Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
157 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
43 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
43 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
47 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

DPG-Bench: DPG Method Benchmark Suite

Updated 1 July 2025
  • DPG-Bench is a framework that benchmarks and analyzes the discontinuous Petrov–Galerkin method for solving diverse PDEs.
  • It integrates rigorous error analysis, optimal test space construction, and stable discretizations to ensure reliable numerical approximations.
  • DPG-Bench supports benchmark problems like Laplace, Helmholtz, and Maxwell equations, with scalable preconditioning and adaptive refinement strategies.

DPG-Bench is a collective term referring to the theoretical, algorithmic, and practical apparatus for benchmarking, analyzing, and implementing the Discontinuous Petrov-Galerkin (DPG) method and its variants across a diversity of partial differential equations (PDEs), numerical formulations, and computational regimes. Developed through a series of foundational and recent works by J. Gopalakrishnan, L. Demkowicz, and collaborators, DPG-Bench encapsulates the rigorous error analysis, robust implementation strategies, and reference problem suites essential for both research and applied evaluation of DPG methods.

1. Foundational Principles of the DPG Method

The DPG method is a finite element framework in which stability and reliability are achieved by computing optimal test spaces for a given trial space. At its core, DPG minimizes the residual of the governing PDE in a user-chosen norm—typically by means of a trial-to-test operator TT:

(Tw,v)V=b(w,v),vV(T w, v)_V = b(w, v), \quad \forall v \in V

where b(,)b(\cdot, \cdot) is the bilinear form corresponding to the weak (variational) formulation, and VV is the test space. A key outcome of this construction is that DPG discretizations automatically satisfy a discrete inf-sup (stability) condition, guaranteeing quasi-optimality:

uuhCinfwhUhuwh\|u - u_h\| \leq C \inf_{w_h \in U_h} \| u - w_h \|

for the exact solution uu, DPG approximation uhu_h, and trial space UhU_h (An analysis of the practical DPG method, 2011).

Practical DPG replaces infinite-dimensional test functions with enriched finite-dimensional polynomial spaces, selecting test degree rr at least p+Np + N (where pp is the trial polynomial degree and NN the spatial dimension), to retain optimal rates.

2. Critical Components and Error Analysis

DPG-Bench emphasizes rigorous error analysis and practical implementation guidance drawn from several model problems:

σσhL22+uuhL22+Ch2s\| \sigma - \sigma_h \|_{L^2}^2 + \| u - u_h \|_{L^2}^2 + \|\dots\| \leq C h^{2s}

for suitable sp+1s \leq p+1. Failure to enrich sufficiently (i.e., r<p+Nr < p + N) can induce suboptimality.

3. Benchmarks, Model Problems, and Methodological Variants

DPG-Bench consists of a growing suite of models for benchmarking theory and software, including but not limited to:

  • Laplace and Linear Elasticity: Classic benchmarks, confirming optimal convergence and locking-freeness in the presence of homogeneous isotropic materials (An analysis of the practical DPG method, 2011).
  • Helmholtz Equation: Dispersion- and dissipation-focused benchmarks, utilizing scaled test norms of the form

vV2=Ahv2+ε2v2\|v\|_V^2 = \|A_h v\|^2 + \varepsilon^2 \|v\|^2

to reduce artificial dissipation and improve accuracy for wave problems. The parameter ε\varepsilon tunes the balance, with vanishing ε\varepsilon yielding near-best approximation, but requiring careful discrete test function enrichment (Dispersive and dissipative errors in the DPG method with scaled norms for Helmholtz equation, 2013).

4. Implementation, Preconditioning, and Scalability

DPG-Bench encompasses practical frameworks for assembling, preconditioning, and solving the DPG linear systems:

5. Robustness, Limitations, and Methodological Advances

Recent benchmark analyses have established critical limitations and corresponding remedies:

  • Domain and Poincaré Locking: On large domains or with boundary conditions that weaken the underlying Poincaré inequality, standard DPG test norms lead to instability and convergence "locking" (i.e., poor or vanishing error reduction). This effect is more pronounced for higher-order PDEs (A robust DPG method for large domains, 2020). Uniform robustness is restored by scaling test norms to account for domain size:

v1,d2=d2vL22+vL22\|v\|_{1, d}^2 = d^{-2} \|v\|_{L_2}^2 + \|\nabla v\|_{L_2}^2

where dd reflects the domain-dependent Poincaré constant.

6. Practical Benchmarking Considerations

DPG-Bench provides a reference for implementing, testing, and comparing DPG discretizations:

7. Summary Table: Key Aspects and Implications

Aspect DPG-Bench Guidance Practical Implication
Robustness Requires scaled test norms on large domains Essential for domain-independence
Preconditioning Custom multigrid and trace-space AMG Critical for large-scale computation
Error indicators Intrinsic, localizable, reliable Enables automated adaptive meshing
Eigenvalue/Sing. problems Adaptive methods validated Optimal rates in challenging regimes
Coupling/Hybrid Interfaced DPG-FEM discretizations Flexible for multiphysics applications

8. Conclusion

DPG-Bench comprises the theoretical, methodological, and computational blueprints necessary for robust and reproducible evaluation of DPG schemes across model PDEs, domains, and computational architectures. Carefully chosen test norms, sufficient test space enrichment, and attention to domain-induced stability challenges are paramount. Integrated adaptive refinement and preconditioning strategies are essential for scalable, reliable DPG performance on contemporary benchmarks in science and engineering.