arxiv: v1 [math.na] 8 Sep 2021

A KERNEL-BASED LEAST-SQUARES COLLOCATION METHOD FOR SURFACE DIFFUSION

MENG CHEN^∗, KA CHUN CHEUNG^†,ANDLEEVAN LING^‡

Abstract. There are plenty of applications and analysis for time-independent elliptic partial differential equa- tions in the literature hinting at the benefits of overtesting by using more collocation conditions than the number of basis functions. Overtesting not only reduces the problem size, but is also known to be necessary for stability and convergence of widely used unsymmetric Kansa-type strong-form collocation methods. We consider kernel- based meshfree methods, which is a method of lines with collocation and overtesting spatially, for solving parabolic partial differential equations on surfaces without parametrization. In this paper, we extend the time-independent convergence theories for overtesting techniques to the parabolic equations on smooth and closed surfaces.

Key words. meshfree method, Kansa method, radial basis function, method of lines, parabolic PDEs, conver- gence analysis.

AMS subject classifications. 65D15, 65N35, 65N40, 41A63.

1. Introduction. For closed manifold S ⊂ R^dand some given square integrable func- tions f : S ×[0, t] → R and g : S → R, we consider parabolic PDEs for some time-dependent surface scalar function u : S × [0, T ] → R in the form of

˙

u(y, t) + L_Su(y, t) = f (y, t) for (y, t) ∈ S × [0, T ] (1.1a)

u(y, 0) = g(y) for y ∈ S, (1.1b)

with a second-order uniformly elliptic operator in divergence form (1.2) L_Su(y, t) := −∇_S· A(y, t)∇_Su(y, t)

for (y, t) ∈ S × [0, T ].

Assumptions and definitions required to make sense of (1.1) will be provide in Sect.2.

We focus on strong-form collocation kernel-based spatial discretization. In [1,2], PDE (1.1) were solved by the method of Rothe, in which the PDE is discretized first in time, and then by kernel-based collocation method in space. In this paper, we focus on the method of lines that is theoretically more completed for parabolic PDEs on spheres [3] using Galerkin formulations and also in bulk domains, see [4,5]. An advantage of using collocation method is that we can completely remove surface integrations from our algorithms (but not theo- ries). Readers can find our theoretical study on the convergence of semi-discretized solution

∗Department of Mathematics, Nanchang University, Nanchang, China

†NVIDIA AI Technology Center (NVAITC), NVIDIA, USA

‡Department of Mathematics, Hong Kong Baptist University, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong 1

arXiv:2109.03409v1 [math.NA] 8 Sep 2021

in Sect.3(see Thm.3.6). Algorithms for computing the fully discretized solution and the corresponding error analysis (see Thm4.1) were provided in Sect.4. Numerical examples in Sect.5verify the convergence behaviour of the proposed methods and robustness in simulat- ing solutions to Allen-Cahn equations.

2. Notations and preliminaries. Let S ⊂ R^d be a closed, connected, orientable, and complete Riemannian manifold of dimension dim S := d_S = d − 1. We further suppose that S is of class C^m+1for some integer m with bounded geometry and boundary regularity as required in the theories in [6,7]. Under these assumptions, there exists δ > 0 such that Euclidean closest point retraction map

(2.1) cp(x) := arg inf

y∈S

ky − xk_L2(R^d): Ω → S

is well-defined and C^m-smooth in the narrow band domain

(2.2) Ω := {x ∈ R^d : kx − yk_L2(R^d)< δ, y ∈ S}.

2.1. Differential operators without parametrization. We adopt a set of parametrization- free definitions in [8] for differential operators on S. Let n : S → R^d be a smooth vector field that spans the normal space. We define the orthogonal projection matrix

(2.3) P (y) := I_d− n(y)n(y)^T,

that projects onto the tangent space TyS of S at y ∈ S. For any continuously differentiable scalar surface function v : S → R, the surface gradient operator ∇S is defined by

(2.4) ∇_Sv(y) := P (y)∇ v ◦ cp
(y) = ∇ v ◦ cp
(y), y ∈ S.

For any continuously differentiable surface vector field g : S → R^d, the surface divergence operator ∇S· is defined by

(2.5) ∇S· g(y) := P (y)∇
· g ◦ cp
(y) = ∇ · g ◦ cp
(y), y ∈ S.

Note that these definitions are equivalent [6] to their intrinsic counterparts defined by local parametrization and Riemannian metric tensor.

2.2. Diffusion tensor. The diffusion tensor A(y, t) in (1.2) needs to satisfy some sym- metric positive definiteness assumption when restricted to the tangent space TyS of S.

ASSUMPTION1. The symmetric surface intrinsic diffusion tensor A : S ×[0, t] → R^d×d

in(1.2) satisfies, for all y ∈ S and t ∈ [0, T ], that (1) TyS is an invariant subspace of A, i.e., (2.6a) ξ ∈ T_yS ⇒ A(y, t)ξ ∈ T_yS, ∀ ξ ∈ T_yS,

(2)A(y, t) is uniformly positive definite on T_yS, i.e., there exists ν > 0 such that (2.6b) νkξk²₂≤ ξ^TA(y, t)ξ ≤ ν⁻¹kξk²₂ ∀ ξ ∈ TyS,

and, (3) all componentsa_ij(y, t) := [A(y, t)]ij,1 ≤ i, j ≤ d, of A are sufficient smooth with bounded derivatives.

Equivalently, (2.6a)–(2.6b) ensure the existence of a set of orthonormal eigenvectors {τi(y, t)}^d_i=1^S ⊂ R^dof the diffusion tensor A(y, t) that spans TyS and all the associated ei- genvalues are strictly positive. Moreover, the surface vector field A(y, t)∇Su(y, t) is tangent to the surface and lies in TyS. Also, by (2.6b) and [6, Thm. 4.2–4.3], we can recast the diffusion operator in (1.2) by the Cartesian gradient and divergence operators as

(2.7) LSu(y, t) = −∇ · A(cp(y), t)∇(u(cp(y), t))

for (y, t) ∈ S × [0, T ], in terms of the cp-mapping (2.1).

2.3. Sobolev spaces and norms. Hilbert spaces on complete manifolds with bounded geometry S is defined to by H^k(S) := (I − ∆S)^−k/2L²(S), see [9], which is norm equiv- alent [10] to the Sobolev spaces characterized by localization by an atlas and a subordinate partition of unity [11, Def. 4.4]. Using some suitable partition of unity {Ui}i, we decompose v = P

ivi with supp(vi) ⊂ Uiand express S ∩ Uiby, say, xd = ai(x1, . . . , xdS) without loss of generality. Let the multi-indexed derivative with respect to the Cartesian coordinate x1, . . . , xdbe

(2.8) D_d^α:= ∂^|α|

∂x^α₁¹· · · ∂x^α_d^d, |α| = α₁+ · · · + α_d

and, we also define D_d^α_S as in (2.8), but, with respect to x1, . . . , x_d−1= x_dS. Let the surface element with respect to variables x1, . . . , xdS be

dσ_i=

 1 +

dS

X

j=1

∂a_i

∂xj

²¹₂

dx₁· · · dxdS.

We define the non-standard H_cp^k(S)-norm via cp-operator by

(2.9) kvk²_Hk

cp(S)= X

|α|≤k

Z

S

D^αv 

2dσ :=X

i

kvik²_Hk cp(U_i)

3

with

(2.10) kv_ik²_Hk

cp(Ui):= X

|α|≤k

Z

U_i



D^α_d(v_i◦ cp) 

xd=ai(x1,...,x_dS)

2

dσ_i, k ∈ N.

We explicitly include the cp-operator in definition to go along with (2.7). For functions f ∈ L²(0, T ; H_cp^k (S)), we adopt the following space-time norms notation

kf k_L2(0,T ;H_cp^k(S))=

kf k_Hk(S)

_{L2(0,T )}=Z T 0

kf k²_Hk

cp(S)dt1/2

.

LEMMA2.1. For any C^m+1 surface S satisfying the assumptions in Sect. 2 and all k ≤ m, the H_cp^k(S)-norm in (2.9) is equivalent to the W₂^k(S)-norm defined via atlas and subordinate partition of unity.

Proof. For v ∈ W₂^k(S), [11, Sect. 4.2] shows that the W₂^k(S)-norm (i.e., defined by an atlas and a subordinate partition of unity) is equivalent to a surface norm defined by means of coordinate invariant surface integrals as in (2.9), but with localized counterparts

(2.11) kvik²_Wk

2(U_i)= X

|α|≤k

Z

Ui

  D^α_dS

vi

xd=ai(x1,...,x_dS)

  

2

dσi.

Note that this W₂^k(U_i)-norm in (2.11) is exactly the one that can be deduced by using metric tensors of Riemannian manifold with the parameterized equation

r(x1, x2, . . . , xdS) = x1, x2, . . . , xdS, ai(x1, . . . , xdS)
^T

: R^dS → S ⊂ R^d, which defines a set of basis of the tangent space

{τ_j}_1≤j≤dS := ∂r

∂xj



1≤j≤dS

= ("

ej

∂ai

∂xj

#)

1≤j≤dS

,

where ej ∈ R^dS is the j-th standard unit vector. Without loss of generality, we assume

∂ai/∂xj 6= 0 for some j, or else xd= const. In this case, the norms in (2.10) and (2.11) are trivially equivalent.

Since vi = vi◦ cp for all y = (x1, . . . , xd) ∈ S, we now work on the function in the integrand of (2.11) and define V (x1, . . . , x_dS) := vi◦ cp

x_d=a_i(x₁,...,x_dS): R^dS → R. By implicit differentiation, we know that the first derivatives were connected by

∂

∂xj

V = ∂

∂xj

(vi◦ cp) + ∂ai

∂xj

∂

∂xd

(vi◦ cp), j = 1, . . . , d_S.

Rewriting in matrix form yields

∇_dSV (x₁, . . . , x_dS) =τ1, . . . , τ_dS^T

∇_d(v_i◦ cp)(y).

(2.12)

From the fact that ∇d(vi◦ cp)(y) ∈ TyS, we can uniquely express

(2.13) ∇d(vi◦ cp)(y) =

dS

X

j=1

γjτj

with some coefficients γ = [γ1, . . . , γdS]^T ∈ R^dS. Putting (2.13) into (2.12) yields

∇dSV (x₁, . . . , x_dS) =

dS

X

i,j=1

γ_jτ_i· τj=: GS(y)γ.

By assumption, the eigenvalues of the Riemannian metric tensor G_S(y) of S at y ∈ S are positive and bounded for all y ∈ S. For some constants 0 ≤ c1 ≤ c2, we have c1kγk²₂ ≤ k∇dSV k²₂ ≤ c2kγk²₂, and, from here and on, we write ∼ to denote such norm equivalency. Recognize that γ ∈ R^dS is the coefficient of the vector ∇_d(v ◦ cp)(y) ∈ T_yS with respect to the basis {τj}^d_j=1^S of TyS. Thus, we have k∇dSV k²₂∼ kγk²₂∼ k∇d(v ◦cp)k²₂, or equivalently, we write

(2.14) X

|α|≤1

  D_d^α_S

vi

x_d=a_i(x₁,...,x_dS)

  

2

∼ X

|α|≤1



D_d^α(vi◦ cp) 

x_d=a_i(x₁,...,x_dS)

2

.

So, (2.10) and (2.11) are equivalent for |α| ≤ 1.

We finish the proof by induction. Suppose (2.14) holds for |α| ≤ 1, . . . , k − 1. Then, the statement also holds true for |α| ≤ k as demonstrated as follows:

X

|α|≤k

  D^α_dS

v_i

x_d=ai(x1,...,x_dS)

  

2

= X

|α|≤k−1

+ X

|α|=k

  D_d^α_S

v_i

x_d=ai(x1,...,x_dS)

  

2

∼ X

|α|≤k−1

+

d

X

j=1

X

|α|=k−1

  D_d^α_S∂_j

v_i

x_d=a_i(x₁,...,x_dS)

  

2

= X

|α|≤k−1

+

d

X

j=1

X

|α|=k−1

 

D_d^α_Sh∂v_j

∂xj

+ ∂v_j

∂xd

∂a_i

∂xj

i 

x_d=a_i(x₁,...,x_dS)

  

2

∼ X

|α|≤k−1

+

d

X

j=1

X

|α|=k−1

  

D_d^αnh∂v_j

∂xj

+∂v_j

∂xd

∂a_i

∂xj

i◦ cpo

x_d=a_i(x₁,...,x_dS)

2

∼ X

|α|≤k

D^α_d(v_i◦ cp) 

x_d=ai(x₁,...,x_dS)

2

,

provided all functions (including cp and ai) are smooth enough for the partial derivatives to

5

exit. 

3. Semi-discretized trial solution and its convergence. We can apply the method of lines to discretize the surface diffusion equation (1.1) spatially by some kernel-based trial space. In this paper, we focus on manifold kernels that can be obtained by restricting [12,13]

some global, symmetric positive definite, and Sobolev space H^m+1/2(R^d) reproducing [14]

kernels Φ_m+1/2: R^d× R^d→ R to S. Fourier transforms of such kernels ˆΦτdecay like (3.1) c₁(1 + kωk²₂)^−(m+1/2) ≤ ˆΦ_m+1/2(ω) ≤ c₂(1 + kωk²₂)^−(m+1/2) for all ω ∈ R^d, for some constants 0 < c1≤ c2. Define the manifold kernels Ψm: S × S → R by (3.2) Ψm(·, ·) := Φm+1/2(·, ·)_|S×S.

Then, for any m > dS/2 = (d − 1)/2, this manifold kernel Ψmreproduces H^m(S), see [12].

In practice, one can use the standard Whittle-Matérn-Sobolev kernels [14] or the Wendland compactly supported kernels [15] with smoothness order m + 1/2, as is, for implementation.

3.1. Trial spaces. Let Z = {z1, . . . , z_nZ} ⊂ S be the set of trial centers. The fill distance hZ and the separation distance qZare defined respectively as

(3.3) hZ:= sup

ζ∈S

η∈Zinf dist(ζ, η) and qZ :=1 2 inf

zi6=zj∈Zdist(zi, zj).

The mesh ratio is ρ_Z = h_Z/q_Z ≥ 1. We say that surface points in Z are quasi-uniform if, as nZ := |Z| increases, Z satisfies qZ ≤ hZ = ρZqZ ≤ ρqZ, for some constant ρ > 0 independent of nZ. Because of equivalence between them on some smooth and compact surfaces [12, Thm. 6], we can simply use Euclidean distant as dist(·, ·) instead of geodesic distant.

We work on finite-dimensional trial spaces UZ, that is a span of the translation-invariant Ψ_min (3.2) to Z, defined by

(3.4) U_Z,S,Ψm := span{Ψm(· , z_j) | z_j∈ Z}.

Any (time-dependent) trial function u ∈ UZ,S,Ψmcan be expressed by a linear combination with a set of unknown coefficients (function of time) {λj}

(3.5) uZ =

n_Z

X

z_j∈Z

λjΨm(·, zj) =: Ψm(·, Z)λZ.

The associated reproducing kernel Hilbert space (a.k.a native space) NΨ_m(S)-norm is given

by

(3.6) kuZk²_N

Ψm(S)=

nZ

X

z_i,z_j∈Y

Ψ_m(z_i, z_j)λ_iλ_j =: λ^T_ZΨ_m(Z, Z)λ_Z.

By [16,17] and Lem.2.1, we know that kuZk_N

Ψm(S) ∼ kuZk_W^m

2 (S) ∼ kuZk_Hm cp(S) as defined in (2.9). Throughout the paper, we use H_cp^m(S)-norm in place of native space norm for simplicity and norm equivalency will be taken care by generic constants.

3.2. Strong form collocation and overtesting. Let Y = {y1, . . . , ynY} ⊂ S, nY >

nZ, be a sufficiently dense set of quasi-uniform collocation points. We use strong from collocation at Y as test conditions in order to identify a numerical solution form the trial space UZ,S,Ψ_m. Let the discrete `²(Y )-norm be

(3.7) kf k²_`2(Y ):=X

y∈Y

|f (y)|².

Now, we formally define the time-dependent semi-discretized trial solution, for some regu- larization parameter α, by

(3.8)

u_Z,α(·, t) := h²_Y arg inf

u(·,t)∈U_Z,S,Ψm

Z T 0

k ˙u + L_Su − f k²_`2(Y )dt

+ku(·, 0) − gk²_`2(Y )+ α²ku(·, 0)k²_Hm cp(S)

 .

Here, we focus on regularized least-squares initial condition. For sufficiently smooth g, one can use the interpolant of g from UZ,S,Ψ_min (3.4) as initial condition and define the numerical solution only without initial values in (3.8). This modification will not affect the convergence analysis in this paper.

Putting the trial function in the form of (3.5) into the PDE residual, ˙u + L_Su − f , and evaluating at yi∈ Y yields the following equations

n_Z

X

z_j∈Z

Ψm(yi, zj)d

dtλj(t) +

n_Z

X

z_j∈Z

[L_SΨm](yi, zj)λj(t) − f (yi, t) for t ∈ (0, T ],

or in an overdetermined matrix as

Ψm(Y, Z) ˙λZ(t) + [LSΨm](Y, Z)λZ(t) − f (Y, t) for t ∈ (0, T ].

Thus, we can recast (3.8) in terms of the unknown coefficient functions as (3.9a)

λ_Z,α(t) := arg inf

λ∈((L^∞∩H¹)[0,T ])^|Z|

Z T 0

Ψ_m(Y, Z) ˙λ + [L_SΨ_m](Y, Z)λ − f (Y, t)

2

`²(R^{|Y |})dt

7

subject to initial condition (3.9b) λ_Z,α(0) := arg inf

λ∈R^|Z|

Ψ_m(Y, Z)λ − g(Y )

2

`²(Y )+ α²λ^TΨ_m(Z, Z)λ.

Note that the initial condition for ˙λZ,α(0) can be determined by differentiating (3.9b) or by other means, say ˙u_Z,α(·, 0) = Π f (·, 0) − LSg
with some appropriate projection Π to the trial space. Then, the unique solvability of (3.8) is guaranteed by theorems in calculus of variations.

In the remaining of this section, we will prove convergence estimates by proving a regu- larity estimate for surface diffusion (1.1a) in Sect.3.3, an error estimate of regularized initial condition (3.9b) in Sect.3.4, and finally in Sect.3.5, the convergence of the trial function u_α(·, t) := Ψm(·, Z)λZ,α(t), which is defined via the solution of (3.9a), to the exact solution u^∗(·, t). We summarize the main result in Thm.3.6.

3.3. Regularity estimates for surface diffusion. We will walk through the details in proof to identify all necessary assumptions so that

ess sup

0≤t≤T

kuk_H1

cp(S)+ kuk_L2(0,T ;H_cp^µ(S))+ k ˙uk_L2(0,T ;H⁰_cp(S))

(3.10)

≤ C

kf k_L2(0,T ;H_cp⁰(S))+ kgk_H1 cp(S)



, for µ = 1, 2, holds for the solution u to the surface diffusion in (1.1) with Sobolev norms defined in Sect. 2.3. After we prepare the manifold versions of all required (in)equalities, regularity estimate (3.10) can be shown by applying some standard arguments. We begin with the Green’s first identity.

LEMMA3.1. Let S ⊂ R^d be aC³-smooth closed manifold andv, w : S → R some C²-smooth scalar value functions. Then we have

Z

S

v∆S(Aw) dσ = − Z

S

∇Sv · (A∇Sw) dσ.

for any diffusion tensorA satisfying Assumption1.

Proof. Without loss of generality, we can ignore the time-dependency in the diffusion tensor A in this proof. We cp-extend all functions to the narrow band domain Ω ⊃ S in (2.2) and denote v_cp := v ◦ cp, w_cp := w ◦ cp, and Acp := A ◦ cp. We start with a vector calculus inequality¹:

(3.11) ∇ · (vcpAcp∇wcp) = vcp∇ · (Acp∇wcp) + ∇vcp· (Acp∇wcp).

1∇ · (f F ) = f ∇ · F + (∇f ) · F

All smoothness requirements together ensure (3.11) is well-defined and v_cpAcp∇w_cp is a smooth vector field. Applying divergence theorem on a closed manifold [18, Thm. 1.1], i.e., R

SX dσ = 0, to (3.11) yield 0 =

Z

S

∇ · (vcpAcp∇wcp) dσ = Z

S

vcp∇ · (Acp∇wcp) + ∇vcp· (Acp∇wcp) dσ.

The proof is completed after simplification by definitions (2.4) and (2.5). 

Using Lem.3.1, we test (1.1a) by u to obtain 1

2 d dt

Z

S

u²dσ + Z

S

k∇_Suk²_Adσ = Z

S

uf dσ,

where k∇_Suk²_A := ∇_Su · (A∇_Su). Following by some standard arguments, i.e., integrate over time

1 2

Z

S

u²dσ − Z

S

g²dσ

 +

Z t 0

Z

S

k∇Suk²_Adσdτ = Z t

0

Z

S

uf dσdτ,

and apply Cauchy inequality ab ≤ ₂^a²+_2¹b²with ε = 2T , yields Z t

0

Z

S

uf dσdτ ≤ T Z T

0

Z

S

f²dσdτ +1 4ess sup

t∈[0,T ]

Z

S

u²dσ.

(3.12)

We obtain an energy estimate

(3.13) ess sup

0≤t≤T

Z

S

u²dσ + Z T

0

Z

S

k∇Suk²_A dσdτ ≤ CZ

S

g² dσ + Z T

0

Z

S

f² dσdτ ,

for some constant C > 0 independent of the solution u to (1.1). Moreover, due to Assump- tion1, we know that k∇Suk_Aand k∇Suk_H0

cp(S)are equivalent with constants depending on the eigenvalues of A restricted to the tangent space TyS.

To get an improve regularity, we follow [19, Thm.5, Ch.7] and suppose that the diffusion tensor A does not depend on t. Testing the PDE by ˙u yields

Z

S

˙

u²dσ + d dt

Z

S

1

2k∇_Suk²_Adσ = Z

S

˙ uf dσ,

which, after an integration in time, will lead us to the estimate

(3.14) ess sup

0≤t≤T

k∇_Suk²_A+ Z T

0

Z

S

˙

u²dσdτ ≤ CZ

S

k∇_Sgk²_A dσ + Z T

0

Z

S

f² dσdτ .

For strong solution, the last required estimate comes form the fact that LSu(·, t) ∈ L²(S) for

9

a.e. 0 ≤ t ≤ T and, by elliptic regularity [2, Lem. 2.1 & 3.1] of the surface operator L_S and (3.14), we have

Z T 0

kuk²_H2

cp(S)dτ ≤ C Z T

0

kL_Suk²_H0 cp(S)dτ

≤ C Z T

0

kf k²_H0

cp(S)+ k ˙uk²_H0 cp(S)

 dτ

≤ C Z T

0

kf k²_H0

cp(S)dτ + Z

S

k∇_Sgk²_A dσ.

(3.15)

Using the trivial bound k · k²_L2(0,T ;H_cp⁰(S)) ≤ C_Sess sup_0≤t≤Tk · k²_H0

cp(S)) to combine (3.13)–(3.15) completes the proof of the regularity estimate in (3.10).

LEMMA3.2. Assume the data functions in the surface diffusion equation (1.1) with time-independent diffusion tensor are sufficiently smooth, f ∈ L²(0, T ; L²(S)), and g ∈ H¹(S), then the regularity estimate (3.10) holds on the unique strong solution u^∗ ∈ (L²∩ L^∞)(0, T ; H²(S)) and ˙u^∗∈ L²(0, T ; L²(S)) to (1.1).

3.4. Regularized discrete least-squares initial condition. In this section, we show that the solution to the following time independent regularized approximation problem

(3.16) gZ,α:= arg inf

u∈U_Z,S,Ψm

ku − gk²_`2(Y )+ α²kuk²_Hm cp(S)

in (3.8) with some appropriate α is H_cp¹ (S)-convergent so that, later in our convergence analy- sis, we can show consistency by some bound on kgZ,α− gk_H1

cp(S)in the right handed side of (3.10). To do so, we extend the convergence estimate in [20] for flat geometry to manifolds.

LEMMA3.3. For any m ≥ b1 + d_S/2c and α ≥ 0, suppose that the sets Y, Z ⊂ S of sufficiently dense discrete data points satisfy(3.21). Let g_Z,α∈ U_Z,S,Ψm be the regularized approximant in(3.16) for g ∈ H_cp^m(S). Then,

kgZ,α− gk²_H1

cp(S) ≤ C

h_Y⁻²h^2m−d_Z ^S+ h_Y^dS−2α²+ h^2m−3_Z  kgk²_Hm

cp(S)

holds for some constantC independent of g.

When α ≥ α^∗:= h^m−d_Y ^S/2, we have kgZ,α^∗− gk²_H1

cp(S) ≤ C

h⁻²_Y h^2m−d_Z ^S + h^2m−3_Y + h^2m−3_Z  kgk²_Hm

cp(S),

without any extra denseness restriction imposed on Z and Y .

Proof. We begin with a sampling inequality for manifold functions g ∈ H_cp^m(S), see [21, Lem. 3.1] (with m = m + 1/2 and s = 3/2); for any discrete set Y ⊂ S with sufficiently

small mesh norm hY, the following holds (3.17) kgk²_H1

cp(S) ≤ Ch^d_Y^S−2

kgk²_`2(Y )+ h^2m−d_Y ^Skgk²_Hm cp(S)



Let IZg be the interpolant of g from the trial space UZ,S,Ψ_m. We have the following convergence estimate in [22, Cor.13] and [2, Sect.3]:

(3.18) kI_Zg − gk_Wk

q(S) ≤ Ch^m−k−d_Z ^{S(1/2−1/q)+}kgk_N

Ψm(S)

for 0 ≤ k ≤ dm − dS(1/2 − 1/q)₊e − 1. Using (3.18) with k = 1, it is sufficient to demonstrate the convergence gZ,α→ IZg in the trial space UZ,S,Ψ_m, within which we know a Bernstein’s inverse inequality [7, Thm. 10]

(3.19) kukH_cp^k(S)≤ Ch^−k_Z kukL²(S), 0 ≤ k ≤ m holds for all u ∈ UZ,S,Ψm.

For any α ≥ 0, we use (3.17) and (3.19) on e := gZ,α− IZg ∈ U_Z,S,Ψm ⊂ H_cp^m(S) to establish a chain of upper bounds:

kek²_H1

cp(S) ≤ Ch^d_Y^S−2

kek²_`2(Y )+ h^2m−d_Y ^Skek²_Hm cp(S)



= Ch^d_Y^S−2

kek²_`2(Y )+ α²kek²_Hm

cp(S)+ (h^2m−d_Y ^S− α²)+kek²_Hm cp(S)



≤ Ch^d_Y^S−2

kek²_`2(Y )+ α²kek²_Hm

cp(S)+ (h^2m−d_Y ^S− α²)+h^−2m_Z kek²_L2(S)



≤ Ch^d_Y^S−2

kek²_`2(Y )+ α²kek²_Hm cp(S)

 , (3.20)

either if α ≥ α^∗:= h^m−d_Y ^S/2, or under the deseness and regularization constraint

(3.21) Ch^d_Y^S−2(h_Y^2m−dS− α²)+h^−2m_Z <1 2

Add-in subtract-out the function g in (3.20); a direct consequence of the optimality in (3.16) is that

(3.22) kek²_H1

cp(S) ≤ 2Ch^d_Y^S−2

kIZg − gk²_`2(Y )+ α²kIZg − gk²_Hm cp(S)

 .

A scattered zero lemma [22, Lem.10] suggests that

kIZg − gk²_`2(Y )≤ nYkIZg − gk²_L∞(S)≤ CnYh^2m−d_Z ^SkIZg − gk²_Hm cp(S),

provided m ≥ b1 + d_S/2c. Because IZg and IZg − g are mutually orthogonal with respect to the native space norm, i.e., H_cp^m(S)-norm, we know that both kIZgk_Hm

cp(S) and kIZg − gk_Hm

cp(S) ≤ kgk_Hm

cp(S). Under the assumption that Y is quasi-uniform and therefore nY ≤

11

cq_Y^−dS ≤ Ch^−d_Y ^S, we arrive at

(3.23) kI_Zg − gk²_`2(Y )≤ Ch_Y^−dSh^2m−d_Z ^Skgk²_Hm cp(S)

and complete the proof. 

3.5. Convergence estimate for semi-discretized solution.

Define a residual functional Eµ : L²(0, T ; H_cp^m(S)) → R using the left handed side of the regularity estimate (3.10) by

(3.24)

Eµ(u) := ess sup

0≤t≤T

kuk²_H1

cp(S)+ kuk²_L2(0,T ;H_cp^µ(S))+ k ˙uk²_L2(0,T ;H_cp⁰(S)), for µ = 1, 2, and restate (3.10) as

(3.25) Eµ(u) ≤ C

k ˙u + L_Suk²_L2(0,T ;H_cp⁰(S))+ ku(·, 0)k²_H1 cp(S)

 .

We begin by showing that there is a good comparison function in the trial space. For any t ∈ [0, T ], let s(·, t) := IZu^∗(·, t) be the interpolant of the solution u^∗to the PDE (1.1) from the trial space UZ,S,Ψ_m. Because

(3.26)

s(zj, t) = IZu^∗(zj, t) = Ψm(zj, Z)[Ψm(Z, Z)]⁻¹u^∗(Z, t) for all zj ∈ Z and t ∈ [0, T ], differentiating with respect to t shows that

˙s(zj, t) = Ψm(zj, Z)[Ψm(Z, Z)]⁻¹u˙^∗(Z, t) for all zj∈ Z and t ∈ [0, T ], and therefore ˙s(·, t) ∈ UZ,S,Ψ_m is the unique interpolant of the first order time derivative u˙^∗(·, t). Using (3.25) and standard interpolation theories [22, Cor. 13], we get the following error estimate:

Eµ(s − u^∗)

≤ C

k ˙s − ˙u^∗k²_L2(0,T ;H⁰_cp(S))+ kL_S(s − u^∗)k²_L2(0,T ;H_cp⁰(S))+ k(s − u^∗)(·, 0)k²_H1 cp(S)



≤ Ch^2m−4_Z 

k ˙u^∗k²_{L2(0,T ;H}m−2

cp (S))+ ku^∗k²_L2(0,T ;H_cp^m(S))+ h²_Zku^∗(·, 0)k²_Hm cp(S)

 .

Our next task is to show that the numerical solution defined by (3.8) converges to the comparison function s, i.e., Eµ(uZ,α− s) → 0 as hZ → 0, in the trial space. Below are two essential stability estimates before we can study consistency. The first comes from (3.20).

COROLLARY3.4. Let m ≥ b1 + d_S/2c and α ≥ 0. If α < α^∗ := h^m−d_Y ^S/2, further

suppose that the setsY, Z ⊂ S of sufficiently dense discrete data points satisfy (3.21). Then, kuk²_H1

cp(S)≤ Ch^d_Y^S−2

kuk²_`2(Y )+ α²kuk²_Hm cp(S)

 ,

holds for all trial functionu ∈ U_Z,S,Ψm.

LEMMA3.5. Let m ≥ b3 + dS/2c. Suppose that the sets Y, Z ⊂ S of sufficiently dense discrete data points satisfy (3.28). Let Eµ(u) be the residual functional defined in (3.24).

Then, the estimate

Eµ(u) ≤ C h^d_Y^S

Z T 0

k ˙u + LSuk²_`2(Y )dt + ku(·, 0)k²_H1 cp(S)



holds for all trial functionu ∈ L²(0, T ; U_Z,S,Ψm) and µ = 1, 2.

Proof. For any t ∈ [0, T ], applying the sampling inequality in [21, Lem. 3.1] (with m = m + 1/2 and s = 1/2) to ˙u(·, t) + LSu(·, t) ∈ H_cp^m−2(S) for any time t ∈ [0, T ] in (3.25) at the set Y , then inverse inequality (3.19) and the estimate kL_Suk_Hm−2

cp (S) ≤ kuk_Hm cp(S) due to boundedness of PDE coefficients, yields

k ˙u + LSuk²_H0

cp(S)≤ Ch^d_Y^S

k ˙u + LSuk²_`2(Y )+ h_Y^2m−dS−4k ˙u + LSuk²_Hm−2 cp (S)



≤ Ch^d_Y^S

k ˙u + LSuk²_`2(Y )+ h_Y^2m−dS−4 h^−2m+4_Z k ˙uk²_H0

cp(S)+ h^−2m_Z kuk²_H0 cp(S)

 .

(3.27)

Under the denseness constraints

(3.28)

( Ch^2m−4_Y h^−2m_Z < ¹₄ if hZ ≤ 1, Ch^2m−4_Y h^−2m+4_Z < ¹₄ otherwise,

we integrate (3.27) from t = 0 to T to finish the proof. 

Finally, we arrive the main result for the convergence of the proposed semi-discretized solution to the method of lines and kernel-based strong form collocation method.

THEOREM3.6. For some m ≥ b3+d_S/2c, let u^∗∈ (L²∩L^∞)(0, T ; H_cp^m(S)) and ˙u^∗∈ L²(0, T ; H_cp^m−2(S)) be the solution to (1.1). For some surface S satisfying the assumptions in Sect.2, kernelΨmsatisfying(3.1), and two sets of quasi-uniform points Y, Z ⊂ S satisfy assumptions mentioned before and(3.28). If α < α^∗ := h^m−d_Y ^S/2, further suppose thatY and Z satisfy (3.21). Let uZ,α ∈ UZ,S,Ψ_m be the numerical solution defined in(3.8) and

13