Paper detail

Does the Helmholtz boundary element method suffer from the pollution effect?

In $d$ dimensions, accurately approximating an arbitrary function oscillating with frequency $\lesssim k$ requires $\sim k^d$ degrees of freedom. A numerical method for solving the Helmholtz equation (with wavenumber $k$ and in $d$ dimensions) suffers from the pollution effect if, as $k\to\infty$, the total number of degrees of freedom needed to maintain accuracy grows faster than this natural threshold (i.e., faster than $k^d$ for domain-based formulations, such as finite element methods, and $k^{d-1}$ for boundary-based formulations, such as boundary element methods). It is well known that the $h$-version of the finite element method (FEM) (where accuracy is increased by decreasing the meshwidth $h$ and keeping the polynomial degree $p$ fixed) suffers from the pollution effect, and research over the last $\sim$ 30 years has resulted in a near-complete rigorous understanding of how quickly the number of degrees of freedom must grow with $k$ to maintain accuracy. In contrast to the $h$-FEM, at least empirically, the $h$-version of the boundary element method (BEM) does $\textit{not}$ suffer from the pollution effect (recall that in the boundary element method the scattering problem is reformulated as an integral equation on the boundary of the scatterer, with this integral equation then solved numerically using a finite-element-type approximation space). However, the current best results in the literature on how quickly the number of degrees of freedom for the $h$-BEM must grow with $k$ to maintain accuracy fall short of proving this. In this paper, we prove that the $h$-version of the Galerkin method applied to the standard second-kind boundary integral equations for solving the Helmholtz exterior Dirichlet problem does not suffer from the pollution effect when the obstacle is nontrapping (i.e., does not trap geometric-optic rays).

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.