
This paper investigates an observability estimate for the parabolic equations with inverse square potential in a C2 bounded domain Ω⊂Rd, which contains 0. The observation region is a product set of a subset E⊂(0,T] with positive measure and a non-empty open subset ω⊂Ω with 0∉ω. We build up this estimate by a delicate result in measure theory in [
Citation: Guojie Zheng, Baolin Ma. Observability estimate for the parabolic equations with inverse square potential[J]. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(12): 13525-13532. doi: 10.3934/math.2021785
[1] | Yiyuan Qian, Haiming Song, Xiaoshen Wang, Kai Zhang . Primal-dual active-set method for solving the unilateral pricing problem of American better-of options on two assets. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(1): 90-115. doi: 10.3934/era.2022005 |
[2] | Yiyuan Qian, Kai Zhang, Jingzhi Li, Xiaoshen Wang . Adaptive neural network surrogate model for solving the implied volatility of time-dependent American option via Bayesian inference. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(6): 2335-2355. doi: 10.3934/era.2022119 |
[3] | Kaiyu Zhang . Sobolev estimates and inverse Hölder estimates on a class of non-divergence variation-inequality problem arising in American option pricing. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(11): 5975-5987. doi: 10.3934/era.2024277 |
[4] | E. A. Abdel-Rehim . The time evolution of the large exponential and power population growth and their relation to the discrete linear birth-death process. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(7): 2487-2509. doi: 10.3934/era.2022127 |
[5] | Shuaikang Wang, Yunzhi Jiang, Yongbin Ge . High-order compact difference methods for solving two-dimensional nonlinear wave equations. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(6): 3145-3168. doi: 10.3934/era.2023159 |
[6] | Li Tian, Ziqiang Wang, Junying Cao . A high-order numerical scheme for right Caputo fractional differential equations with uniform accuracy. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(10): 3825-3854. doi: 10.3934/era.2022195 |
[7] | Yan Dong . Local Hölder continuity of nonnegative weak solutions of inverse variation-inequality problems of non-divergence type. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(1): 473-485. doi: 10.3934/era.2024023 |
[8] | Margarida Camarinha . A natural 4th-order generalization of the geodesic problem. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(5): 3396-3412. doi: 10.3934/era.2024157 |
[9] | Haiyan Song, Fei Sun . A numerical method for parabolic complementarity problem. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(2): 1048-1064. doi: 10.3934/era.2023052 |
[10] | Aya Selmoune, Zhiyuan Liu, Jinwoo Lee . To pay or not to pay? Understanding public acceptance of congestion pricing: A case study of Nanjing. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(11): 4136-4156. doi: 10.3934/era.2022209 |
This paper investigates an observability estimate for the parabolic equations with inverse square potential in a C2 bounded domain Ω⊂Rd, which contains 0. The observation region is a product set of a subset E⊂(0,T] with positive measure and a non-empty open subset ω⊂Ω with 0∉ω. We build up this estimate by a delicate result in measure theory in [
Assuming that the price of underlying assets satisfies the geometric Brownian motion, the Black-Scholes option pricing model was firstly proposed in 1973 which depends only on the risk-free interest rate and the volatility [1]. The Black-Scholes model quickly attracted a great deal of attention from the communities of both academic researcher and engineer. In order to improve the efficiency of the model and also fit the practical market, a sequence of option pricing models were proposed and studied, for instance, jump-diffusion model [2,3], stochastic volatility model [4,5] and the fractional option pricing models based on Lévy process including of finite moment log stable (FMLS) [6], KoBol [7,8] and CGMY [9] model.
In order to solve the fractional option pricing models based on Lévy process, a number of numerical approaches were proposed and well studied in the past decades. Cont and Voltchkova [10] first presented a finite difference methods for solving the fractional European option pricing model driven by exponential Lévy process and studied the stability and convergence. Then, Cartea and del-Castillo-Negrete [11] rewrote FMLS, CGMY and KoBol option pricing models as a general fractional partial differential equation and studied the shifted Grünwald difference (SGD) formula for the numerical solution. Marom and Momoniat [12] further compared the numerical solutions of three fractional option pricing models based on Lévy process. Chen and Wang [13] developed a numerical scheme with second-order accuracy in both the spatial and time mesh size for pricing European and American option under a geometric Lévy process. Recently, Zhang et al. [14] constructed an implicit numerical scheme with second-order accuracy for FMLS model and used BiCGstab method to solve the discreted linear equations.
As we known, exotic options play important roles and are widely used in the practical finance market [15]. However, it is a great challenge to obtain the solution for traditional numerical methods since the non-smooth payoffs usually lead to serious degradation in the convergence of the numerical schemes and result in inaccurate and discontinuous solution near the strike or barrier. For instance, the well known second-order implicit schemes, Crank-Nicolson method, are prone to spurious oscillations unless the time step size is small enough. To overcome this difficulty, Wade et al. [16] studied the Padé schemes to smooth the Crank-Nicolson scheme to get fourth-order schemes for pricing barrier European option models, see also [15,17,18,19] for the Padé schemes for different exotic option models.
For the fractional exotic options under FMLS model, a class of fourth-order numerical schemes are presented and studied in this paper. We first discretize the fractional option pricing models with weighted and shifted Grünwald difference (WSGD) formula, which is of second-order accuracy in space direction. Then, by making use of the Padé schemes for the time direction, an L-stable and fourth-order accurate scheme is obtained. The convergence of the proposed numerical scheme is proved when the spatial discretization matrix is positive definite and has lower Hessenberg Toeplitz structure, without the assumption of the self-adjoint operator. The proposed method is adapted to be implemented on parallel processors by making use of partial fraction. Numerical experiments on digital option and barrier option are presented to verify the efficiency and accuracy of our numerical schemes.
The structure of this paper is organized as follows. The weighted and shifted Grünwald difference schemes for space discretization is presented in Section 2. Time stepping schemes on Padé approximation and the implementations are presented in Section 3. We then analyze and prove the convergence of the numerical scheme in Section 4. Numerical experiments are given to show the accuracy and efficiency of the proposed schemes in Section 5. Finally, conclusions are drawn in Section 6.
Denote St as the asset price at time t, the FMLS model [6] can be written as follow:
∂V(x,t)∂t+(r−ν)∂V(x,t)∂x+ν⋅−∞DαxV(x,t)=rV(x,t), | (2.1) |
where V(x,t) is the price of the option at the time t before the expiry time T, x=lnSt, −∞Dαx(1<α<2) is the left Riemann-Liouville derivative [20], ν=−12σαsec(απ2), St is the price of underlying asset at time t, r is the risk free interest rate and σ is the volatility.
In order to solve the FMLS model numerically, we first transform (2.1) into a forward problem by using the transformation t∗=T−t, and then drop ∗ for simplicity of the notation. Then we truncate the interval of x to a finite interval [Bd,Bu], and consider the following FMLS model for pricing European option
∂V(x,t)∂t=(r−ν)∂V(x,t)∂x+ν⋅BdDαxV(x,t)−rV(x,t),x∈(Bd,Bu),t∈(0,T], | (2.2) |
where the left Riemann-Liouville derivative [20] is defined as
BdDαxV(x,t)=1Γ(2−α)d2dx2∫xBdV(η,t)(x−η)α−1dη,1<α<2, |
and the initial and boundary conditions are as follows:
V(x,0)=v(x),Bd≤x≤Bu,V(Bd,t)=0,V(Bu,t)=B(t),0<t<T. | (2.3) |
Let M and N be the number of the uniform discrete points in the space and time direction respectively, h=(Bu−Bd)/M and τ=T/N be the corresponding step length. Define tj=jτ(j=0,1,2,⋯,N),xi=Bd+ih(i=0,1,2,⋯,M), then the discrete equation can be obtained. We discrete the first order derivative and α order left Riemann-Liouville fractional derivative by central difference scheme and weighted and shifted Grünwald difference (WSGD) scheme [21] respectively.
The second-order WSGD scheme was first proposed by Tian et al. [21], which is a more general and flexible approach and independent on the changed fractional order. It is further applied into the numerical solution of time fractional sub-diffusion equation [22,23], as well as fractional Black-Schole equation in the FMLS model [14]. Recently Liu et al. [24] developed a class of second-order θ schemes based on the WSGD formula for solving the nonlinear fractional cable equation.
Using WSGD scheme, the fractional derivative can be approximated as
BdDαxV(xi,t)=1hαi+1∑k=0ω(α)kV(xi−k+1,t)+O(h2), | (2.4) |
where
{ω(α)0=α2g(α)0,ω(α)k=α2g(α)k+2−α2g(α)k−1g(α)0=1,g(α)k=(1−α+1k)g(α)k−1,k=1,2,⋯.∑∞k=0g(α)k=0,g(α)k>0,k=0,2,3….g(α)1=−α<0. | (2.5) |
Denote Vji=V(xi,tj),Vj=(Vj1,Vj2,⋯,VjM−1)T,i=0,1,2,⋯,M,j=0,1,2,⋯,N, then the semidiscretization equation is given by
∂V∂t|(xi,tj)=(r−ν)Vji+1−Vji−12h+νhαi+1∑k=0ω(α)kVji−k+1−rVji, | (2.6) |
where
V0i=v(xi),i=1,2,⋯,M−1. | (2.7) |
Denote ζ=νhα, ξ=r−ν2h, it leads to the following semi-equation
∂V∂t|(xi,tj)+AVj=fj,i=1,2,⋯,M−1, | (2.8) |
where A=rI−ζB−ξC, B=[bij](M−1)×(M−1) defined by
bij={ω(α)1,i=j,j=1,…,M−1,ω(α)2,i=j+1,j=1,…,M−2,ω(α)0,i=j−1,j=2,…,M−1,ω(α)i−j+1,i−j≥2,j=1,…,M−3,0,otherwise, | (2.9) |
C=tridiag{−1,0,1} and fj=(0,0,⋯,0,(ξ+ζω(α)0)(B(tj+1)+B(tj)). Since both the matrices B and C are Toeplitz matrices, the matrix A is also a Toeplitz matrix [25].
In order to smooth the oscillations caused by the non-smooth payoff functions and improve the accuracy, we construct time stepping schemes with Padé approximation. The discretization (2.8) in space leads to the following system of initial value problem
vt+Av=f(t),v(0)=v, | (3.1) |
in a Hilbert space X, where v denotes the initial condition v(x) in (2.3). We assume the resolvent set ρ(A) (The points λ for which λI−A has a bounded inverse in X comprise the resolvent set ρ(A) of A) satisfies, for some γ∈(0,π2) [26],
ρ(A)⊃ˉΣγ,Σγ:={z∈C:γ<|arg(z)|≤π,z≠0}, | (3.2) |
Also, assume there exists C≥1 such that
‖(zI−A)−1‖≤C|z|−1,z∈Σγ. | (3.3) |
The exact solution of (3.1) satisfies the following recurrence formula
v(tj+1)=e−τAv(tj)+τ∫10e−τA(1−η)f(tj+τη)dη, | (3.4) |
where τ=T/N, j=0,1,2,⋯,N−1.
Consider now its discrete analogue of the form
vj+1=R(τA)vj+τm′∑i=1Qi(τA)f(tj+siτ), | (3.5) |
where {si}m′i=1⊂[0,1] are the the distinct numbers selected as integral points to approximate v(tj+1) in formula (3.4).
The time discretization scheme (3.5) is accurate of order q in time which can be described as follow.
Lemma 3.1. [26] The time discretization scheme (3.5) is accurate of order q if
R(z)=e−z+O(zq+1),as z→0, | (3.6) |
and, for 0≤l≤q,
m′∑i=1sliQi(z)=l!(−z)l+1(R(z)−l∑j=0(−z)jj!)+O(zq−l),as z→0, | (3.7) |
or, equivalently,
m′∑i=1sliQi(z)=∫10sle−z(1−s)ds+O(zq−l),as z→0. | (3.8) |
It is shown in [26] that for the case m′=q (m′ is the number of quadrature points and q is the accuracy of the scheme), the conditions of the Lemma 1 can be achieved by choosing the rational functions R(z) satisfying (3.6), selecting distinct real numbers, by Gaussian Quadrature, {Qi(z)}qi=1, and finally solving the system
q∑i=1sliQi(z)=l!(−z)l+1(R(z)−l∑j=0(−z)jj!),l=0,1,…,q−1. | (3.9) |
This system (3.9) is of Vandermonde type (whose determinant is not zero), which gives the rational functions {Qi(z)}qi=1 as linear combinations of the terms on the right hand side of (3.9).
For the case when the number of quadrature points m′ is less than the order of the scheme q, an alternative formula similar to (3.9) is given in [26]. The accuracy conditions are reformulated by defining
Rl(z)=l!(−z)l+1(R(z)−l∑j=0(−z)jj!)−m′∑i=1sliQi(z),l=0,1,…,q−1 |
and requiring that
Rl(z)=0,asz→0,forl=0,1,…,m′−1, |
and a moment condition
∫10p(s)sjds=0,forj=0,…,q−m′−1. | (3.10) |
on the quadrature points, with p(s)=m′∏i=1(s−si). The formula to obtain the rational functions {Qi(z)}qi=1 in [26] is
m′∑i=1sliQi(z)=l!(−z)l+1(R(z)−l∑j=0(−z)jj!),l=0,1,…,m′−1. | (3.11) |
For the rest of this chapter, we will use Padé approximation as R(z) above to constructe the high-order numerical scheme.
Let Pn,m(z) and Qn,m(z) be two polynomials of degree n and m respectively, the (n+m) th order rational Padé approximation of the exponential function e−z can be written as
Rn,m(z)=Pn,m(z)Qn,m(z), |
where
Pn,m(z)=n∑j=0(m+n−j)!n!(m+n)!j!(n−j)!(−z)j, |
and
Qn,m(z)=m∑j=0(m+n−j)!m!(m+n)!j!(m−j)!zj. |
The Padé approximation Rn,m(z) to the exponential function e−z is of the order (n+m).
Definition 3.1. The rational approximation Rn,m(z) of e−z is said to be A-stable if |Rn,m(z)|<1 whenever ℜ(z)<0 and L-stable if in addition |Rn,m(z)|→0 as ℜ(z)→−∞.
It is known from [27] that Rn,m(z)=e−z+O(|z|m+n+1) as z→0, and we consider the L-stable (0,2m)-Padé approximations and A-stable (m,m)-Padé approximations [28] for the exponential function e−z.
Here for practical purpose, we are particularly interested to the following A-stable and L-stable Padé approximation of e−z respectively:
R2,2(z)=1−12z+112z21+12z+112z2 |
and
R0,4(z)=11+z+12z2+16z3+124z4. |
Replace the matrix exponential e−τA by (n,m) Padé approximation Rn,m(τA), the recurrence relation is approximated by
Vj+1=Rn,m(τA)Vj+τ2∑i=1Q(i)n,m(τA)f(tj+siτ),j=0,1,2,⋯,N−1, | (3.12) |
which is the fully discretization of (2.2). The {Q(i)n,m(z)}2i=1 are rational functions, which have same denominator as those Rn,m(z) and {si}2i=1 are the Gaussian points.
Using the result of equation (3.11), we still have the same accuracy when we choose the corresponding Padé approximation
2∑i=1sliQ(i)n,m(z)=l!(−z)l+1(Rn,m(z)−l∑j=0(−z)jj!),l=0,1, | (3.13) |
which is a linear system in Q(i)n,m(z) and could be solved easily since the matrix of the coefficients on the left is of Vandermonde's type.
Consider the fourth order L-stable Padé approximation R0,4(z) with s1=3−√36 and s2=3+√36, the system reduces to
Q(1)0,4(z)+Q(2)0,4(z)=−1z(R0,4(z)−1),s1Q(1)0,4(z)+s2Q(2)0,4(z)=1z2(R0,4(z)−1+z). | (3.14) |
Solving the Eq (3.14), it leads to the following fourth order schemes
Vj+1=R0,4(τA)Vj+τQ(1)0,4(τA)g(tj+s1τ)+Q(2)0,4(τA)f(tj+s2τ), |
where
Q(1)0,4(z)=12+(3−√312)z+(2−√324)z2+(1−√348)z31+z+12z2+16z3+124z4,Q(2)0,4(z)=12+(3+√312)z+(2+√324)z2+(1+√348)z31+z+12z2+16z3+124z4. |
Both the schemes discussed above require to take inverse of higher order matrix polynomial which can cause computational difficulty due to higher power of matrix A.
For overcoming this difficulty, Khaliq et al. [29], Gallopoulos and Saad [30] and references therein developed these schemes in a partial fraction decomposition (with complex arithmetic) that allows efficient and accurate computations on serial or parallel machines.
The partial fraction form of the rational functions Rn,m(z) and {Q(i)n,m(z)}2i=1 requires us to consider two cases, n<m and n=m for subdiagonal and diagonal Padé schemes respectively.
If n<m, then we have
Rn,m(z)=q1∑j=1wjz−ci+2q1+q2∑j=q1+1ℜ(wjz−ci),Q(i)n,m(z)=q1∑j=1wijz−ci+2q1+q2∑j=q1+1ℜ(wijz−ci),i=1,2, |
and for the case n=m, the partial fraction form for Rn,m(z) and Q(i)n,m(z) is given by Gallopoulos and Saad [30]
Rn,m(z)=(−1)n+q1∑j=1wjz−ci+2q1+q2∑j=q1+1ℜ(wjz−ci),Q(i)n,m(z)=q1∑j=1wijz−ci+2q1+q2∑j=q1+1ℜ(wijz−ci),i=1,2, |
where Rn,m(z) as well as Q(i)n,m(z) have q1 real and 2q2 complex pole ci with q1+2q2=m, and wj=Rn,m(cj)Q′n,m(cj) and wij=N(i)n,m(cj)D′(i)n,m(cj).
The polynomial N(i)n,m(z) and D(i)n,m(z) are the numerator and denominator of the function Q(i)n,m(z) respectively.
The poles and weights for Rn,m(z) and Q(i)n,m(z) are:
q1=0,q2=2,c1=−0.270555768932292+2.50477590436244i,c2=−1.72944423106769−0.888974376121862i,w1=−0.541413348429154+0.248562520866115i,w2=0.541413348429182+1.58885918222330i,w11=−0.295373909958643−0.179575890979879i,w12=0.112361208066424+0.596907381204152i,w21=0.174204307471874−0.023488268401115i,w22=0.508808394420345+0.002507912891072i. |
The algorithm becomes
Vj+1=2ℜ(y1)+2ℜ(y2), |
where
(τA−c1I)y1=w1Vj+τw11f(tj+s1τ)+τw21f(tj+s2τ),(τA−c2I)y2=w2Vj+τw12f(tj+s1τ)+τw22f(tj+s2τ),i=1,2, | (3.15) |
which can be solved in parallel on two machines for speedup, or on a serial machine.
In this section, we prove the convergence of the proposed scheme in the case that the spatial discretization matrix A is a lower Hessenberg Toeplitz matrix, without the assumption of a self-adjoint operator in [26].
We begin with the proof of the positive definiteness of matrix A. The matrix A is positive definite if and only if its symmetric part W=(A+AT)/2 is positive definite [31], which means its eigenvalues are all positive.
Theorem 4.1. Assume the fractional parameter α satisfying 1<α<2, the matrix A=rI−ζB−ξC defined in (2.8) as the following
aij={−ζω(α)1+r,i=j,j=1,…,M−1,−ζω(α)2+ξ,i=j+1,j=1,…,M−2,−ζω(α)0−ξ,i=j−1,j=2,…,M−1,−ζω(α)i−j+1,i≥j+2,j=1,…,M−3,0,otherwise, | (4.1) |
is positive definite.
Proof. Consider now the matrix W=[(−ζB−ξC)+(−ζB−ξC)T]/2 defined by
wij={−ζω(α)1,i=j,j=1,…,M−1,−ζ(ω(α)0+ω(α)2)/2,|i−j|=1,−ζω(α)|i−j|+1/2,|i−j|≥2, | (4.2) |
Use Gerschgorin Disk Theorem and note that wii=ζ(α+2)(α−1)/2>0, we only need to prove it is row diagonally dominant and column diagonally dominant. It is clear that the ith and the (M−i−1)th rows are the same. Without loss of generality, we choose 1≤i≤⌈M−12⌉.
For i=1, we have
|w11|−∑j≠1|w1j|=ζ2[2|ω(α)1|−|ω(α)0+ω(α)2|−M−1∑k=3|ω(α)k|]=ζ2[(1−α4)(α+2)(α−1)−(−α2g(α)2+g(α)2+…+g(α)M−2+α2g(α)M−1)]=ζ2[(α−1)(α2+2)−(g(α)2+…+g(α)M−2+α2g(α)M−1)]>ζ2[(α−1)(α2+2)−∞∑k=2g(α)k]=ζ2[(α−1)(α2+2)−(α−1)]=ζ2(α−1)(α2+1)>0. |
For i=2,3,…,⌈M−12⌉, using the properties in (2.5), we have
|wii|−∑j≠1|wij|=ζ2[2|ω(α)1|−2|ω(α)0+ω(α)2|−2i∑k=3|ω(α)k|−M−i∑k=i+1|ω(α)k|]=ζ2[(2−α)(α+2)(α−1)2−2i∑k=3|ω(α)k|−M−i∑k=i+1|ω(α)k|]>ζ2[(2−α)(α+2)(α−1)2−2M−i∑k=3|ω(α)k|]=ζ2[(2−α)(α+2)(α−1)2−2(−α2g(α)2+g(α)2+…+g(α)M−2+α2g(α)M−1)]=ζ2[2(α−1)−2M−i∑k=3g(α)k]>ζ2[2(α−1)−2∞∑k=2g(α)k]=ζ2[2(α−1)−2(α−1)]=0. |
Therefore, the matrix W is row diagonal dominant. Because of its Toeplitz structure, it is column diagonally dominant as well, and thus the matrix A is positive definite.
Assume the function R(⋅) is the L-stable (0,2m)-Padé approximation of order q in (3.6), and v is the initial condition in (3.1), then the convergence of the scheme is established in the following two theorems.
Theorem 4.2. Assume that A defined in (3.1) and satisfying (3.2) and (3.3) is diagonalizable. For the R(⋅) and q>0 in (3.6), there exists a constant C>0 such that for n>1
‖(e−tnA−Rn(τA))v‖≤Cτq‖v‖,v∈RM−1. | (4.3) |
Proof. Let A have eigenvalues {λi}M−1i=1 and corresponding orthonormal eigenvectors {wi}M−1i=1. Suppose v=M−1∑j=1αjwj, then we have
e−tnAv=M−1∑j=1αje−λjtnwj, |
and
Rn(τA)v=M−1∑j=1αjRn(τλj)wj. |
It follows that
‖(e−tnA−Rn(τA))v‖2=M−1∑j=1α2j|e−nτλj−Rn(τλj)|2. |
Using the identity an−bn=(a−b)∑n−1j=0ajbn−j−1, it follows that
|e−nτλj−Rn(τλj)|=|(e−τλj−R(τλj))n−1∑j=0(e−τjλjRn−j−1(τλj))|=|(τλj)q+1n−1∑j=0(e−τjλjRn−j−1(τλj))|. |
Without the confusion, we will reuse the constant C from line to line. From Theorem 4.1 we know that A is positive definite, thus ℜ(λj)>0,j=1,2…,M−1. For any integer k≥0 and l>0, there exists a constant C such that
|(τλj)ke−τlλj|≤C, | (4.4) |
We also find there exists 0<c<1 such that |R(z)|≤e−cz for (0, 4)-Padé scheme, thus we have the following bound
|e−nτλj−Rn(τλj)|≤Cnτq+1e−c(n−1)τλ=Cτq. |
Therefore,
‖(e−tnA−Rn(τA))v‖2≤Cτ2qM−1∑j=1α2j=Cτ2q‖v‖2, |
and the proof is complete.
Use the results of Theorem 4.2, and define the spaces ˙Hs=D(As/2) in [26] with the norm as following
|v|s=(Asv,v)1/2=‖As/2v‖=(M−1∑j=1λsj(v,wj)2)1/2, |
we complete the proof of the convergence in the following theorem.
Theorem 4.3. Suppose that f(l)(t)∈˙H2q−2l for l<q and t≥0, then there exists a constant C such that
‖vn−v(tn)‖≤Cτq(‖v‖+tnq−1∑l=0sups<tn|f(l)(s)|2q−2l+∫tn0‖f(q)‖ds), | (4.5) |
i.e., the time discretization scheme (3.5) is accurate of order q.
Proof. The error En=vn−v(tn), for n≥2, can be written as:
En=(Rn(τA)−E(tn))v⏟En0+τn−1∑j=0(Rn−j−1(τA)Rkf(tj)−E(tt−j−1)Ikf(tj))⏟Enq, | (4.6) |
where E(t)=e−tA,
Ikf(tj)=∫10E(τ−sτ)f(tj+sτ)ds,Rkf(tj)=m′∑i=1Qi(τA)f(tj+siτ). |
The error term En0 can be approximated by the established result from Theorem 4.2 as follows:
‖En0‖=‖(e−tnA−Rn(τA))v‖≤Cτq‖v‖. | (4.7) |
After inserting the term Rn−j−1(τA)Ikf(tj) in the error term Enq and rearranging its terms, it can be derived as
Enq=τn−1∑j=0(Rn−j−1(τA)−E(tn−j−1))Ikf(tj)⏟En1+τn−1∑j=0Rn−j−1(τA)(Rk−Ik)f(tj)⏟En2. | (4.8) |
Following the approach given in [26], we have the following estimate for En1 and En2,
‖En1‖≤Cτq∫tn0|f|2qds, | (4.9) |
which is bounded by the right hand side of (4.5). Also
‖En2‖≤n−1∑j=0Cτq+1q−1∑j=0|f(l)(tj)|2q−2l+Cτqn−1∑0∫tj+1tj‖f(q)‖ds. | (4.10) |
Since Eq (4.9) can be incorporated into the right hand side of (4.10), we obtain the following estimate for the main scheme:
‖Enq‖≤n−1∑j=0Cτq+1q−1∑j=0|f(l)(tj)|2q−2l+Cτqn−1∑0∫tj+1tj‖f(q)‖ds,≤Cτqtnq−1∑l=0sups<tn|f(l)(s)|2q−2l+Cτq∫tn0‖f(q)‖ds. | (4.11) |
Combining (4.7) and (4.11), it leads to
‖En‖≤‖En0‖+‖Enq‖≤Cτq(‖v‖+tnq−1∑l=0sups<tn|f(l)(s)|2q−2l+∫tn0‖f(q)‖ds), | (4.12) |
which completes the proof.
In this section, numerical performance of different Padé schemes compared with the Crank-Nicolson scheme is given for the numerical solution of both fractional digital options and fractional barrier options.
Since the non-smooth payoffs of fractional exotic options usually result in inaccurate and discontinuous solution, or serious errors when estimating the hedging parameters, e.g., Delta, Vega and Gamma values, we compare the price of the options under different schemes, as well as the Delta [16,32,33], which is the rate of change of the option value with respect to the asset price and can be approximated in the following way:
∂V∂S|Si=1exi⋅∂V∂x|xi≈V(xi+1,t)−V(xi−1,t)2hexi. |
The order of the numerical scheme is defined as
Order=logτ2τ1‖Vτ2(⋅,0)−V∗(⋅,0)‖‖Vτ1(⋅,0)−V∗(⋅,0)‖, |
where V∗(⋅,0) denotes the exact solution at t=0 and Vτ(⋅,0) denotes the numerical solution with time step τ at t=0. In our experiments, the exact solution V∗(⋅,0) is approximated by the numerical solution using a dense mesh with M=N=8192 and we set τ2/τ1=2 to obtain the convergence order.
Example 5.1. Consider a fractional digital call option pricing model as follows
{∂V(x,t)∂t+(r−ν)∂V(x,t)∂x+νBdDαxV(x,t)=rV(x,t),(x,t)∈(Bd,Bu)×(0,T),V(Bd,t)=0,V(Bu,t)=50e−r(T−t),t∈[0,T),V(x,T)=v(x),x∈(Bd,Bu), |
where α=1.5,r=0.05,σ=0.25,Bu=ln100,Bd=ln0.1,T=1,K=50 and ν=−12σαsecαπ2 where the payoff function is
v(x)={50,lnK<x<Bu,25,x=lnK,0,Bd<x<lnK., |
where we take the average of playoff at x=lnK from mathematical viewpoint to restore the discontinuity in the payoff [15].
In Figures 1–3, the surfaces of the price and the corresponding Delta value of the fractional European digital option are plotted for the Crank-Nicolson, (2, 2)-Padé and (0, 4)-Padé schemes respectively when N=16 and M=4096.
From Figures 1–3, it is observed that the second-order Crank–Nicolson method suffers from oscillations with non-smooth payoff function while the (0, 4)-Padé scheme can provide reliable and smooth option values and Delta value with little oscillation.
The reason for the oscillation phenomenon at the strike price is that the time discretization grids are coarse [33,34]. One possible remedy is reducing the discrete step size in time direction or local mesh refinement strategy [35,36], which would highly increase the computational time. Here, the (0, 4)-Padé scheme could obtain the best accuracy cheaply and smooth the oscillations with relative less discrete points.
In Tables 1–3, we list the error of the numerical solution in L2 and L∞ norm, as well as the corresponding order for the Crank-Nicolson scheme, (2, 2)-Padé and (0, 4)-Padé respectively when τ is varying and M=8192.
N | τ | ‖Vτ(⋅,0)−V∗(⋅,0)‖2 | Order | ‖Vτ(⋅,0)−V∗(⋅,0)‖∞ | Order |
8 | 0.12500000 | 51.4645 | *** | 27.0184 | *** |
16 | 0.06250000 | 27.4790 | 0.9052 | 19.2316 | 0.4905 |
32 | 0.03125000 | 10.3013 | 1.4155 | 6.1728 | 1.6395 |
64 | 0.01562500 | 1.0048 | 3.3578 | 4.9171×10−1 | 3.6500 |
128 | 0.00781250 | 3.4284×10−3 | 8.1952 | 2.2191×10−4 | 11.1136 |
N | τ | ‖Vτ(⋅,0)−V∗(⋅,0)‖2 | Order | ‖Vτ(⋅,0)−V∗(⋅,0)‖∞ | Order |
8 | 0.12500000 | 31.7954 | *** | 21.3352 | *** |
16 | 0.06250000 | 13.3594 | 1.2510 | 9.0302 | 1.2404 |
32 | 0.03125000 | 2.0437 | 2.7086 | 1.3213 | 2.7728 |
64 | 0.01562500 | 5.1328×10−3 | 8.6372 | 2.7977×10−3 | 8.8835 |
128 | 0.00781250 | 7.4134×10−8 | 16.0793 | 4.8969×10−9 | 19.1239 |
N | τ | ‖Vτ(⋅,0)−V∗(⋅,0)‖2 | Order | ‖Vτ(⋅,0)−V∗(⋅,0)‖∞ | Order |
8 | 0.12500000 | 1.7217×10−2 | *** | 1.1203×10−3 | *** |
16 | 0.06250000 | 1.3686×10−3 | 3.6530 | 9.0190×10−5 | 3.6348 |
32 | 0.03125000 | 9.7572×10−5 | 3.8101 | 8.1591×10−6 | 3.4665 |
64 | 0.01562500 | 7.0293×10−6 | 3.7950 | 1.8366×10−6 | 2.1514 |
128 | 0.00781250 | 7.8313×10−7 | 3.1661 | 3.8539×10−7 | 2.2526 |
From Tables 1–3, it is seen that the numerical results of digital option with both (2, 2)-Padé scheme and (0, 4)-Padé scheme have fourth-order accuracy, which is much better than those of the Crank-Nicolson scheme.
In Figure 4, we plot the curves of option price and the corresponding Delta value versus the price of the asset when t=0 for the Crank-Nicolson, (2, 2)-Padé and (0, 4)-Padé scheme respectively.
From Figure 4, it is further confirmed that the (0, 4)-Padé scheme can significantly reduce the oscillations of the solution near the strike price and smooth both the price of option and the Delta value, compared with the Crank-Nicolson and (2, 2)-Padé schemes. It is possibly because of (0, 4)-Padé scheme is a high order scheme, so that it can quickly converges to the exact solution with less time layer.
Example 5.2. Consider a fractional barrier put option pricing model as follows
{∂V(x,t)∂t+(r−ν)∂V(x,t)∂x+νBdDαxV(x,t)=rV(x,t),(x,t)∈(Bd,Bu)×(0,T),V(Bu,t)=V(Bd,t)=0,t∈[0,T),V(x,T)=v(x),x∈(Bd,Bu), |
where α=1.5,r=0.05,σ=0.25,Bu=ln100,Bd=ln0.1,T=1,K=50,E=20 and ν=−12σαsecαπ2. The payoff function is
v(x)={max{K−ex,0},lnE<x≤Bu,0,Bd<x≤lnE. |
In Figures 5–7, the price surfaces of the fractional barrier put option and the corresponding Delta value are plotted for the Crank-Nicolson, (2, 2)-Padé and (0, 4)-Padé schemes respectively when N=16 and M=4096.
From Figures 5–7, it is observed that the option price and Delta value of the Crank–Nicolson method still suffer from serious oscillations near the barrier while those of the (0, 4)-Padé scheme provide the best approximate results.
It is also seen that though the (2, 2)-Padé scheme makes use of the same interpolation points with the (0, 4)-Padé scheme, the price of option and Delta values of the (2, 2)-Padé scheme still oscillate near the barrier.
Moreover, in Figure 8, we plot the curves of option price and the corresponding Delta value versus the asset price when t=0 for the Crank-Nicolson, (2, 2)-Padé and (0, 4)-Padé scheme respectively.
From Figure 8, it is further verified that the (0, 4)-Padé scheme is the best one, which can significantly reduce the oscillations of the option price and the Delta value near the barrier.
In Tables 4–6, the error of the numerical solution in L2 and L∞ norm, as well as the corresponding order for the Crank-Nicolson, (2, 2)-Padé and (0, 4)-Padé schemes are listed respectively when τ is varying and M=8192.
N | τ | ‖Vτ(⋅,0)−V∗(⋅,0)‖2 | Order | ‖Vτ(⋅,0)−V∗(⋅,0)‖∞ | Order |
8 | 0.12500000 | 33.7205 | *** | 17.8600 | *** |
16 | 0.06250000 | 19.9914 | 0.7542 | 14.8495 | 0.2663 |
32 | 0.03125000 | 8.8330 | 1.1784 | 7.7376 | 0.9405 |
64 | 0.01562500 | 9.9060×10−1 | 3.1565 | 7.8221×10−1 | 3.3063 |
128 | 0.00781250 | 2.1208×10−3 | 8.8676 | 2.3627×10−4 | 11.6929 |
N | τ | ‖Vτ(⋅,0)−V∗(⋅,0)‖2 | Order | ‖Vτ(⋅,0)−V∗(⋅,0)‖∞ | Order |
8 | 0.12500000 | 22.5121 | *** | 15.7317 | *** |
16 | 0.06250000 | 11.0447 | 1.0274 | 9.6167 | 0.7101 |
32 | 0.03125000 | 1.9755 | 2.4831 | 1.4823 | 2.6977 |
64 | 0.01562500 | 5.2250×10−3 | 8.5626 | 3.1998×10−3 | 8.8556 |
128 | 0.00781250 | 4.4324×10−8 | 16.8470 | 2.9549×10−9 | 20.0465 |
N | τ | ‖Vτ(⋅,0)−V∗(⋅,0)‖2 | Order | ‖Vτ(⋅,0)−V∗(⋅,0)‖∞ | Order |
8 | 0.12500000 | 1.0414×10−2 | *** | 6.7754×10−4 | *** |
16 | 0.06250000 | 8.2617×10−4 | 3.6559 | 5.4547×10−5 | 3.6347 |
32 | 0.03125000 | 5.8268×10−5 | 3.8257 | 3.8767×10−6 | 3.8146 |
64 | 0.01562500 | 3.8786×10−6 | 3.9091 | 2.5746×10−7 | 3.9124 |
128 | 0.00781250 | 3.1080×10−7 | 3.6415 | 1.5452×10−8 | 4.0584 |
From Tables 4–6, it is observed that the price of the digital option with both (2, 2)-Padé scheme and (0, 4)-Padé scheme can achieve the fourth-order accuracy, while the results of the (0, 4)-Padé scheme are more accurate than those of the (2, 2)-Padé scheme.
Example 5.3. Consider a fractional double barrier call option pricing model as follows
{∂V(x,t)∂t+(r−ν)∂V(x,t)∂x+νBdDαxV(x,t)=rV(x,t),(x,t)∈(Bd,Bu)×(0,T),V(Bu,t)=V(Bd,t)=0,t∈[0,T),V(x,T)=v(x),x∈(Bd,Bu), |
where α=1.5,r=0.05,σ=0.25,Bu=ln100,Bd=ln0.1,T=1,K=20,E1=40,E2=70 and ν=−12σαsecαπ2. The payoff function is
v(x)={max{ex−K,0},lnE1<x≤lnE2,0,Bd<x≤lnE1,lnE2≤x<Bu. |
In Figures 9–11, the price surfaces of the fractional double barrier call option and the corresponding Delta value are drawn for the Crank-Nicolson, (2, 2)-Padé and (0, 4)-Padé schemes respectively with N=16 and M=2048.
From Figures 9–11, it is observed that both the Crank–Nicolson and (2, 2)-Padé schemes suffer from spurious oscillations near the barrier while (0, 4)-Padé approximation provides reliable option values and smooth Delta value.
In Figure 12, we plot the curves of option price and the corresponding Delta value versus the asset price when t=0 for Crank-Nicolson, (2, 2)-Padé and (0, 4)-Padé scheme respectively.
From Figure 12, it is further confirmed that the (0, 4)-Padé scheme can significantly reduce the oscillation of the price of the option near the barrier and smooth the corresponding Delta value.
In Tables 7–9, the error of the numerical solution in L2 and L∞ norm, as well as the corresponding order for the Crank–Nicolson, (2, 2)-Padé and (0, 4)-Padé schemes are listed respectively when τ is varying and M=8192.
N | τ | ‖Vτ(⋅,0)−V∗(⋅,0)‖2 | Order | ‖Vτ(⋅,0)−V∗(⋅,0)‖∞ | Order |
8 | 0.12500000 | 60.6264 | *** | 29.9147 | *** |
16 | 0.06250000 | 35.9440 | 0.7542 | 24.8172 | 0.2695 |
32 | 0.03125000 | 15.8816 | 1.1784 | 12.9186 | 0.9419 |
64 | 0.01562500 | 1.7811 | 3.1565 | 1.3060 | 3.3062 |
128 | 0.00781250 | 3.6030×10−3 | 8.9493 | 3.7585×10−4 | 11.7628 |
N | τ | ‖Vτ(⋅,0)−V∗(⋅,0)‖2 | Order | ‖Vτ(⋅,0)−V∗(⋅,0)‖∞ | Order |
8 | 0.12500000 | 40.4761 | *** | 26.3017 | *** |
16 | 0.06250000 | 19.8581 | 1.0273 | 16.0588 | 0.7118 |
32 | 0.03125000 | 3.5519 | 2.4831 | 2.4759 | 2.6974 |
64 | 0.01562500 | 9.3945×10−3 | 8.5626 | 5.3429×10−3 | 8.8561 |
128 | 0.00781250 | 7.9967×10−8 | 16.8421 | 5.0636×10−9 | 20.0090 |
N | τ | ‖Vτ(⋅,0)−V∗(⋅,0)‖2 | Order | ‖Vτ(⋅,0)−V∗(⋅,0)‖∞ | Order |
8 | 0.12500000 | 1.9302×10−2 | *** | 1.0964×10−3 | *** |
16 | 0.06250000 | 1.5287×10−3 | 3.6584 | 8.8458×10−5 | 3.6316 |
32 | 0.03125000 | 1.0763×10−4 | 3.8281 | 6.3074×10−6 | 3.8099 |
64 | 0.01562500 | 7.1519×10−6 | 3.9117 | 4.3025×10−7 | 3.8738 |
128 | 0.00781250 | 5.1858×10−7 | 3.7857 | 3.6863×10−8 | 3.5449 |
From Tables 7–9, it is seen that the numerical price of the fractional double barrier call option for both (2, 2)-Padé scheme and (0, 4)-Padé scheme can achieve fourth-order accuracy while the numerical results of the Crank–Nicolson scheme only obtains the second-order accuracy. Among the three schemes, the (0, 4)-Padé scheme is the most accurate one, which requires less discrete points than the other two schemes to achieve the same accuracy.
A class of fourth order Padé schemes for pricing fractional exotic options under FMLS model are proposed and studied, which make use of the 2nd-order weighted and shifted Grünwald difference scheme in space direction and the 4th-order Padé schemes in time direction. The convergence of the Padé schemes are proved in detailed under the FMLS model. Numerical experiments on fractional digital option and fractional barrier options are given to verify the 4th-order precision, and show that the (0, 4)-Padé scheme can significantly reduce the oscillations of the solution near the strike price or barrier, smooth the Delta value and save the computational time.
The authors are very grateful to the referees for their constructive comments and valuable suggestions, which greatly improved the original manuscript of the paper. This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 11971354).
The authors declare there is no conflicts of interest.
[1] |
J. Apraiz, L. Escauriaza, G. Wang, C. Zhang, Observability inequalities and measurable sets, J. Eur. Math. Soc., 16 (2014), 2433–2475. doi: 10.4171/JEMS/490
![]() |
[2] |
P. Baras, J. A. Goldstein, The heat equation with a singular potential, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 284 (1984), 121–139. doi: 10.1090/S0002-9947-1984-0742415-3
![]() |
[3] |
S. Ervedoza, Control and stabilization properties for a singular heat equation with an inverse square potential, Commun. Part. Diff. Eq., 33 (2008), 1996–2019. doi: 10.1080/03605300802402633
![]() |
[4] | J. A. Goldstein, Q. S. Zhang, Linear parabolic equations with strong singular potentials, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 355 (2003), 197–211. |
[5] |
J. L. Lions, Exact controllability, stabilization and perturbations for distributed system, SIAM Rev., 30 (1988), 1–68. doi: 10.1137/1030001
![]() |
[6] |
K. D. Phung, Carleman commutator approach in logarithmic convexity for parabolic equations, Math. Control Relat. F., 8 (2018), 899–933. doi: 10.3934/mcrf.2018040
![]() |
[7] |
K. D. Phung, G. Wang, An observability estimate for the parabolic equations from a measurable set in time and its applications, J. Eur. Math. Soc., 15 (2013), 681–703. doi: 10.4171/JEMS/371
![]() |
[8] |
K. D. Phung, L. Wang, C. Zhang, Bang-bang property for time optimal control of semilinear heat equation, Ann. I. H. Poincare-An., 31 (2014), 477–499. doi: 10.1016/j.anihpc.2013.04.005
![]() |
[9] | A. Pazy, Semigroups of linear operators and applications to partial differential equations, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1983. |
[10] |
I. Peral, J. L. Vazquez, On the stability or instability of the singular solution of the semilinear heat equation with exponential reaction term, Arch. Ration. Mech. An., 129 (1995), 201–224. doi: 10.1007/BF00383673
![]() |
[11] |
J. L. Vazquez, E. Zuazua, The Hardy inequality and the asymptotic behaviour of the heat equation with an inverse-square potential, J. Funct. Anal., 173 (2000), 103–153. doi: 10.1006/jfan.1999.3556
![]() |
[12] |
J. Vancostenoble, E. Zuazua, Null controllability for the heat equation with singular inverse square potentials, J. Funct. Anal., 254 (2008), 1864–1902. doi: 10.1016/j.jfa.2007.12.015
![]() |
[13] |
G. Wang, L∞-null controllability for the heat equation and its consequences for the time optimal control problem, SIAM J. Control Optim., 47 (2008), 1701–1720. doi: 10.1137/060678191
![]() |
[14] |
G. Wang, L. Wang, The Carleman inequality and its application to periodic optimal control governed by semilinear parabolic differential equations, J. Optimz. Theory App., 118 (2003), 429–461. doi: 10.1023/A:1025459624398
![]() |
[15] |
C. Zhang, An observability estimate for the heat equation from a product of two measurable sets, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 396 (2012), 7–12. doi: 10.1016/j.jmaa.2012.05.082
![]() |
[16] | G. Zheng, K. Li, Y. Zhang, Quantitative unique continuation for the heat equations with inverse square potential, J. Inequal. Appl., 1 (2018), 1–17. |
1. | Ming-Kai Wang, Cheng Wang, Jun-Feng Yin, A second-order ADI method for pricing options under fractional regime-switching models, 2023, 18, 1556-1801, 647, 10.3934/nhm.2023028 | |
2. | M. YOUSUF, A. Q. M. KHALIQ, PRICING AMERICAN OPTION USING A MODIFIED FRACTIONAL BLACK–SCHOLES MODEL UNDER MULTI-STATE REGIME SWITCHING, 2023, 26, 0219-0249, 10.1142/S021902492350019X | |
3. | Xiaofeng Guo, Jianyu Pan, Approximate inverse preconditioners for linear systems arising from spatial balanced fractional diffusion equations, 2023, 8, 2473-6988, 17284, 10.3934/math.2023884 |
N | τ | ‖Vτ(⋅,0)−V∗(⋅,0)‖2 | Order | ‖Vτ(⋅,0)−V∗(⋅,0)‖∞ | Order |
8 | 0.12500000 | 51.4645 | *** | 27.0184 | *** |
16 | 0.06250000 | 27.4790 | 0.9052 | 19.2316 | 0.4905 |
32 | 0.03125000 | 10.3013 | 1.4155 | 6.1728 | 1.6395 |
64 | 0.01562500 | 1.0048 | 3.3578 | 4.9171×10−1 | 3.6500 |
128 | 0.00781250 | 3.4284×10−3 | 8.1952 | 2.2191×10−4 | 11.1136 |
N | τ | ‖Vτ(⋅,0)−V∗(⋅,0)‖2 | Order | ‖Vτ(⋅,0)−V∗(⋅,0)‖∞ | Order |
8 | 0.12500000 | 31.7954 | *** | 21.3352 | *** |
16 | 0.06250000 | 13.3594 | 1.2510 | 9.0302 | 1.2404 |
32 | 0.03125000 | 2.0437 | 2.7086 | 1.3213 | 2.7728 |
64 | 0.01562500 | 5.1328×10−3 | 8.6372 | 2.7977×10−3 | 8.8835 |
128 | 0.00781250 | 7.4134×10−8 | 16.0793 | 4.8969×10−9 | 19.1239 |
N | τ | ‖Vτ(⋅,0)−V∗(⋅,0)‖2 | Order | ‖Vτ(⋅,0)−V∗(⋅,0)‖∞ | Order |
8 | 0.12500000 | 1.7217×10−2 | *** | 1.1203×10−3 | *** |
16 | 0.06250000 | 1.3686×10−3 | 3.6530 | 9.0190×10−5 | 3.6348 |
32 | 0.03125000 | 9.7572×10−5 | 3.8101 | 8.1591×10−6 | 3.4665 |
64 | 0.01562500 | 7.0293×10−6 | 3.7950 | 1.8366×10−6 | 2.1514 |
128 | 0.00781250 | 7.8313×10−7 | 3.1661 | 3.8539×10−7 | 2.2526 |
N | τ | ‖Vτ(⋅,0)−V∗(⋅,0)‖2 | Order | ‖Vτ(⋅,0)−V∗(⋅,0)‖∞ | Order |
8 | 0.12500000 | 33.7205 | *** | 17.8600 | *** |
16 | 0.06250000 | 19.9914 | 0.7542 | 14.8495 | 0.2663 |
32 | 0.03125000 | 8.8330 | 1.1784 | 7.7376 | 0.9405 |
64 | 0.01562500 | 9.9060×10−1 | 3.1565 | 7.8221×10−1 | 3.3063 |
128 | 0.00781250 | 2.1208×10−3 | 8.8676 | 2.3627×10−4 | 11.6929 |
N | τ | ‖Vτ(⋅,0)−V∗(⋅,0)‖2 | Order | ‖Vτ(⋅,0)−V∗(⋅,0)‖∞ | Order |
8 | 0.12500000 | 22.5121 | *** | 15.7317 | *** |
16 | 0.06250000 | 11.0447 | 1.0274 | 9.6167 | 0.7101 |
32 | 0.03125000 | 1.9755 | 2.4831 | 1.4823 | 2.6977 |
64 | 0.01562500 | 5.2250×10−3 | 8.5626 | 3.1998×10−3 | 8.8556 |
128 | 0.00781250 | 4.4324×10−8 | 16.8470 | 2.9549×10−9 | 20.0465 |
N | τ | ‖Vτ(⋅,0)−V∗(⋅,0)‖2 | Order | ‖Vτ(⋅,0)−V∗(⋅,0)‖∞ | Order |
8 | 0.12500000 | 1.0414×10−2 | *** | 6.7754×10−4 | *** |
16 | 0.06250000 | 8.2617×10−4 | 3.6559 | 5.4547×10−5 | 3.6347 |
32 | 0.03125000 | 5.8268×10−5 | 3.8257 | 3.8767×10−6 | 3.8146 |
64 | 0.01562500 | 3.8786×10−6 | 3.9091 | 2.5746×10−7 | 3.9124 |
128 | 0.00781250 | 3.1080×10−7 | 3.6415 | 1.5452×10−8 | 4.0584 |
N | τ | ‖Vτ(⋅,0)−V∗(⋅,0)‖2 | Order | ‖Vτ(⋅,0)−V∗(⋅,0)‖∞ | Order |
8 | 0.12500000 | 60.6264 | *** | 29.9147 | *** |
16 | 0.06250000 | 35.9440 | 0.7542 | 24.8172 | 0.2695 |
32 | 0.03125000 | 15.8816 | 1.1784 | 12.9186 | 0.9419 |
64 | 0.01562500 | 1.7811 | 3.1565 | 1.3060 | 3.3062 |
128 | 0.00781250 | 3.6030×10−3 | 8.9493 | 3.7585×10−4 | 11.7628 |
N | τ | ‖Vτ(⋅,0)−V∗(⋅,0)‖2 | Order | ‖Vτ(⋅,0)−V∗(⋅,0)‖∞ | Order |
8 | 0.12500000 | 40.4761 | *** | 26.3017 | *** |
16 | 0.06250000 | 19.8581 | 1.0273 | 16.0588 | 0.7118 |
32 | 0.03125000 | 3.5519 | 2.4831 | 2.4759 | 2.6974 |
64 | 0.01562500 | 9.3945×10−3 | 8.5626 | 5.3429×10−3 | 8.8561 |
128 | 0.00781250 | 7.9967×10−8 | 16.8421 | 5.0636×10−9 | 20.0090 |
N | τ | ‖Vτ(⋅,0)−V∗(⋅,0)‖2 | Order | ‖Vτ(⋅,0)−V∗(⋅,0)‖∞ | Order |
8 | 0.12500000 | 1.9302×10−2 | *** | 1.0964×10−3 | *** |
16 | 0.06250000 | 1.5287×10−3 | 3.6584 | 8.8458×10−5 | 3.6316 |
32 | 0.03125000 | 1.0763×10−4 | 3.8281 | 6.3074×10−6 | 3.8099 |
64 | 0.01562500 | 7.1519×10−6 | 3.9117 | 4.3025×10−7 | 3.8738 |
128 | 0.00781250 | 5.1858×10−7 | 3.7857 | 3.6863×10−8 | 3.5449 |
N | τ | ‖Vτ(⋅,0)−V∗(⋅,0)‖2 | Order | ‖Vτ(⋅,0)−V∗(⋅,0)‖∞ | Order |
8 | 0.12500000 | 51.4645 | *** | 27.0184 | *** |
16 | 0.06250000 | 27.4790 | 0.9052 | 19.2316 | 0.4905 |
32 | 0.03125000 | 10.3013 | 1.4155 | 6.1728 | 1.6395 |
64 | 0.01562500 | 1.0048 | 3.3578 | 4.9171×10−1 | 3.6500 |
128 | 0.00781250 | 3.4284×10−3 | 8.1952 | 2.2191×10−4 | 11.1136 |
N | τ | ‖Vτ(⋅,0)−V∗(⋅,0)‖2 | Order | ‖Vτ(⋅,0)−V∗(⋅,0)‖∞ | Order |
8 | 0.12500000 | 31.7954 | *** | 21.3352 | *** |
16 | 0.06250000 | 13.3594 | 1.2510 | 9.0302 | 1.2404 |
32 | 0.03125000 | 2.0437 | 2.7086 | 1.3213 | 2.7728 |
64 | 0.01562500 | 5.1328×10−3 | 8.6372 | 2.7977×10−3 | 8.8835 |
128 | 0.00781250 | 7.4134×10−8 | 16.0793 | 4.8969×10−9 | 19.1239 |
N | τ | ‖Vτ(⋅,0)−V∗(⋅,0)‖2 | Order | ‖Vτ(⋅,0)−V∗(⋅,0)‖∞ | Order |
8 | 0.12500000 | 1.7217×10−2 | *** | 1.1203×10−3 | *** |
16 | 0.06250000 | 1.3686×10−3 | 3.6530 | 9.0190×10−5 | 3.6348 |
32 | 0.03125000 | 9.7572×10−5 | 3.8101 | 8.1591×10−6 | 3.4665 |
64 | 0.01562500 | 7.0293×10−6 | 3.7950 | 1.8366×10−6 | 2.1514 |
128 | 0.00781250 | 7.8313×10−7 | 3.1661 | 3.8539×10−7 | 2.2526 |
N | τ | ‖Vτ(⋅,0)−V∗(⋅,0)‖2 | Order | ‖Vτ(⋅,0)−V∗(⋅,0)‖∞ | Order |
8 | 0.12500000 | 33.7205 | *** | 17.8600 | *** |
16 | 0.06250000 | 19.9914 | 0.7542 | 14.8495 | 0.2663 |
32 | 0.03125000 | 8.8330 | 1.1784 | 7.7376 | 0.9405 |
64 | 0.01562500 | 9.9060×10−1 | 3.1565 | 7.8221×10−1 | 3.3063 |
128 | 0.00781250 | 2.1208×10−3 | 8.8676 | 2.3627×10−4 | 11.6929 |
N | τ | ‖Vτ(⋅,0)−V∗(⋅,0)‖2 | Order | ‖Vτ(⋅,0)−V∗(⋅,0)‖∞ | Order |
8 | 0.12500000 | 22.5121 | *** | 15.7317 | *** |
16 | 0.06250000 | 11.0447 | 1.0274 | 9.6167 | 0.7101 |
32 | 0.03125000 | 1.9755 | 2.4831 | 1.4823 | 2.6977 |
64 | 0.01562500 | 5.2250×10−3 | 8.5626 | 3.1998×10−3 | 8.8556 |
128 | 0.00781250 | 4.4324×10−8 | 16.8470 | 2.9549×10−9 | 20.0465 |
N | τ | ‖Vτ(⋅,0)−V∗(⋅,0)‖2 | Order | ‖Vτ(⋅,0)−V∗(⋅,0)‖∞ | Order |
8 | 0.12500000 | 1.0414×10−2 | *** | 6.7754×10−4 | *** |
16 | 0.06250000 | 8.2617×10−4 | 3.6559 | 5.4547×10−5 | 3.6347 |
32 | 0.03125000 | 5.8268×10−5 | 3.8257 | 3.8767×10−6 | 3.8146 |
64 | 0.01562500 | 3.8786×10−6 | 3.9091 | 2.5746×10−7 | 3.9124 |
128 | 0.00781250 | 3.1080×10−7 | 3.6415 | 1.5452×10−8 | 4.0584 |
N | τ | ‖Vτ(⋅,0)−V∗(⋅,0)‖2 | Order | ‖Vτ(⋅,0)−V∗(⋅,0)‖∞ | Order |
8 | 0.12500000 | 60.6264 | *** | 29.9147 | *** |
16 | 0.06250000 | 35.9440 | 0.7542 | 24.8172 | 0.2695 |
32 | 0.03125000 | 15.8816 | 1.1784 | 12.9186 | 0.9419 |
64 | 0.01562500 | 1.7811 | 3.1565 | 1.3060 | 3.3062 |
128 | 0.00781250 | 3.6030×10−3 | 8.9493 | 3.7585×10−4 | 11.7628 |
N | τ | ‖Vτ(⋅,0)−V∗(⋅,0)‖2 | Order | ‖Vτ(⋅,0)−V∗(⋅,0)‖∞ | Order |
8 | 0.12500000 | 40.4761 | *** | 26.3017 | *** |
16 | 0.06250000 | 19.8581 | 1.0273 | 16.0588 | 0.7118 |
32 | 0.03125000 | 3.5519 | 2.4831 | 2.4759 | 2.6974 |
64 | 0.01562500 | 9.3945×10−3 | 8.5626 | 5.3429×10−3 | 8.8561 |
128 | 0.00781250 | 7.9967×10−8 | 16.8421 | 5.0636×10−9 | 20.0090 |
N | τ | ‖Vτ(⋅,0)−V∗(⋅,0)‖2 | Order | ‖Vτ(⋅,0)−V∗(⋅,0)‖∞ | Order |
8 | 0.12500000 | 1.9302×10−2 | *** | 1.0964×10−3 | *** |
16 | 0.06250000 | 1.5287×10−3 | 3.6584 | 8.8458×10−5 | 3.6316 |
32 | 0.03125000 | 1.0763×10−4 | 3.8281 | 6.3074×10−6 | 3.8099 |
64 | 0.01562500 | 7.1519×10−6 | 3.9117 | 4.3025×10−7 | 3.8738 |
128 | 0.00781250 | 5.1858×10−7 | 3.7857 | 3.6863×10−8 | 3.5449 |