Research article

Nexus between crude oil prices, clean energy investments, technology companies and energy democracy

  • Received: 10 June 2021 Accepted: 27 August 2021 Published: 01 September 2021
  • JEL Codes: G1, G10, C32, Q4

  • In this study, we examine the nexus between crude oil prices, clean energy investments, technology companies, and energy democracy. Our dataset incorporates four variables which are S & P Global Clean Energy Index (SPClean), Brent crude oil futures (Brent), CBOE Volatility Index (VIX), and NASDAQ 100 Technology Sector (DXNT) daily prices between 2009 and 2021. The novelty of our study is that we included technology development and market fear as important factors and assess their impact on clean energy investments. DCC-GARCH models are utilized to analyze the spillover impact of market fear, oil prices, and technology company stock returns to clean energy investments. According to our findings when oil prices decrease, the volatility index usually responds by increasing which means that the market is afraid of oil price surges. Renewable investments also tend to decrease in that period following the oil price trend. Moreover, a positive relationship between technology stocks and renewable energy stock returns also exists.

    Citation: Caner Özdurak. Nexus between crude oil prices, clean energy investments, technology companies and energy democracy[J]. Green Finance, 2021, 3(3): 337-350. doi: 10.3934/GF.2021017

    Related Papers:

    [1] Hyeontae Jo, Hwijae Son, Hyung Ju Hwang, Eun Heui Kim . Deep neural network approach to forward-inverse problems. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2020, 15(2): 247-259. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2020011
    [2] Qing Li, Steinar Evje . Learning the nonlinear flux function of a hidden scalar conservation law from data. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2023, 18(1): 48-79. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2023003
    [3] Yinlin Ye, Yajing Li, Hongtao Fan, Xinyi Liu, Hongbing Zhang . SLeNN-ELM: A shifted Legendre neural network method for fractional delay differential equations based on extreme learning machine. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2023, 18(1): 494-512. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2023020
    [4] Travis G. Draper, Fernando Guevara Vasquez, Justin Cheuk-Lum Tse, Toren E. Wallengren, Kenneth Zheng . Matrix valued inverse problems on graphs with application to mass-spring-damper systems. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2020, 15(1): 1-28. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2020001
    [5] Yinlin Ye, Hongtao Fan, Yajing Li, Ao Huang, Weiheng He . An artificial neural network approach for a class of time-fractional diffusion and diffusion-wave equations. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2023, 18(3): 1083-1104. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2023047
    [6] Wenkai Liu, Yang Liu, Hong Li, Yining Yang . Multi-output physics-informed neural network for one- and two-dimensional nonlinear time distributed-order models. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2023, 18(4): 1899-1918. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2023080
    [7] Lili Jia, Changyou Wang, Zongxin Lei . Synchronization of nonautonomous neural networks with Caputo derivative and time delay. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2023, 18(1): 341-358. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2023013
    [8] Feiyang Peng, Yanbin Tang . Inverse problem of determining diffusion matrix between different structures for time fractional diffusion equation. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2024, 19(1): 291-304. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2024013
    [9] L.L. Sun, M.L. Chang . Galerkin spectral method for a multi-term time-fractional diffusion equation and an application to inverse source problem. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2023, 18(1): 212-243. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2023008
    [10] Antonio Bilotta, Emilio Turco . Constitutive modeling of heterogeneous materials by interpretable neural networks: A review. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2025, 20(1): 232-253. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2025012
  • In this study, we examine the nexus between crude oil prices, clean energy investments, technology companies, and energy democracy. Our dataset incorporates four variables which are S & P Global Clean Energy Index (SPClean), Brent crude oil futures (Brent), CBOE Volatility Index (VIX), and NASDAQ 100 Technology Sector (DXNT) daily prices between 2009 and 2021. The novelty of our study is that we included technology development and market fear as important factors and assess their impact on clean energy investments. DCC-GARCH models are utilized to analyze the spillover impact of market fear, oil prices, and technology company stock returns to clean energy investments. According to our findings when oil prices decrease, the volatility index usually responds by increasing which means that the market is afraid of oil price surges. Renewable investments also tend to decrease in that period following the oil price trend. Moreover, a positive relationship between technology stocks and renewable energy stock returns also exists.



    This paper marks the first step toward a comprehensive study on deep learning architectures to solve forward-inverse problems for differential equations. Recent advances in deep learning show its capability to handle various types of model problems in many disciplines. In particular, deep learning techniques have been applied to understand data augmented differential equations. While most of such studies have been centered around heuristics and modeling prospectives, to the best of our knowledge, there is little to no theoretical analysis to confirm whether the deep learning architectures give rise to the correct solutions to the governing differential equations. An overreaching goal of this paper is to provide a comprehensive analysis of Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) to solve data-driven differential equations. This paper reports a novel architecture leveraging recent progress in deep learning techniques that solves forward-inverse problems for differential equations. The paper further includes a convergence analysis and its experimental results for our deep learning architecture.

    Forward-inverse problems (or inverse problems in short) for differential equations in this paper are related to data augmented differential equations. Namely, we consider equations of states for physical systems as governing differential equations and model parameters such as advection rates, reaction diffusion coefficients, for example, that need to be fitted by the given data. Hence numerical methods solving forward-inverse problems typically become constraint problems that require an ensemble of two steps, (1) solve the state equations, which is called the forward problems and (2) find the correct model parameters that fit the given data set. Inverse problem is an actively studied field and many numerical algorithms for the inverse problems are robust enough to handle sufficiently large data sets, see for example [1,5,15,17,19,25,26] references therein. However, such algorithms can be computationally expensive and they may be too sophisticated for non-experts in inverse problems to implement them. This calls for simplistic methods that unify two steps in solving forward-inverse problems.

    The contributions of this paper are three-fold. First, the DNN architecture presented in this paper highlights its simplistic approach to handling forward-inverse problems simultaneously. Second, a rigorous analysis of the convergence of the DNN solutions to the actual solutions for the governing problems is provided. Third, numerical experiments validate the robustness of our simple architecture.

    The paper comprises the followings. A short overview of related works on data-driven differential equations and the problem formulation are presented in the rest of Section 1. The methodology including the DNN architecture and loss function is described in Section 2. Theoretical results are given in Section 3. Section 4 is devoted to the experiments done for the problem. In Section 5, we conclude the paper.

    There are many works to utilize an Artificial Neural Network (ANN) to solve Differential Equations (DEs) in place of using well established numerical methods such as finite difference, finite element, and finite volume methods. Those finite schemes are heavily depending on mesh-grid points, and they may become a hindrance when the state equations reside in a domain with complex geometry. As such, a mesh-free approximation using clever constructions of basis functions has been introduced, see for example [10,24], and references therein. The concept of using ANN to solve DEs can be related to mesh-free approximations as one can consider Multi-Layer Perceptrons (MLPs) as an approximation to solutions to DEs.

    The ANN structure was first introduced in [20]. Several studies follow to identify a class of functions that can be recognized by ANNs. The following is a brief overview and a few highlights of such studies. Cybenko [8] established sufficient conditions for which a continuous function can be approximated by finite linear combinations of single hidden layer neural networks with the same univariate function. About the same time, Hornik et al [11] showed that measurable functions can be approximated by multi-layer feedforward networks with a monotone sigmoid function as the authors called them "universal approximators". Cotter [6] extends the result of [11] to new architectures, and later Li [18] showed that a MLP with one hidden layer can approximate a function and its higher partial derivatives on a compact set.

    The concept of using ANN to solve DEs are not new, and it has gained much attention recently. Some of the highlights include the following. Lagaris et al [13] studied to solve DEs and PDEs using an ANN with architecture including 1 single layer and 10 units and they next extended in [14] their results to a domain with complex geometry. Jianyu et al [16] used ANN with a radial basis function as an activation function for Poisson equations. More recently, Berg et al in [4] used a DNN to solve steady (time-independent) problems for a domain with complex geometry in one and two space dimensions, and later in [3] they studied DNN architectures to solve augmented Poisson equations (inverse problems) including three space dimensions.

    The recent work by Raissi et al [22] can be perhaps closely related to our work in the sense that their DNN architectures (they called "continuous time models") resemble ours. We note however the aim of this paper is to establish a comprehensive study that includes a rigorous convergence analysis of DNNs to solve forward-inverse problems for DEs and PDEs. Since our convergence result is for linear equations at this point, we present our experiments for the well known linear equations as well. While our experiments cover simpler equations than those studied in [22], as their focuses were on architectures for "data-efficient and physics informed learning machines", we hope that our result can enhance the experiments shown in [22]. We believe our first comprehensive results can shed lights onto further studies toward more complex and complicated systems using machine learning architectures.

    We consider the equations of states as the following time dependent initial boundary value problems:

    Lpu=0, t(0,T], xΩ, (1)
    Iu=f, xΩ, (2)
    Bu=g, t(0,T], xΩ, (3)

    where Lp is a differential operator, p is a set of model parameters, ΩRd is a bounded domain (for the position of the state u), Ω is a boundary of Ω, f(x) is an initial distribution, I is an initial operator, B is a boundary operator, and g(t,x) is a boundary data. Next the governing equation is equipped with a set of observation data, which may be provided from actual experiments, as following:

    D={(ti,xj,uij)|i=1,2,...,n, j=1,2,...,m}, (4)

    where uij denotes the output value (observation from the experiment) at position xjΩ and time 0<tiT with the final time T. n and m refer the numbers of time and spatial observations respectively. Since our experiments cover ODEs and PDEs with one and two spatial dimensions, xj dependencies and the index j for xj will be adjusted for each example. Since it is hard to find a realistic data, we sample the observation data from analytic (or numerical) solution of the equations.

    We apply DNNs to solve governing equations (1)-(3) and the observation data (4). Our loss function includes the governing equation, observations, initial and boundary conditions. The loss function is minimized by using the standard gradient descent method. The results show that our DNN architecture can handle much lesser numbers of observations compared to known numerical solvers such as finite difference, element and volume methods. The results presented in this paper demonstrate that our DNN architecture is perhaps the most simplistic way to solve forward-inverse problems, yet robust enough to handle many different cases. Furthermore, we establish the convergence result of forward-inverse problems for parabolic or hyperbolic linear PDEs with Dirichlet boundary conditions. Specifically we show that the sequence of DNN solutions converges to an analytic solution in L(0,T;H10(Ω)) sense.

    This section provides our DNN architecture and the mathematical formulation of the training procedure.

    The DNN architecture can be written as a repeated composition of some affine transformations and some nonlinear activation functions. We denote by uN the DNN solution and assume that the architecture consists of L+1 layers. The first layer takes (t,x) as an input, and the last layer gives the output value uN(t,x). The L1 layers between the first and the last layers are called hidden layers. We have used common nonlinear activation functions such as sigmoid, rectified linear units, and hyperbolic tangents through the DNN. Each neuron in the DNN contains a bias except for the input neurons. In two consecutive layers, the connections between neurons are written as weight matrices. Relations between (l1)th and lth layers are defined by :

    zlj=Nl1kwljkσl1(zl1k)+blj, (5)

    where

    zl1k: the value of kth neuron in (l1)th layer

    Nl1: the number of neurons in (l1)th layer

    blj: the bias of jth neuron in lth layer

    wljk: the weights between kth neuron in (l1)th layer and jth neuron in lth layer

    σl1 the activation function in (l1)th layer

    For convenience, we denote z0=(z01,...,z0N0) as (t,x) and zL=(zL1,...,zLNL) as uN(t,x), respectively. The values Nl1, L, and the form of σl1 should be chosen before training. In the training procedure, we have to calculate the optimal weights and biases wljk, blj which minimize a suitable loss function.

    The training procedure of the DNN is equivalent to the optimization problem of the loss function with respect to the DNN parameters. We denote the DNN solution by uN(t,x)=uN(t,x;w,b), where (w,b) are the set of weights and biases defined in (5). Denote the number of grid points of time, spatial variables, initial and boundary domains by Nt,Nx,I,Bt,Bx respectively. Now we define the loss function using (1),

    LossGE(w,b,p)=1T|Ω|[0,T]Ω|LpuN(t,x;w,b)|2dxdt1NtNxNt,Nxi,j=1|LpuN(ti,xj;w,b)|2, (6)

    where the last approximated sum is obtained by sampling a grid point {(ti,xj)|ti[0,T],xjΩ, for i=1,...,Nt,j=1,...,Nx}. Note that the reason that we define the above loss function is to find the optimal weights (w,b) which minimize LossGE. However, (6) is not sufficient because it excludes information about initial and boundary conditions. Therefore we define two loss functions from (2)-(3)

    LossIC(w,b)=1|Ω|Ω|IuN(0,x;w,b)f(x)|2dx1IIi=1|uN(0,xi;w,b)f(xi)|2, (7)
    LossBC(w,b)=1T|Ω|[0,T]Ω|BuN(t,x;w,b)g(t,x)|2dSdt1BtBxBt,Bxi,j=1|uN(ti,xj;w,b)g(ti,xj)|2. (8)

    Combining all loss functions (6)-(8) is still not enough because the solution of DEs (1)-(3) could differ depending on the choice of the equation parameter p. Due to this reason, we should make one additional loss function to calibrate p using the observed data (4).

    LossObs(w,b)=1|D|(ti,xj)D|uijuN(ti,xj;w,b)|2. (9)

    Finally, we define the forward loss and total loss as a summation of all three, and four loss functions respectively. For the forward loss, the model parameter p is considered to be fixed.

    LossForward(w,b)=LossGE(w,b)+LossIC(w,b)+LossBC(w,b), (10)
    LossTotal(w,b,p)=LossGE(w,b,p)+LossIC(w,b)+LossBC(w,b)+LossObs(w,b). (11)
    Algorithm 1: Training
    1: procedure train(number of epochs)
    2:   Initialize the nerural network.
    3:   For number of epochs do
    4:     sample z1,z2,...,zm from uniform distribution over Ω
    5:     sample z1I,z2I,...,zmI from uniform distribution over {0}×Ω
    6:     sample z1B,z2B,...,zmB from uniform distribution over Ω
    7:     sample k observation points z1O,z2O,...,zkO
    8:     Find the true value uj=up(zjO) for j=1,2,...,k
    9:     Update the neural network by descending its stochastic gradient :
    w,b[1mmi=1[Lp(uN)(zi)2+(uN(ziI)f(ziI))2+(uN(ziB)g(ziB))2]+1kkj=1(uN(zjO)uj)2]
    10:   end for
    11: end procedure

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    This section provides a theoretical proof that there exists a sequence of weights such that the corresponding sequence of DNN solutions converges to an analytic solution on any compact subset of the domain. We focus on the DEs (1)-(3) where the existence and the uniqueness of solutions are guaranteed. We establish the result in two steps. We first show that a sequence of DNN solutions converges to an analytic solution for the corresponding model parameters, called the forward problem. We next show that both the estimated parameter and the DNN solutions converge to the model parameter and the analytic solution simultaneously, called the inverse problem.

    For the forward problem, we fix the model parameter p and denote the analytic solution to (1)-(3) by up. We also denote the DNN solution obtained by using Algorithm 1 by uN. In uN, activation functions σ are any non-polynomial functions in Ck(Rn).

    Next we quote the following Definition 3.1 and Theorem 3.2 from [18]

    Definition 3.1. Let In=[0,1]n be the unit interval on Rn, k be a non-negative integer. Then we say a function f is contained in ˆCk(In) if fCk(U) for some open set U containing In

    Theorem 3.2. (Li, Theorem 2.1 in [18]) Let fˆCk(In). Then, given ε>0, we can find parameters of a neural network uN, defined in (5) with L=1, so that

    Dk_fDk_uNL(In)<ε

    holds for any multi-index k_=(k1,k2,...,kn), |k1|+|k2|+...+|kn|k, and ki's are non-negative integers.

    Remark 1. Since the above result can be generalized to multi-layer architectures (for example, [11]) and to a general compact set K instead of In, we may assume that the architecture contains only one hidden layer and the domain Ω is In (Ω=In).

    Theorem 3.3. For a non-negative integer k, assume that the highest order of linear operator (1) is k and upˆCk(In), and the activation function σ(x) and its (k-th order) derivatives are continuous and non-polynomials. Then, there exists {mj,wj,bj}j=1 such that a sequence of the DNN solutions with mj nodes, denoted by {uj(wj,bj)}j=1 satisfies

    LossForward(wj,bj)0asj (12)

    Proof. Let ϵ>0 be given. By Theorem 3.2, there exists a neural network uj(x)=mji=1w1iσ(w2ix+bi) such that Dk_upDk_uj<ϵ, where k_ is a non-negative multi-index up to differentiability of up. By integrating |Lpuj|2|Iujf|2|Bujg|2 over [0,T]×ΩΩ[0,T]×Ω respectively, we obtain the desired result.

    Remark 2. The assumption upˆCk(In) in Theorem 3.3 is a strong condition. Since we can also approximate it by a sequence of compactly supported smooth functions in In, we can extend the assumption to a general Sobolev space.

    The Theorem 3.3 states that we can always find parameters of a DNN architecture which can reduce LossForward if the DE has a smooth analytic solution. However, since we can not directly use information of an analytic solution, we next show that the DNN architecture equipped with parameters which minimize LossForward converges to an analytic solution in Theorem 3.4.

    Theorem 3.4. Let Lp=t+L in (1) be a second order parabolic operator and Bu=0 in (3) be a Dirichlet boundary condition. Also we define the DNN solution uj=uj(t,x;wj,bj) with mj nodes and the corresponding loss LossForward(w,b). Then, LossForward(w,b)0 implies

    uj(t,x;wj,bj)upinL([0,T];H10(Ω)), (13)

    where up is a solution to (1)-(3)

    Proof. First we assume that the activation function satisfies the Dirichlet boundary condition by replacing it with b(x)σ(t,x), where b(x) is an arbitrary smooth function that satisfies b=0 on Ω. By evaluating upuj in (1)-(3), we have the following

    t(upuj)+L(upuj)=εj(t,x), t(0,T], xΩ,I(upuj)=ηj(x), xΩ,B(upuj)=0, t(0,T], xΩ

    Then the energy estimates for the second order parabolic equation (see Theorem 5, Chapter 7 in [9]) are applied to obtain that

    esssup0tTupuj(,t)H10(Ω)+upujL2([0,T];H10(Ω))+t(upuj)L2([0,T];L2(Ω))C(εmL2([0,T];L2(Ω))+ηmH10(Ω)), (14)

    where the constant C in (14) depends only on Ω,T and the coefficients of L. Note that the right hand side in (14) is equivalent to LossForward(w,b). This shows that the sequence of DNN solutions converges to the analytic solution when LossForward(w,b)0.

    Remark 3. The convergence result also holds when Lp=tt+L is a second order hyperbolic operator, see [9].

    Definition 3.5. Let P be the set of all possible model parameters. Define S:={up | pP} be the set of solutions corresponding to each model parameter pP.

    Definition 3.6. We say the observation set Dp is clear if for any up,uqS, up|Dp=uq|Dp if and only if p=q

    Theorem 3.7. Let Losstotal(w,b,p) be the total loss defined in (11) and let the observation set Dp with pP be given and clear. We assume that for given {ϵj}j=1 with ϵj0, there exists (mj,wj,bj,pj) such that LossTotal(wj,bj,pj)<ϵj, and the parameter set {pj} is contained in P, then

    uj(wj,bj)upa.e. andpjpasj (15)

    Proof. We first divide the total loss into LossTotal=LossForward,pj+LossObs,pj. For j fixed, we set uNj,k(wj,k,bj,k) as a DNN solution with kj nodes, where (wj,k,bj,k) is a minimizer of LossForward defined in Definition 12. Then, Theorem 3.4 implies uNj,kupj as k. Also, LossObs,pj0 implies pjp by definition of Dp

    In this section, we provide experimental results based on several differential equations including 1D transport equation, 2D heat equation, 2D wave equation, and the Lotka-Volterra system. For each equation, we have calculated an analytic (if possible) or numerical solution with fixed model parameters in order to generate a small amount of true solution points which will be regarded as the observation points. We apply our DNN model to find an approximated solution and the optimal equation parameter at the same time. In this step, we have used a neural network with variable depth and width, and ReLU activations. We used the Adam optimizer [12,23] with (β1,β2)=(0.9,0.999) in order to find the minimizer w,b, and p defined in (11). Also, for higher order derivatives in (1) we have applied the reduction of order technique to express it as a system of differential equations. This step dramatically reduces the computational cost for calculating (6). For example, the second-order PDE uxx=f can be replaced by vx=f together with the equation v=ux. That is, we derive two first-order PDEs vx=f,ux=v from one second-order PDE uxx=f, then the output layer of DNN should be changed into (u,v). This method is applied to 2D Heat and Wave equations. Also, different types of activation functions are used depending on the behavioral characteristics of the governing equations. Finally, we provide two differences between 1) actual and model output values and 2) actual and calculated model parameters. Observation points were calculated from analytic (transport), series (heat, wave), numerical (Lotka-Volterra) solution and sampled randomly among them.

    In the rest of this section, we present the experimental results. For each figure, top left, top right figures show our neural network solution and the analytic solution respectively. Bottom left shows the absolute error between the neural network solution and the analytic solution. Bottom right figure shows the convergence of estimated parameters to the real parameters. We have implemented our method by using Pytorch [21], which is one of the most famous machine learning library. We first present the detailed experimental settings. Table 1 and 2 show the summarized information of the number of grid points and DNN architectures respectively.

    Table 1.  Information of grid and observation points.
    Data Generation
    Grid Range Number of Grid Points Number of Observations
    1D Transport (t,x)[0,1]×[0,1] 17×100 17
    2D Heat (t,x,y)[0,1]×[0,1]×[0,1] 100×100×100 13
    2D Wave (t,x,y)[0,1]×[0,1]×[0,1] 100×100×100 61
    Lotka-Volterra t[0,100] 20,000 40

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 2.  Neural network architecture.
    Neural Network Architecture
    Fully Connected Layers Activation Functions Learning Rate
    1D Transport 2(input)-128-256-128-1(output) ReLU 105
    2D Heat 3(input)-128-128-1(output) Sin, Sigmoid 105
    2D Wave 3(input)-128-256-128-1(output) Sin, Tanh 105
    Lotka-Volterra 1(input)-64-64-2(output) Sin 104

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    1D transport equation consists of

    tu+axu=0,u(0,x)={sin40.25π(x0.1)if 0.1x0.50otherwise, (16)
    Figure 1.  Network architecture.
    Figure 2.  Experimental result for 1D transport equation.

    where t[0,),xR, and a=π/10(0.314...). We have generated the observations from the analytic solution, by method of characteristics, of (16).

    tu=a2(xxu+yyu),u(t,0,y)=u(t,1,y)=0,u(t,x,0)=u(t,x,1)=0, (17)

    where t[0,),(x,y)[0,1]×[0,1], and a=1. We have generated the observations from the partial sum of the series solution, by separation of variables, of (17). We present two figures with different initial conditions.

    ttu=a2(xxu+yyu),u(0,x)=xy(1x)(1y),tu(0,x,y)=0,u(t,0,y)=u(t,1,y)=0,u(t,x,0)=u(t,x,1)=0, (18)
    Figure 3.  Experimental result for 2D heat equation with u(0,x,y)=x(1x)y(1y).
    Figure 4.  Experimental result for 2D heat equation with u(0,x,y)=1, if (x,y)Ω,0, otherwise.

    where t[0,),(x,y)[0,1]×[0,1], and a=1. We have generated the observations from the partial sum of the series solution, by separation of variables, of (18)

    u(t)=αuβuv,v(t)=δuvγv,u(0)=1,v(0)=1, (19)
    Figure 5.  Experimental result for 2D wave equation.
    Figure 6.  Experimental result for Lotka-Volterra equation.

    where t[0,), and α=1,β=0.4,δ=0.4,γ=0.1. We have generated the observations from a numerical solution by the Runge-Kutta method of (19). We used the sin function as the activation function for Lotka-Volterra system. Considering the periodic nature of the solution, the periodic activation function is a natural choice.

    In this section, we address the Courant-Friedrichs-Lewy (CFL) condition [7] which is a necessary condition while solving certain partial differential equations numerically. However, we claim that violating the CFL condition has no bad effect of our algorithm. To clarify this, we compare the results of transport equation with three different Courant numbers which all violate the convergence condition. As we can see in figure 7, our method converges well regardless of CFL condition. Note that our experiments in section 4.2 give nice results while the settings violate the well known stability condition called the Von Neumann stability condition.

    Figure 7.  Experimental result for CFL condition.

    First we summarize our theoretical results. For linear differential equations, we have shown that the DNN solution can reduce the proposed loss function as much as we want. A key point in the proof is a continuation of the Theorem 2.1 in [18] which states the fact that a linear combination of the dilated activations can approximate the target function and the derivative of such a linear combination can approximate its derivative in L sense. Next we have proved that the DNN which minimizes the loss converges to an analytic solution for linear parabolic or hyperbolic equations. In this step, we have applied basic energy estimates for each equation. Theoretical results for the inverse problem is also included as a continuation of the forward problem. We provide numerical experiments which show that our method indeed works accurately. We emphasize that our method can easily be implemented without any background knowledge about numerical analysis (for example, stability conditions) but about some libraries for implementing neural networks. Although it performs well for fundamental DEs, it might be hard to apply it to more complex equations. We have recognized that the error between a NN solution and an analytic/numerical solution is slightly increasing depending on time.

    For future directions, we may consider two problems. First, we can use more complicated neural network architectures such as CNN, RNN. Since we have dealt with time dependent PDEs, the combination of CNN and RNN would be a great choice for modelling. Second, the theoretical results for non-linear PDEs should be explored. The convergence results of our work are only applicable to linear PDEs. However, as in the experiment for the Lotka-Volterra system, our method is successful in approximating solutions even for non-linear systems. We hope proper convergence results for non-linear systems to be explored.

    This work was supported by the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2017R1E1A1A03070105, NRF-2019R1A5A1028324)



    [1] Adams S, Acheampong A (2019) Reducing Carbon Emissions: The Role of Renewable Energy and Democracy. J Clean Prod 240: 118245.
    [2] Alhassan S, Alade SA (2017) Income and Democracy in Sub-Sahara Africa. J Econ Sust Dev 8: 67-73.
    [3] Alola AA, Bekun VF, Sarkodie AS (2019) Dynamic impact of trade policy, economic growth, fertility rate, renewable and non-renewable energy consumption on ecological footprint in Europe. Sci Total Environ 685: 702-709. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.139
    [4] Barrett S, Graddy K (2000) Freedom, growth, and the environment. Environ Dev Econ 5: 433-456. doi: 10.1017/S1355770X00000267
    [5] Becker S, Kunze C (2014) Transcending community energy: collective and politically motivated projects in renewable energy (CPE) across Europe. People Place Policy 8: 180-191.
    [6] Bollerslev T (1986) Generalized Autoregressive Conditional Heteroscedasticity. J Econometrics 31: 307-327. doi: 10.1016/0304-4076(86)90063-1
    [7] Bondia R, Ghosh S, Kanjilal K (2016) International Crude Oil Prices and the Stock Prices of Clean Energy and Technology Companies: Evidence from Non-linear Cointegration Tests with Unknown Structural Breaks. Energy 101: 558-565. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2016.02.031
    [8] Burke M, Stephens CJ (2018) Political power and renewable energy futures: A critical review. Energy Res Social Sci 35: 78-93. doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2017.10.018
    [9] Corbet S, Goodell WJ, Günay S (2020) Co-movements and spillovers of oil and renewable firms under extreme conditions: new evidence from negative WTI prices during COVID-19. Energy Econ 92: 104978.
    [10] Diebold FX, Yilmaz K (2012) Better to Give than to Receive: Predictive Directional Measurement of Volatility Spillovers. Int J Forecasting 28: 57-66. doi: 10.1016/j.ijforecast.2011.02.006
    [11] Dutta A (2017) Oil Price Uncertainty and Clean Energy Stock Returns: New Evidence from Crude Oil Volatility Index. J Clean Prod 164: 1157-1166. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.050
    [12] Engle R (1982) Autoregressive Conditional Heteroscedasticity with Estimates of the Variance of United Kingdom Inflation. Econometrica 50: 987-1007. doi: 10.2307/1912773
    [13] Engle R, Ng KV (1993) Measuring and Testing the Impact of News on Volatility. J Financ 48: 1749-1778. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1993.tb05127.x
    [14] Farzin YH, Bond CA (2006) Democracy and Environmental Quality. J Dev Econ 81: 213-235. doi: 10.1016/j.jdeveco.2005.04.003
    [15] Ferrer R, Shahzad SJH, López R, et al. (2018) Time and Frequency Dynamics of Connectedness Between Renewable Energy Stocks and Crude Oil Prices. Energy Econ 76: 1-20. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2018.09.022
    [16] Inchauspe J, Ripple RD, Trück S (2015) The Dynamics of Returns on Renewable Energy Companies: A State-Space Approach. Energy Econ 48: 325-335. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2014.11.013
    [17] Kumar S, Managi S, Matsuda A (2012) Stock Prices of Clean Energy Firms, Oil and Carbon Markets: A Vector Autoregressive Analysis. Energy Econ 34: 215-226. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2011.03.002
    [18] Lv Z (2017) The effect of democracy on CO2 emissions in emerging countries: Does the level of income matter? Renew Sust Energy Rev 72: 900-906.
    [19] Maji IK (2015) Does Clean Energy Contribute to Economic Growth? Evidence from Nigeria. Energy Rep 1: 145-150. doi: 10.1016/j.egyr.2015.06.001
    [20] Nguyen C, Schinckus C, Thanh SD (2019) Economic Integration and CO2 Emissions: Evidence from Emerging Economies. Climate Dev 12: 369-384. doi: 10.1080/17565529.2019.1630350
    [21] Nguyen C, Schinckus C, Thanh SD (2018) The ambivalent role of institutions in the CO2 Emissions: The case of Emerging Countries. Int J Energy Econ Policy 8: 7-17.
    [22] Nguyen C, Schinckus C, Dinh TS, Bensemann J, et al. (2019) Global Emissions: A New Contribution from the Shadow Economy. Int J Energy Econ Policy 9: 320-337.
    [23] Nguyen C, Ha-Le T, Schinckus C, et al. (2020) Determinants of agricultural emissions: panel data evidence from a global sample. Environ Dev Econ 26: 109-130. doi: 10.1017/S1355770X20000315
    [24] Omri A, Mabrouk NB, Sassi-Tmar A (2015) Modeling the Causal Linkages Between Nuclear Energy, Renewable Energy and Economic Growth in Developed and Developing Countries. Working Papers 2015-623, Department of Research, Ipag Business School.
    [25] Reboredo JC (2015) Is There Dependence and Systemic Risk Between Oil and Renewable Energy Stock Prices? Energy Econ 48: 32-45.
    [26] Roberts JT, Parks BC (2007) Fueling Injustice: Globalization, Ecologically Unequal Exchange and Climate Change. Globalizations 4: 193-210.
    [27] Sadorsky P (2012) Correlations and Volatility Spillovers Between Oil Prices and the Stock Prices of Clean Energy and Technology Companies. Energy Econ 34: 248-255. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2011.03.006
    [28] Symitsi E, Chalvatzis KJ (2019) The economic value of Bitcoin: A portfolio analysis of currencies, gold, oil and stocks. Res Int Bus Financ 48: 97-110. doi: 10.1016/j.ribaf.2018.12.001
    [29] Szulecki K, Overland I (2018) Energy democracy as a process, an outcome a goal: A conceptual review. Energy Res Social Sci 69: 101768.
    [30] Torras M, Boyce KJ (1998) Income, inequality, and pollution: a reassessment of the environmental Kuznets Curve. Ecol Econ 25: 147-160. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(97)00177-8
    [31] Ulusoy V, Özdurak C (2018) The Impact of Oil Price Volatility to Oil and Gas Company Stock Returns and Emerging Economies. Int J Energy Econ Policy Econ J 8: 144-158.
    [32] Usman O, Iortile IB, Ike NG (2020) Enhancing sustainable electricity consumption in a large ecological reserve-based country: the role of democracy, ecological footprint, economic growth, and globalisation in Brazil. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27: 13370-13383. doi: 10.1007/s11356-020-07815-3
    [33] Usman O, Olanipekun OI, Iorember TP, et al. (2020) Modelling environmental degradation in South Africa: the effects of energy consumption, democracy, and globalization using innovation accounting tests. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27: 8334-8349. doi: 10.1007/s11356-019-06687-6
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Hyung Ju Hwang, Jin Woo Jang, Hyeontae Jo, Jae Yong Lee, Trend to equilibrium for the kinetic Fokker-Planck equation via the neural network approach, 2020, 419, 00219991, 109665, 10.1016/j.jcp.2020.109665
    2. Jae Yong Lee, Jin Woo Jang, Hyung Ju Hwang, The model reduction of the Vlasov–Poisson–Fokker–Planck system to the Poisson–Nernst–Planck system via the Deep Neural Network Approach, 2021, 55, 0764-583X, 1803, 10.1051/m2an/2021038
    3. George Em Karniadakis, Ioannis G. Kevrekidis, Lu Lu, Paris Perdikaris, Sifan Wang, Liu Yang, Physics-informed machine learning, 2021, 3, 2522-5820, 422, 10.1038/s42254-021-00314-5
    4. Sung Woong Cho, Hyung Ju Hwang, Hwijae Son, Traveling Wave Solutions of Partial Differential Equations Via Neural Networks, 2021, 89, 0885-7474, 10.1007/s10915-021-01621-w
    5. Hyung Ju Hwang, Hwijae Son, Lagrangian dual framework for conservative neural network solutions of kinetic equations, 2022, 15, 1937-5093, 551, 10.3934/krm.2021046
    6. Sunwoo Hwang, Seongwon Lee, Hyung Ju Hwang, Neural network approach to data-driven estimation of chemotactic sensitivity in the Keller-Segel model, 2021, 18, 1551-0018, 8524, 10.3934/mbe.2021421
    7. Zhicheng Zhu, Jia Hao, Jin Huang, Biao Huang, BC-PINN: an adaptive physics informed neural network based on biased multiobjective coevolutionary algorithm, 2023, 35, 0941-0643, 21093, 10.1007/s00521-023-08876-4
    8. Min Sue Park, Cheolhyeong Kim, Hwijae Son, Hyung Ju Hwang, The deep minimizing movement scheme, 2023, 494, 00219991, 112518, 10.1016/j.jcp.2023.112518
    9. Hwijae Son, Sung Woong Cho, Hyung Ju Hwang, Enhanced physics-informed neural networks with Augmented Lagrangian relaxation method (AL-PINNs), 2023, 548, 09252312, 126424, 10.1016/j.neucom.2023.126424
    10. Wai M. Kwok, George Streftaris, Sarat C. Dass, Laplace based Bayesian inference for ordinary differential equation models using regularized artificial neural networks, 2023, 33, 0960-3174, 10.1007/s11222-023-10289-1
    11. Hwijae Son, Minwoo Lee, Continuous probabilistic solution to the transient self-oscillation under stochastic forcing: a PINN approach, 2023, 37, 1738-494X, 3911, 10.1007/s12206-023-0707-z
    12. Hwijae Son, Hyunwoo Cho, Hyung Ju Hwang, Physics-Informed Neural Networks for Microprocessor Thermal Management Model, 2023, 11, 2169-3536, 122974, 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3329562
    13. Amina Hassan Ali, Norazak Senu, Ali Ahmadian, Efficient solutions to time-fractional telegraph equations with Chebyshev neural networks, 2024, 99, 0031-8949, 115210, 10.1088/1402-4896/ad7c93
    14. Kaixuan Zheng, Huiyong Guo, Jin Di, Chen Liu, Quantitative health evaluation of frame structures using multi-physics enhanced neural networks with boundary constraints and damage consistency and its experimental study, 2025, 72, 23520124, 108281, 10.1016/j.istruc.2025.108281
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2021 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(3041) PDF downloads(168) Cited by(21)

Figures and Tables

Figures(3)  /  Tables(3)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog