rho_{A}\|\mathscr{H}_{0,h}v_{N}(x_{i},y_{j})\|_{F}.

Squaring both sides of (92), multiplying by the weight $\frac{\omega_{i}\omega_{j}}{a_{i}b_{j}}$ , and summing over $i,j$ , we obtain

\displaystyle\|\mathbf{\varphi}\mathbf{A}_{{\rm L},2}\bm{v}-\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}^{-1}\bm{v}\|_{\mathbf{H}}^{2}\leq\rho_{A}^{2}\sum_{i,j=1}^{N-1}\frac{\omega_{i}\omega_{j}}{a_{i}b_{j}}\|\mathscr{H}_{0,h}v_{N}(x_{i},y_{j})\|_{F}^{2}=\rho_{A}^{2}\|\mathscr{H}_{0,h}v_{N}\|_{\mathbf{H},F}^{2}.

Using (91) we finally obtain

(93)

\|\mathbf{\varphi}\mathbf{A}_{{\rm L},2}\bm{v}-\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}^{-1}\bm{v}\|_{\mathbf{H}}\leq\rho_{A}\|\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}^{-1}\bm{v}\|_{\mathbf{H}}.

By (85), we find that $M^{-1}<\varphi<m^{-1}$ , then the definition of $\mathbf{\varphi}$ leads to

(94)

M^{-1}\|\mathbf{A}_{{\rm L},2}\bm{v}\|_{\mathbf{H}}\leq\|\mathbf{\varphi}\mathbf{A}_{{\rm L},2}\bm{v}\|_{\mathbf{H}}\leq m^{-1}\|\mathbf{A}_{{\rm L},2}\bm{v}\|_{\mathbf{H}}.

Combining (93)–(94) and the fact of $\rho_{A}<1$ we proved above, we obtain

m(1-\rho_{A})\|\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}^{-1}\bm{v}\|_{\mathbf{H}}\leq\|\mathbf{A}_{{\rm L},2}\bm{v}\|_{\mathbf{H}}\leq M(1+\rho_{A})\|\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}^{-1}\bm{v}\|_{\mathbf{H}},

which ends the proof.

A.2 Bound of the operator $\mathbf{A}_{{\rm L},1}$

We next derive a relative bound for the first-order part $\mathbf{A}_{{\rm L},1}$ in terms of the reference operator $\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}^{-1}$ and the weighted discrete norm. This estimate is used to control the lower-order contribution in the spectral analysis.

Lemma A.2.

For the general variable-coefficient problem (36), assume that

0<\alpha_{0}\leq\bar{a}_{11}(x),\,\bar{a}_{22}(y)\leq\beta_{0}<\infty.

Let $q_{\infty}=\|\sqrt{q_{1}^{2}+q_{2}^{2}}\|_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}.$ Then, for every $\bm{v}\in\mathbb{C}^{(N-1)^{2}},$

(95)

\|\mathbf{A}_{{\rm L},1}\bm{v}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}}\leq\frac{q_{\infty}}{\sqrt{\alpha_{0}}}\|\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}^{-1}\bm{v}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}}^{\frac{1}{2}}\,\|\bm{v}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}}^{\frac{1}{2}}.

Proof.

For $\bm{v}\in\mathbb{C}^{(N-1)^{2}},$ let $v_{N}\in\mathbb{P}_{N}\otimes\mathbb{P}_{N}\cap H_{0}^{1}(\Omega)$ be the tensor-product Lagrange polynomial associated with $\bm{v}$ through (18). At every interior LGL node, by the definition of $\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}$ in (82b), we have

(\mathbf{A}_{{\rm L},1}\bm{v})_{ij}=q_{1}(x_{i},y_{j})v_{N,x}(x_{i},y_{j})+q_{2}(x_{i},y_{j})v_{N,y}(x_{i},y_{j}).

Since $\mathbf{H}=(\mathbf{W}\mathbf{C}_{b}^{-1})\otimes(\mathbf{W}\mathbf{C}_{a}^{-1})$ , and denoting $a_{i}=\bar{a}_{11}(x_{i})$ and $b_{j}=\bar{a}_{22}(y_{j})$ as the proof of Lemma A.1, we have

(96)

\|\mathbf{A}_{{\rm L},1}\bm{v}\|_{\mathbf{H}}^{2}=\sum_{i,j=1}^{N-1}\frac{\omega_{i}\omega_{j}}{a_{i}b_{j}}\left|q_{1}(x_{i},y_{j})v_{N,x}(x_{i},y_{j})+q_{2}(x_{i},y_{j})v_{N,y}(x_{i},y_{j})\right|^{2}.

By the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality, it leads to

(97)

|q_{1}v_{N,x}+q_{2}v_{N,y}|^{2}\leq(q_{1}^{2}+q_{2}^{2})\left(|v_{N,x}|^{2}+|v_{N,y}|^{2}\right)\leq q_{\infty}^{2}\left(|v_{N,x}|^{2}+|v_{N,y}|^{2}\right).

Therefore, combining (96)–(97), we obtain that

\|\mathbf{A}_{{\rm L},1}\bm{v}\|_{\mathbf{H}}^{2}\leq q_{\infty}^{2}\sum_{i,j=1}^{N-1}\frac{\omega_{i}\omega_{j}}{a_{i}b_{j}}\left(|v_{N,x}|^{2}+|v_{N,y}|^{2}\right).

Using $a_{i},b_{j}\geq\alpha_{0}$ , we have

(98)

\|\mathbf{A}_{{\rm L},1}\bm{v}\|_{\mathbf{H}}^{2}\leq\frac{q_{\infty}^{2}}{\alpha_{0}}\sum_{i,j=1}^{N-1}\omega_{i}\omega_{j}\left(\frac{|v_{N,x}(x_{i},y_{j})|^{2}}{\bar{a}_{22}(y_{j})}+\frac{|v_{N,y}(x_{i},y_{j})|^{2}}{\bar{a}_{11}(x_{i})}\right).

On the other hand, from the definition of $\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}$ in (26a) and $\mathbf{H}=(\mathbf{W}\mathbf{C}_{b}^{-1})\otimes(\mathbf{W}\mathbf{C}_{a}^{-1}),$ we obtain

\displaystyle(\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}^{-1}\bm{v},\bm{v})_{\mathbf{H}}={}

\displaystyle-\bm{v}^{\rm H}[(\mathbf{W}\mathbf{C}_{b}^{-1})\otimes(\mathbf{W}\mathbf{D}^{(2)})]\bm{v}-\bm{v}^{\rm H}[(\mathbf{W}\mathbf{D}^{(2)})\otimes(\mathbf{W}\mathbf{C}_{a}^{-1})]\bm{v}.

For each fixed $y_{j}$ , since $v_{N}$ satisfies the homogeneous Dirichlet boundary condition, $v_{N}(\pm 1,y_{j})=0$ . The exactness of the LGL quadrature and integration by parts implies that

-\sum_{i=1}^{N-1}\omega_{i}v_{N}^{*}(x_{i},y_{j})v_{N,xx}(x_{i},y_{j})=\int_{-1}^{1}|v_{N,x}(x,y_{j})|^{2}\,{\rm d}x=\sum_{i=0}^{N}\omega_{i}|v_{N,x}(x_{i},y_{j})|^{2}.

Similarly, for each fixed $x_{i}$ ,

-\sum_{j=1}^{N-1}\omega_{j}v_{N}^{*}(x_{i},y_{j})v_{N,yy}(x_{i},y_{j})=\sum_{j=0}^{N}\omega_{j}|v_{N,y}(x_{i},y_{j})|^{2}.

Therefore,

(99)

(\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}^{-1}\bm{v},\bm{v})_{\mathbf{H}}=\sum_{i,j=0}^{N}\omega_{i}\omega_{j}\left(\frac{|v_{N,x}(x_{i},y_{j})|^{2}}{\bar{a}_{22}(y_{j})}+\frac{|v_{N,y}(x_{i},y_{j})|^{2}}{\bar{a}_{11}(x_{i})}\right).

Since all the terms in the summation are nonnegative, combining (98)–(99) yields

\displaystyle\|\mathbf{A}_{{\rm L},1}\bm{v}\|_{\mathbf{H}}^{2}\leq\frac{q_{\infty}^{2}}{\alpha_{0}}(\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}^{-1}\bm{v},\bm{v})_{\mathbf{H}}\leq\frac{q_{\infty}^{2}}{\alpha_{0}}\|\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}^{-1}\bm{v}\|_{\mathbf{H}}\|\bm{v}\|_{\mathbf{H}},

where the last inequality uses the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality with respect to the $\mathbf{H}$ -inner product. This ends the proof.

A.3 Detailed proof

With the estimates for the second- and first-order parts established above, we now prove the uniform spectral bounds for the preconditioned collocation matrix.

Proof.

By Proposition 3.1, it suffices to consider $\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}$ . We first consider the upper bound in (58). Arguing as in the proof of Theorem 3.2, let $\mathbf{K}_{\rm L}=\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}^{-1}$ and consider an eigenpair $\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}\bm{v}=\lambda\mathbf{K}_{\rm L}\bm{v}.$ By Lemmas A.1 and A.2, we have

(100)

\|\mathbf{A}_{{\rm L},2}\bm{v}\|_{\mathbf{H}}\leq C\|\mathbf{K}_{\rm L}\bm{v}\|_{\mathbf{H}},\quad\|\mathbf{A}_{{\rm L},1}\bm{v}\|_{\mathbf{H}}\leq\frac{q_{\infty}}{\sqrt{\alpha_{0}}}\|\mathbf{K}_{\rm L}\bm{v}\|_{\mathbf{H}}^{\frac{1}{2}}\|\bm{v}\|_{\mathbf{H}}^{\frac{1}{2}}.

Here we also set $\widehat{\mathbf{K}}_{\rm L}:=\mathbf{H}^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{K}_{\rm L}\mathbf{H}^{-\frac{1}{2}}$ which is SPD and has the same spectrum as $\mathbf{K}_{\rm L}$ . Let $\bm{w}=\mathbf{H}^{\frac{1}{2}}\bm{v}$ . Then it is clear that

\|\mathbf{K}_{\rm L}\bm{v}\|_{\mathbf{H}}=\|\mathbf{H}^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathbf{K}_{\rm L}\bm{v}\|_{2}=\|\widehat{\mathbf{K}}_{\rm L}\bm{w}\|_{2}\geq\lambda_{\min}(\widehat{\mathbf{K}}_{\rm L})\|\bm{w}\|_{2}.

Therefore, (52) and the fact of $\|\bm{w}\|_{2}=\|\bm{v}\|_{\mathbf{H}}$ lead to

(101)

\|\mathbf{K}_{\rm L}\bm{v}\|_{\mathbf{H}}\geq\frac{\alpha_{0}\pi^{2}}{2}\|\bm{v}\|_{\mathbf{H}}.

Thus combining (100)–(101), we have

(102)

\|\mathbf{A}_{{\rm L},1}\bm{v}\|_{\mathbf{H}}\leq\frac{\sqrt{2}q_{\infty}}{\alpha_{0}\pi}\|\mathbf{K}_{\rm L}\bm{v}\|_{\mathbf{H}}.

Since $\breve{\mathbf{S}}$ is a diagonal matrix composed of $s(x_{i},y_{j})$ and $0<s\leq s_{\max}$ , by (101) we have

(103)

\|\breve{\mathbf{S}}\bm{v}\|_{\mathbf{H}}\leq s_{\max}\|\bm{v}\|_{\mathbf{H}}.

Recall that $\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}=\mathbf{A}_{{\rm L},2}+\mathbf{A}_{{\rm L},1}+\breve{\mathbf{S}},$ combining the above three estimates (100), (102) and (103) yields

\|\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}\bm{v}\|_{\mathbf{H}}\leq\left(C+\frac{\sqrt{2}q_{\infty}}{\alpha_{0}\pi}+\frac{2s_{\max}}{\alpha_{0}\pi^{2}}\right)\|\mathbf{K}_{\rm L}\bm{v}\|_{\mathbf{H}},

which proves the upper bound in (58).

For the lower bound, we argue by contradiction. Suppose that the eigenvalues of the preconditioned matrices are not uniformly bounded away from the origin as $N$ increases. Then there exists a sequence of polynomial degrees $N_{k}\to\infty$ and corresponding eigenpairs

\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}^{k}\bm{v}_{k}=\lambda_{k}\mathbf{K}_{\rm L}^{k}\bm{v}_{k},\quad|\lambda_{k}|\to 0.

normalized by $\|\mathbf{K}_{\rm L}^{k}\bm{v}_{k}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}_{k}}=1.$ Then one has $\|\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}^{k}\bm{v}_{k}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}_{k}}=|\lambda_{k}|\to 0.$

For $\bm{v}\in\mathbb{C}^{(N-1)^{2}},$ let $v_{N}\in\mathbb{P}_{N}\otimes\mathbb{P}_{N}\cap H_{0}^{1}(\Omega)$ be the tensor-product Lagrange polynomial associated with $\bm{v}$ through (18). Because the bound (101) holds for any $k$ , then by $\|\mathbf{K}_{\rm L}^{k}\bm{v}_{k}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}_{k}}=1$ and the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality, we have

(104)

\|\bm{v}_{k}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}_{k}}\leq\frac{2}{\alpha_{0}\pi^{2}},\quad{\rm and}\quad(\mathbf{K}_{\rm L}^{k}\bm{v}_{k},\bm{v}_{k})_{{\mathbf{H}}_{k}}\leq\frac{2}{\alpha_{0}\pi^{2}}.

From (99), we have

(\mathbf{K}_{\rm L}^{k}\bm{v}_{k},\bm{v}_{k})_{\mathbf{H}_{k}}=\sum_{i,j=0}^{N_{k}}\omega_{i}\omega_{j}\left(\frac{|v_{k,x}(x_{i},y_{j})|^{2}}{\bar{a}_{22}(y_{j})}+\frac{|v_{k,y}(x_{i},y_{j})|^{2}}{\bar{a}_{11}(x_{i})}\right).

Since $\bar{a}_{11}(x),\bar{a}_{22}(y)\leq\beta_{0}$ , it leads to

(\mathbf{K}_{\rm L}^{k}\bm{v}_{k},\bm{v}_{k})_{\mathbf{H}_{k}}\geq\frac{1}{\beta_{0}}\sum_{i,j=0}^{N_{k}}\omega_{i}\omega_{j}\left(|v_{k,x}(x_{i},y_{j})|^{2}+|v_{k,y}(x_{i},y_{j})|^{2}\right).

Thus by (104) it follows that

\sum_{i,j=0}^{N_{k}}\omega_{i}\omega_{j}\left(|v_{k,x}(x_{i},y_{j})|^{2}+|v_{k,y}(x_{i},y_{j})|^{2}\right)\leq\frac{2\beta_{0}}{\alpha_{0}\pi^{2}}.

Moreover, by the uniform equivalence between the tensor-product LGL discrete norm and the continuous $L^{2}$ -norm, there exists a constant $C_{\rm LGL}$ independent of $N_{k}$ , such that

\|v_{k,x}\|_{L^{2}(\Omega)}^{2}\leq C_{\rm LGL}\sum_{i,j=0}^{N_{k}}\omega_{i}\omega_{j}|v_{k,x}(x_{i},y_{j})|^{2},\quad\|v_{k,y}\|_{L^{2}(\Omega)}^{2}\leq C_{\rm LGL}\sum_{i,j=0}^{N_{k}}\omega_{i}\omega_{j}|v_{k,y}(x_{i},y_{j})|^{2}.

Consequently, there exists a constant $C$ independent of $N_{k}$ such that

(105)

\|\nabla v_{k}\|_{L^{2}(\Omega)}^{2}=\|v_{k,x}\|_{L^{2}(\Omega)}^{2}+\|v_{k,y}\|_{L^{2}(\Omega)}^{2}\leq C.

Thus, by the Poincaré inequality, $\{v_{k}\}$ is uniformly bounded in $H_{0}^{1}(\Omega)$ . Hence, after passing to a subsequence, one has

v_{k}\rightharpoonup v\quad\text{in }H_{0}^{1}(\Omega),\quad v_{k}\to v\quad\text{in }L^{2}(\Omega).

We then define the standard tensor-product LGL discrete inner product by

(106)

\langle\bm{f},\bm{g}\rangle_{N_{k}}=\sum_{i,j=0}^{N_{k}}\omega_{i}\omega_{j}f(x_{i},y_{j})g^{*}(x_{i},y_{j}),

where $\bm{f},\bm{g}$ are the vector of the values of $f,g$ at the tensor-product LGL nodes. Let $\mathbf{C}_{k}=\mathbf{C}_{b}^{k}\otimes\mathbf{C}_{a}^{k}.$ Since $\mathbf{H}_{k}=(\mathbf{W}(\mathbf{C}_{b}^{k})^{-1})\otimes(\mathbf{W}(\mathbf{C}_{a}^{k})^{-1}),$ we have $\mathbf{H}_{k}\mathbf{C}_{k}=\mathbf{W}\otimes\mathbf{W}.$ Let $\phi$ be an arbitrary function in $C_{0}^{\infty}(\Omega)$ and let $\bm{\phi}_{k}$ denote the vector of the values of $\phi$ at the interior tensor-product LGL nodes. Then by the definitions of $\mathbf{H}_{k}$ and $\mathbf{C}_{k}$ , we have

(107)

(\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}^{k}\bm{v}_{k},\mathbf{C}_{k}\bm{\phi}_{k})_{\mathbf{H}_{k}}=\bm{\phi}_{k}^{*}(\mathbf{W}\otimes\mathbf{W})(\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}^{k}\bm{v}_{k})=\sum_{i,j=1}^{N_{k}-1}\omega_{i}\omega_{j}(\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}^{k}\bm{v}_{k})_{ij}\phi^{*}(x_{i},y_{j}).

Since $\phi$ vanishes at all boundary LGL nodes, then combining the definition of the discrete LGL inner product (106) and (107), it gives

(108)

\langle\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}^{k}\bm{v}_{k},\bm{\phi}_{k}\rangle_{N_{k}}=(\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}^{k}\bm{v}_{k},\mathbf{C}_{k}\bm{\phi}_{k})_{\mathbf{H}_{k}}.

Moreover, we have

\displaystyle\|\mathbf{C}_{k}\bm{\phi}_{k}\|_{\mathbf{H}_{k}}^{2}

\displaystyle=\sum_{i,j=1}^{N_{k}-1}\omega_{i}\omega_{j}\bar{a}_{11}(x_{i})\bar{a}_{22}(y_{j})|\phi(x_{i},y_{j})|^{2}\leq\beta_{0}^{2}\sum_{i,j=0}^{N_{k}}\omega_{i}\omega_{j}|\phi(x_{i},y_{j})|^{2}\leq 4\beta_{0}^{2}\|\phi\|_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}^{2}.

Recall the assumption $\|\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}^{k}\bm{v}_{k}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}_{k}}=|\lambda_{k}|\to 0.$ Therefore, by (108) and using the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality, we have

(109)

\left|\langle\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}^{k}\bm{v}_{k},\bm{\phi}_{k}\rangle_{N_{k}}\right|\leq\|\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}^{k}\bm{v}_{k}\|_{\mathbf{H}_{k}}\|\mathbf{C}_{k}\bm{\phi}_{k}\|_{\mathbf{H}_{k}}\leq 2\beta_{0}\|\phi\|_{L^{\infty}(\Omega)}\|\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}^{k}\bm{v}_{k}\|_{\mathbf{H}_{k}}\longrightarrow 0.

For any continuous function $g$ on $\overline{\Omega}$ , define the tensor-product LGL interpolation operator $\mathcal{I}_{k}$ by

\mathcal{I}_{k}g(x,y)=\sum_{i,j=0}^{N_{k}}g(x_{i},y_{j})\ell_{i}(x)\ell_{j}(y)\in\mathbb{P}_{N_{k}}\otimes\mathbb{P}_{N_{k}}.

Since $\phi\in C_{0}^{\infty}(\Omega)$ , the functions $a_{11}\phi$ , $a_{12}\phi$ , and $a_{22}\phi$ vanish on $\partial\Omega$ . By the discrete summation-by-parts identities, we have

(110)

-\langle a_{11}v_{k,xx},\phi\rangle_{N_{k}}=\left\langle v_{k,x},\partial_{x}\mathcal{I}_{k}(a_{11}\phi)\right\rangle_{N_{k}},\quad-\langle a_{22}v_{k,yy},\phi\rangle_{N_{k}}=\left\langle v_{k,y},\partial_{y}\mathcal{I}_{k}(a_{22}\phi)\right\rangle_{N_{k}}.

For the mixed derivative term, applying the summation-by-parts identity in the two coordinate directions gives

(111)

-2\langle a_{12}v_{k,xy},\phi\rangle_{N_{k}}=\left\langle v_{k,x},\partial_{y}\mathcal{I}_{k}(a_{12}\phi)\right\rangle_{N_{k}}+\left\langle v_{k,y},\partial_{x}\mathcal{I}_{k}(a_{12}\phi)\right\rangle_{N_{k}}.

Therefore, using (110)–(111), we have

	$\displaystyle\langle\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}^{k}\bm{v}_{k},\bm{\phi}_{k}\rangle_{N_{k}}={}$	$\displaystyle\left\langle v_{k,x},\partial_{x}\mathcal{I}_{k}(a_{11}\phi)+\partial_{y}\mathcal{I}_{k}(a_{12}\phi)\right\rangle_{N_{k}}+\left\langle v_{k,y},\partial_{x}\mathcal{I}_{k}(a_{12}\phi)+\partial_{y}\mathcal{I}_{k}(a_{22}\phi)\right\rangle_{N_{k}}$
		$\displaystyle+\left\langle q_{1}v_{k,x}+q_{2}v_{k,y}+sv_{k},\phi\right\rangle_{N_{k}}.$

Thus, the right-hand side is precisely the discrete weak form associated with $\mathcal{L}[v_{k}]$ . Hence, (109) leads to $\langle\mathcal{L}[v_{k}],\phi\rangle_{N_{k}}\longrightarrow 0$ for every $\phi\in C_{0}^{\infty}(\Omega)$ . Moreover, by the standard consistency of the tensor-product LGL interpolation and quadrature, together with the weak convergence $v_{k}\rightharpoonup v$ in $H_{0}^{1}(\Omega)$ and the strong convergence $v_{k}\to v$ in $L^{2}(\Omega)$ , passing to the limit in the above discrete weak identity yields the corresponding continuous weak identity for $\mathcal{L}[v]=0$ . Then the stability assumption (57) therefore implies $v=0$ .

By the definition of $\mathbf{H}_{k}=(\mathbf{W}(\mathbf{C}_{b}^{k})^{-1})\otimes(\mathbf{W}(\mathbf{C}_{a}^{k})^{-1}),$ and the lower bounds $\bar{a}_{11},\bar{a}_{22}\geq\alpha_{0}$ , we have

\displaystyle\|\bm{v}_{k}\|_{\mathbf{H}_{k}}^{2}

\displaystyle=\sum_{i,j=1}^{N_{k}-1}\frac{\omega_{i}\omega_{j}}{\bar{a}_{11}(x_{i})\bar{a}_{22}(y_{j})}|v_{k}(x_{i},y_{j})|^{2}\leq\frac{1}{\alpha_{0}^{2}}\sum_{i,j=0}^{N_{k}}\omega_{i}\omega_{j}|v_{k}(x_{i},y_{j})|^{2}.

Here the boundary terms vanish since $v_{k}\in H_{0}^{1}(\Omega)$ . By the uniform equivalence between the tensor-product LGL discrete norm and the continuous $L^{2}$ -norm, we obtain

\sum_{i,j=0}^{N_{k}}\omega_{i}\omega_{j}|v_{k}(x_{i},y_{j})|^{2}\leq C_{\rm LGL}\|v_{k}\|_{L^{2}(\Omega)}^{2}\longrightarrow 0,

where $C_{\rm LGL}$ is independent of $N_{k}$ . Consequently, $\|\bm{v}_{k}\|_{\mathbf{H}_{k}}\longrightarrow 0.$ By Lemma A.2 and the normalization $\|\mathbf{K}_{\rm L}^{k}\bm{v}_{k}\|_{\mathbf{H}_{k}}=1,$ we have

(112)

\|\mathbf{A}_{{\rm L},1}^{k}\bm{v}_{k}\|_{\mathbf{H}_{k}}\leq\frac{q_{\infty}}{\sqrt{\alpha_{0}}}\|\bm{v}_{k}\|_{\mathbf{H}_{k}}^{\frac{1}{2}}\longrightarrow 0.

Moreover, since $0<s\leq s_{\max}$ , it is clear that

(113)

\|\breve{\mathbf{S}}^{k}\bm{v}_{k}\|_{\mathbf{H}_{k}}\leq s_{\max}\|\bm{v}_{k}\|_{\mathbf{H}_{k}}\longrightarrow 0.

Finally, by the eigenvalue relation $\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}^{k}\bm{v}_{k}=\lambda_{k}\mathbf{K}_{\rm L}^{k}\bm{v}_{k}$ and the normalization above,

(114)

\|\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}^{k}\bm{v}_{k}\|_{\mathbf{H}_{k}}=|\lambda_{k}|\|\mathbf{K}_{\rm L}^{k}\bm{v}_{k}\|_{\mathbf{H}_{k}}=|\lambda_{k}|\longrightarrow 0.

Therefore, combining (112)–(114), by the definition of $\mathbf{A}_{{\rm L},2}^{k}=\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}^{k}-\mathbf{A}_{{\rm L},1}^{k}-\breve{\mathbf{S}}^{k},$ we have

\|\mathbf{A}_{{\rm L},2}^{k}\bm{v}_{k}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}_{k}}\leq\|\mathbf{A}_{{\rm L},1}^{k}\bm{v}_{k}\|_{\mathbf{H}_{k}}+\|\breve{\mathbf{S}}^{k}\bm{v}_{k}\|_{\mathbf{H}_{k}}+\|\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}^{k}\bm{v}_{k}\|_{\mathbf{H}_{k}}\longrightarrow 0.

On the other hand, Lemma A.1 implies

\|\mathbf{A}_{{\rm L},2}^{k}\bm{v}_{k}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}_{k}}\geq c_{1}\|\mathbf{K}_{\rm L}^{k}\bm{v}_{k}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}_{k}}=c_{1},

which is a contradiction. This proves the lower bound and hence (58).

Appendix B Proof of Theorem 3.4

In this section, we provide the detailed proof of the $N$ -uniform Euclidean $2$ -norm condition-number bound stated in Theorem 3.4. We first establish a one-dimensional pointwise estimate for the weighted eigenvectors of the variable-coefficient differentiation matrices in a lemma. We then combine this estimate with the tensor-product eigenstructure of the two-dimensional operator to derive $N$ -uniform bounds for $\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}$ and $\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}^{-1}$ , which lead to the desired condition-number estimate.

B.1 A pointwise estimate for the weighted eigenvectors

We first establish a one-dimensional pointwise estimate for the weighted eigenvectors of $-\mathbf{C}_{\nu}\mathbf{D}^{(2)}$ , $\nu=a,b$ . By Lemma 2.1, we know that $\mathbf{H}_{\nu}(-\mathbf{C}_{\nu}\mathbf{D}^{(2)})=-\mathbf{W}\mathbf{D}^{(2)}$ is symmetric positive definite, $-\mathbf{C}_{\nu}\mathbf{D}^{(2)}$ admits an $\mathbf{H}_{\nu}$ -orthonormal eigenbasis with positive eigenvalues. This estimate will be the key ingredient in the subsequent two-dimensional condition-number analysis.

Lemma 1.

For $\nu=a,b$ , let $\mathbf{H}_{\nu}=\mathbf{W}\mathbf{C}_{\nu}^{-1},$ and let $\{\bm{\phi}_{k}^{\nu}\}_{k=1}^{N-1}$ be an $\mathbf{H}_{\nu}$ -orthonormal eigenbasis of $-\mathbf{C}_{\nu}\mathbf{D}^{(2)}$ , satisfying

-\mathbf{C}_{\nu}\mathbf{D}^{(2)}\bm{\phi}_{k}^{\nu}=\lambda_{k}^{\nu}\bm{\phi}_{k}^{\nu},\quad(\bm{\phi}_{k}^{\nu})^{\intercal}\mathbf{H}_{\nu}\bm{\phi}_{\ell}^{\nu}=\delta_{k\ell},\quad\lambda_{k}^{\nu}>0.

Then, for each interior LGL point $x_{i}$ ,

\sum_{k=1}^{N-1}\frac{|\phi_{k}^{\nu}(i)|^{2}}{\lambda_{k}^{\nu}}\leq\frac{1-x_{i}^{2}}{2},\quad 1\leq i\leq N-1,\quad\nu=a,b.

Proof.

For any $\bm{v}\in\mathbb{R}^{N-1}$ , let $p\in\mathbb{P}_{N}^{0}$ be the corresponding Lagrange interpolant, satisfying $p(x_{i})=v_{i},1\leq i\leq N-1.$ Since $\mathbf{H}_{\nu}(-\mathbf{C}_{\nu}\mathbf{D}^{(2)})=-\mathbf{W}\mathbf{D}^{(2)},$ it follows from (12) that

\bm{v}^{\intercal}\mathbf{H}_{\nu}\bigl(-\mathbf{C}_{\nu}\mathbf{D}^{(2)}\bigr)\bm{v}=-\bm{v}^{\intercal}\mathbf{W}\mathbf{D}^{(2)}\bm{v}=\int_{-1}^{1}|p^{\prime}(x)|^{2}\,dx.

For any $x\in(-1,1)$ , using $p(-1)=p(1)=0$ , we have

p(x)=\frac{1-x}{2}\int_{-1}^{x}p^{\prime}(t)\,dt-\frac{1+x}{2}\int_{x}^{1}p^{\prime}(t)\,dt.

Applying the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality gives

\displaystyle|p(x)|^{2}

\displaystyle\leq\left[\frac{(1-x)^{2}}{4}(1+x)+\frac{(1+x)^{2}}{4}(1-x)\right]\int_{-1}^{1}|p^{\prime}(t)|^{2}\,dt=\frac{1-x^{2}}{2}\int_{-1}^{1}|p^{\prime}(t)|^{2}\,dt.

Therefore, at each interior LGL point $x_{i}$ ,

(115)

\sup_{\bm{v}\neq\bm{0}}\frac{|v_{i}|^{2}}{\bm{v}^{\intercal}\mathbf{H}_{\nu}(-\mathbf{C}_{\nu}\mathbf{D}^{(2)})\bm{v}}\leq\frac{1-x_{i}^{2}}{2}.

We next express the supremum in terms of the eigenvectors. Expanding $\bm{v}$ in the $\mathbf{H}_{\nu}$ -orthonormal eigenbasis gives

\bm{v}=\sum_{k=1}^{N-1}v_{k}^{\nu}\bm{\phi}_{k}^{\nu},\quad v_{k}^{\nu}=(\bm{\phi}_{k}^{\nu})^{\intercal}\mathbf{H}_{\nu}\bm{v}.

By the orthonormality and the eigenvalue relation,

\bm{v}^{\intercal}\mathbf{H}_{\nu}(-\mathbf{C}_{\nu}\mathbf{D}^{(2)})\bm{v}=\sum_{k=1}^{N-1}\lambda_{k}^{\nu}|v_{k}^{\nu}|^{2}.

Meanwhile, denoting by $v_{i}$ the $i$ -th component of $\bm{v}$ , which satisfies $v_{i}=p(x_{i})$ , we have $\displaystyle v_{i}=\sum_{k=1}^{N-1}v_{k}^{\nu}\phi_{k}^{\nu}(i).$ Hence, by the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality, it leads to

|v_{i}|^{2}\leq\left(\sum_{k=1}^{N-1}\lambda_{k}^{\nu}|v_{k}^{\nu}|^{2}\right)\left(\sum_{k=1}^{N-1}\frac{|\phi_{k}^{\nu}(i)|^{2}}{\lambda_{k}^{\nu}}\right).

It follows that

\sup_{\bm{v}\neq\bm{0}}\frac{|v_{i}|^{2}}{\bm{v}^{\intercal}\mathbf{H}_{\nu}(-\mathbf{C}_{\nu}\mathbf{D}^{(2)})\bm{v}}\leq\sum_{k=1}^{N-1}\frac{|\phi_{k}^{\nu}(i)|^{2}}{\lambda_{k}^{\nu}}.

On the other hand, taking

v_{k}^{\nu}=\frac{\phi_{k}^{\nu}(i)}{\lambda_{k}^{\nu}},\quad 1\leq k\leq N-1,

attains equality. Therefore,

(116)

\sup_{\bm{v}\neq\bm{0}}\frac{|v_{i}|^{2}}{\bm{v}^{\intercal}\mathbf{H}_{\nu}(-\mathbf{C}_{\nu}\mathbf{D}^{(2)})\bm{v}}=\sum_{k=1}^{N-1}\frac{|\phi_{k}^{\nu}(i)|^{2}}{\lambda_{k}^{\nu}}.

Combining (115)–(116) yields

\sum_{k=1}^{N-1}\frac{|\phi_{k}^{\nu}(i)|^{2}}{\lambda_{k}^{\nu}}\leq\frac{1-x_{i}^{2}}{2},

which completes the proof.

B.2 Detailed proof

We now prove Theorem 3.4.

Proof.

By Proposition 3.1, it suffices to consider $\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}$ . Under the assumption, it follows from (25a) and (26a) that


(117a)	$\displaystyle\mathbf{K}_{\rm L}$	$\displaystyle=\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}^{-1}=\mathbf{I}_{N-1}\otimes(-\mathbf{C}_{a}\mathbf{D}^{(2)})+(-\mathbf{C}_{b}\mathbf{D}^{(2)})\otimes\mathbf{I}_{N-1},$
(117b)	$\displaystyle\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}$	$\displaystyle=\mathbf{K}_{\rm L}+s\mathbf{I}_{(N-1)^{2}}.$

With the notation in Lemma 1, we define $\mathbf{H}=\mathbf{H}_{b}\otimes\mathbf{H}_{a}.$ Since $\{\bm{\phi}_{n}^{a}\}_{n=1}^{N-1}$ and $\{\bm{\phi}_{m}^{b}\}_{m=1}^{N-1}$ are respectively $\mathbf{H}_{a}$ - and $\mathbf{H}_{b}$ -orthonormal, the tensor-product vectors $\bm{\phi}_{m}^{b}\otimes\bm{\phi}_{n}^{a},1\leq m,n\leq N-1,$ form an $\mathbf{H}$ -orthonormal basis of $\mathbb{R}^{(N-1)^{2}}$ . Moreover,

(118)

\mathbf{K}_{\rm L}(\bm{\phi}_{m}^{b}\otimes\bm{\phi}_{n}^{a}\bigr)=(\lambda_{m}^{b}+\lambda_{n}^{a})(\bm{\phi}_{m}^{b}\otimes\bm{\phi}_{n}^{a}\bigr).

For any $\bm{f}\in\mathbb{R}^{(N-1)^{2}}$ , let $\bm{u}=\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}\bm{f}=\mathbf{K}_{\rm L}^{-1}\bm{f}.$ Expanding $\bm{f}$ in the above $\mathbf{H}$ -orthonormal basis gives

\bm{f}=\sum_{m,n=1}^{N-1}\widehat{f}_{mn}(\bm{\phi}_{m}^{b}\otimes\bm{\phi}_{n}^{a}),

where $\widehat{f}_{mn}=(\bm{\phi}_{m}^{b}\otimes\bm{\phi}_{n}^{a})^{\intercal}\mathbf{H}\bm{f}.$ By the $\mathbf{H}$ -orthonormality, we have

\sum_{m,n=1}^{N-1}|\widehat{f}_{mn}|^{2}=\|\bm{f}\|_{\mathbf{H}}^{2},\quad\|\bm{f}\|_{\mathbf{H}}^{2}=\bm{f}^{\intercal}\mathbf{H}\bm{f}.

Therefore, it leads to

\bm{u}=\sum_{m,n=1}^{N-1}\frac{\widehat{f}_{mn}}{\lambda_{m}^{b}+\lambda_{n}^{a}}\bigl(\bm{\phi}_{m}^{b}\otimes\bm{\phi}_{n}^{a}\bigr).

Denoting by $u_{ij}$ the component of $\bm{u}$ corresponding to the tensor-product node $(x_{i},y_{j})$ , we have

u_{ij}=\sum_{m,n=1}^{N-1}\frac{\widehat{f}_{mn}}{\lambda_{m}^{b}+\lambda_{n}^{a}}\phi_{m}^{b}(j)\phi_{n}^{a}(i).

Hence, by the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality,

|u_{ij}|^{2}\leq\left(\sum_{m,n=1}^{N-1}\frac{|\phi_{m}^{b}(j)|^{2}|\phi_{n}^{a}(i)|^{2}}{(\lambda_{m}^{b}+\lambda_{n}^{a})^{2}}\right)\|\bm{f}\|_{\mathbf{H}}^{2}.

Since $(\lambda_{m}^{b}+\lambda_{n}^{a})^{2}\geq 4\lambda_{m}^{b}\lambda_{n}^{a},$ Lemma 1 yields

(119)

\displaystyle|u_{ij}|^{2}

\displaystyle\leq\frac{1}{4}\left(\sum_{m=1}^{N-1}\frac{|\phi_{m}^{b}(j)|^{2}}{\lambda_{m}^{b}}\right)\left(\sum_{n=1}^{N-1}\frac{|\phi_{n}^{a}(i)|^{2}}{\lambda_{n}^{a}}\right)\|\bm{f}\|_{\mathbf{H}}^{2}\leq\frac{(1-x_{i}^{2})(1-y_{j}^{2})}{16}\|\bm{f}\|_{\mathbf{H}}^{2}.

Summing (119) over all interior tensor-product nodes gives

\displaystyle\|\bm{u}\|_{2}^{2}

\displaystyle=\sum_{i,j=1}^{N-1}|u_{ij}|^{2}\leq\frac{1}{16}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{N-1}(1-x_{i}^{2})\right)\left(\sum_{j=1}^{N-1}(1-y_{j}^{2})\right)\|\bm{f}\|_{\mathbf{H}}^{2}\leq\frac{(N-1)^{2}}{16}\|\bm{f}\|_{\mathbf{H}}^{2}.

Since $\mathbf{H}=(\mathbf{W}\mathbf{C}_{b}^{-1})\otimes(\mathbf{W}\mathbf{C}_{a}^{-1}),$ assumption (46) implies

\|\bm{f}\|_{\mathbf{H}}^{2}\leq\frac{\omega_{\max}^{2}}{\alpha^{2}}\|\bm{f}\|_{2}^{2},

where $\displaystyle\omega_{\max}=\max_{1\leq i\leq N-1}\omega_{i}.$ Recalling the LGL weight estimate used in Corollary 2.1, we have $\omega_{\max}\leq\frac{c_{2}}{N},$ where $c_{2}$ is defined in Corollary 2.1 and independent of $N$ . Consequently, by $\bm{u}=\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}\bm{f}=\mathbf{K}_{\rm L}^{-1}\bm{f}$ , we have

(120)

\|\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}\bm{f}\|_{2}=\|\bm{u}\|_{2}\leq\frac{(N-1)\omega_{\max}}{4\alpha}\|\bm{f}\|_{2}\quad\Rightarrow\quad\|\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}\|_{2}\leq\frac{c_{2}}{4\alpha}.

Since $s\geq 0$ , it is clear that $\lambda_{m}^{b}+\lambda_{n}^{a}+s\geq\lambda_{m}^{b}+\lambda_{n}^{a}.$ Therefore, the same argument used to derive (120) yields

(121)

\|\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}^{-1}\bm{f}\|_{2}\leq\frac{(N-1)\omega_{\max}}{4\alpha}\|\bm{f}\|_{2}\quad\Rightarrow\quad\|\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}^{-1}\|_{2}\leq\frac{c_{2}}{4\alpha}.

It remains to estimate the condition number of $\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}$ . By (117) it is clear that $\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}=\mathbf{I}_{(N-1)^{2}}+s\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}.$ Therefore, by (120) we have

(122)

\|\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}\|_{2}\leq 1+s\|\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}\|_{2}\leq 1+\frac{sc_{2}}{4\alpha}.

For the inverse, using (117b), we have

\displaystyle(\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}\mathbf{P}_{\rm L})^{-1}=(\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}-s\mathbf{I}_{(N-1)^{2}})\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}^{-1}=\mathbf{I}_{(N-1)^{2}}-s\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}^{-1}.

Therefore, (121) leads to

(123)

\|(\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}\mathbf{P}_{\rm L})^{-1}\|_{2}\leq 1+s\|\mathbf{A}_{\rm L}^{-1}\|_{2}\leq 1+\frac{sc_{2}}{4\alpha}.

Hence, combining (122)–(123) completes the proof.

References

[1] P. D. Bello-Maldonado and P. F. Fischer (2019) Scalable low-order finite element preconditioners for high-order spectral element Poisson solvers. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 41 (5), pp. S2–S18. Cited by: item (ii).
[2] T. Z. Boulmezaoud and J. M. Urquiza (2007) On the eigenvalues of the spectral second order differentiation operator and application to the boundary observability of the wave equation. J. Sci. Comput. 31 (3), pp. 307–345. Cited by: §2.1.
[3] P. D. Brubeck and P. E. Farrell (2022) A scalable and robust vertex-star relaxation for high-order FEM. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 44 (5), pp. A2991–A3017. Cited by: item (ii).
[4] N. Chalmers and T. Warburton (2018) Low-order preconditioning of high-order triangular finite elements. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 40 (6), pp. A4040–A4059. Cited by: item (ii).
[5] M. Dauge (1988) Elliptic Boundary Value Problems on Corner Domains: Smoothness and Asymptotics of Solutions. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 1341, Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Cited by: §3.5.2.
[6] C. Davis and W. M. Kahan (1970) The rotation of eigenvectors by a perturbation. III. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 7 (1), pp. 1–46. Cited by: §2.2.
[7] M. Deville and E. Mund (1985) Chebyshev pseudospectral solution of second-order elliptic equations with finite element preconditioning. J. Comput. Phys. 60 (3), pp. 517–533. Cited by: §1.
[8] L. T. Diosady and S. M. Murman (2019) Scalable tensor-product preconditioners for high-order finite-element methods: scalar equations. J. Comput. Phys. 394, pp. 759–776. Cited by: item (ii).
[9] M. Dubiner (1991) Spectral methods on triangles and other domains. J. Sci. Comput. 6 (4), pp. 345–390. Cited by: §3.5.2.
[10] M. G. Duffy (1982) Quadrature over a pyramid or cube of integrands with a singularity at a vertex. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 19 (6), pp. 1260–1262. Cited by: §3.5.2.
[11] Z. Fang, J. Shen, and H. Sun (2018) Preconditioning techniques in Chebyshev collocation method for elliptic equations. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Model. 15 (1–2), pp. 277–287. Cited by: §1.
[12] B. Fornberg and N. Flyer (2011) A numerical implementation of Fokas boundary integral approach: Laplace’s equation on a polygonal domain. Proc. R. Soc. A 467, pp. 2983–3003. Cited by: §3.5.2.
[13] B. Fornberg (1996) A Practical Guide to Pseudospectral Methods. Cambridge Monographs on Applied and Computational Mathematics, Vol. 1, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Cited by: §1.
[14] B. Fornberg (2025) High-Accuracy Finite Difference Methods. Cambridge Monographs on Applied and Computational Mathematics, Vol. 42, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Cited by: §1.
[15] D. Fortunato (2024) A high-order fast direct solver for surface PDEs. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 46 (4), pp. A2582–A2606. Cited by: §1, item (ii).
[16] A. Javeed, D. P. Kouri, D. Ridzal, and J. D. Steinman (2025) A preconditioner for spectral collocation. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 47 (5), pp. A2828–A2850. Cited by: §1.
[17] G. E. Karniadakis and S. J. Sherwin (2005) Spectral/hp Element Methods for Computational Fluid Dynamics. second edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Cited by: item (ii).
[18] P. Khurana, H. Wüstenberg, S. J. Sherwin, D. Moxey, J. Hoessler, and A. Chatzopoulos (2026) Low-order refined preconditioning for spectral/hp element method for complex, 3D geometries. arXiv preprint arXiv:2609.31443. Cited by: item (ii).
[19] S. D. Kim and S. V. Parter (1996) Preconditioning Chebyshev spectral collocation method for elliptic partial differential equations. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 33 (6), pp. 2375–2400. Cited by: §1.
[20] S. D. Kim and S. V. Parter (1997) Preconditioning Chebyshev spectral collocation by finite-difference operators. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 34 (3), pp. 939–958. Cited by: §1.
[21] N. Koeppen, I. M. Ross, L. C. Wilcox, and R. J. Proulx (2019) Fast mesh refinement in pseudospectral optimal control. J. Guid. Control Dyn. 42 (4), pp. 711–722. Cited by: §1.
[22] G. G. Lorentz, K. Jetter, and S. D. Riemenschneider (1983) Birkhoff interpolation. Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, Vol. 19, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Cited by: §2.1.
[23] P. G. Martinsson (2013) A direct solver for variable coefficient elliptic PDEs discretized via a composite spectral collocation method. J. Comput. Phys. 242, pp. 460–479. Cited by: §1.
[24] C. McCoid and M. R. Trummer (2018) Preconditioning of spectral methods via Birkhoff interpolation. Numer. Algorithms 79 (2), pp. 555–573. Cited by: §1.
[25] S. V. Parter (2001) Preconditioning Legendre spectral collocation methods for elliptic problems I: finite difference operators. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 39 (1), pp. 330–347. Cited by: §1.
[26] S. V. Parter (2001) Preconditioning Legendre spectral collocation methods for elliptic problems II: finite element operators. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 39 (1), pp. 348–362. Cited by: §1.
[27] I. M. Ross, R. J. Proulx, and C. F. Borges (2023) A universal Birkhoff pseudospectral method for solving boundary value problems. Appl. Math. Comput. 454, pp. 128101. Cited by: §1.
[28] I. M. Ross (2024) Universal Birkhoff theory for fast trajectory optimization. J. Guid. Control Dyn. 47 (12), pp. 2468–2481. Cited by: §1.
[29] J. Shen, L. Wang, and H. Li (2009) A triangular spectral element method using fully tensorial rational basis functions. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 47 (3), pp. 1619–1650. Cited by: §3.5.2.
[30] J. Shen and X. Yang (2009) An efficient moving mesh spectral method for the phase-field model of two-phase flows. J. Comput. Phys. 228, pp. 2978–2992. Cited by: Figure 7, §3.5.3, §3.5.3, §3.5.3, §3.5.3, §3.5.3.
[31] A. Sidi (2009) Asymptotic expansions of Legendre series coefficients for functions with endpoint singularities. Asymptot. Anal. 65 (3–4), pp. 175–190. Cited by: §3.5.2.
[32] Z. Song, D. Zhao, and S. Theil (2023) Autonomous Trajectory Planning and Guidance Control for Launch Vehicles. Springer Series in Astrophysics and Cosmology, Springer, Singapore. Cited by: §1.
[33] G. Szegö (1975) Orthogonal polynomials. Fourth edition, American Mathematical Society Colloquium Publications, Vol. 23, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI. Cited by: §2.2.
[34] L. Wang, M. D. Samson, and X. Zhao (2014) A well-conditioned collocation method using a pseudospectral integration matrix. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 36 (3), pp. A907–A929. Cited by: §1, §1, §2.1, §2.1, §2.1, §2.1, §2.1, §2.
[35] B. D. Welfert (1994) On the eigenvalues of second-order pseudospectral differentiation operators. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 116 (1–4), pp. 281–292. Cited by: §2.1.

(88)		$\displaystyle\\|\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}^{-1}\bm{v}\\|_{{\mathbf{H}}}^{2}$	$\displaystyle=\sum_{i,j=1}^{N-1}\frac{\omega_{i}\omega_{j}}{a_{i}b_{j}}\left\|a_{i}v_{N,xx}(x_{i},y_{j})+b_{j}v_{N,yy}(x_{i},y_{j})\right\|^{2}$
(88)			$\displaystyle=\sum_{i,j=1}^{N-1}\omega_{i}\omega_{j}\Big(\frac{a_{i}}{b_{j}}\|v_{N,xx}\|^{2}+\frac{b_{j}}{a_{i}}\|v_{N,yy}\|^{2}+2\operatorname{Re}\bigl(v_{N,xx}v_{N,yy}^{*}\bigr)\Big)(x_{i},y_{j}).$

Abstract

keywords

AMS

1 Introduction

2 Two key tools for constructing multidimensional preconditioners

2.1 Stable inversion of differential matrices via Birkhoff interpolation

2.2 Stable diagonalisation of differentiation and integration matrices

Lemma 2.1.

Proof.

Remark 2.1.

Theorem 2.1.

Proof.

Remark 2.2.

Corollary 2.1.

Proof.

3 Birkhoff preconditioners in two dimensions

3.1 General setup

3.2 Elliptic problems with separable variable coefficients

Theorem 3.1.

Proof.

Remark 3.1.

3.3 Elliptic problems with general variable coefficients

3.4 Eigenvalue analysis

Remark 3.2.

Proposition 3.1.

Proof.

Remark 3.3.

Theorem 3.2.

Proof.

Corollary 3.1.

Theorem 3.3.

Remark 3.4.

Theorem 3.4.

3.5 Numerical results

3.5.1 Highly oscillatory and high contrast variable coefficients

3.5.2 Elliptic problems on triangles using Duffy transformations

3.5.3 Application to Allen-Cahn equation

4 Birkhoff preconditioners in three dimensions

4.1 Construction of Birkhoff preconditioners

Remark 4.1.

4.2 Numerical results

5 Conclusion

Appendix A Proof of Theorem 3.3

A.1 Uniform equivalence between 𝐀L,2\mathbf{A}_{{\rm L},2} and 𝐏L−1\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}^{-1}

Lemma A.1.

Proof.

A.2 Bound of the operator 𝐀L,1\mathbf{A}_{{\rm L},1}

Lemma A.2.

Proof.

A.3 Detailed proof

Proof.

Appendix B Proof of Theorem 3.4

B.1 A pointwise estimate for the weighted eigenvectors

Lemma 1.

Proof.

B.2 Detailed proof

Proof.

References

A.1 Uniform equivalence between $\mathbf{A}_{{\rm L},2}$ and $\mathbf{P}_{\rm L}^{-1}$

A.2 Bound of the operator $\mathbf{A}_{{\rm L},1}$