Kernel-Based Collocation Methods Versus Galerkin Finite Element Methods for Approximating Elliptic Stochastic Partial Differential Equations

  • Gregory E. Fasshauer
  • Qi Ye
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computational Science and Engineering book series (LNCSE, volume 89)


We compare a kernel-based collocation method (meshfree approximation method) with a Galerkin finite element method for solving elliptic stochastic partial differential equations driven by Gaussian noises. The kernel-based collocation solution is a linear combination of reproducing kernels obtained from related differential and boundary operators centered at chosen collocation points. Its random coefficients are obtained by solving a system of linear equations with multiple random right-hand sides. The finite element solution is given as a tensor product of triangular finite elements and Lagrange polynomials defined on a finite-dimensional probability space. Its coefficients are obtained by solving several deterministic finite element problems. For the kernel-based collocation method, we directly simulate the (infinite-dimensional) Gaussian noise at the collocation points. For the finite element method, however, we need to truncate the Gaussian noise into finite-dimensional noises. According to our numerical experiments, the finite element method has the same convergence rate as the kernel-based collocation method provided the Gaussian noise is truncated using a suitable number terms.


Kernel-based collocation Meshfree approximation Galerkin finite element Elliptic stochastic partial differential equations Gaussian fields Reproducing kernels 


  1. 1.
    I. Babuška, F. Nobile, R. Tempone, A stochastic collocation method for elliptic partial differential equations with random input data. SIAM Rev. 52, 317–355 (2010)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    I. Babuška, R. Tempone, G.E. Zouraris, Galerkin finite element approximations of stochastic elliptic partial differential equations. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 42, 800–825 (2004)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. Berlinet, C. Thomas-Agnan, Reproducing Kernel Hilbert Spaces in Probability and Statistics (Kluwer, Boston, 2004)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    I. Cialenco, G.E. Fasshauer, Q. Ye, Approximation of stochastic partial differential equations by a kernel-based collocation method. Int. J. Comput. Math. Special issue: Recent advances on the numerical solutions of stochastic partial differential equations. (2012), doi:10.1080/00207160.2012.688111Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    G.E. Fasshauer, Meshfree Approximation Methods with Matlab (World Scientific, Singapore, 2007)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    G.E. Fasshauer, Q. Ye, Reproducing kernels of generalized Sobolev spaces via a Green function approach with distributional operators. Numer. Math. 119, 585–611 (2011)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    G.E. Fasshauer, Q. Ye, Reproducing kernels of Sobolev spaces via a Green kernel approach with differential operators and boundary operators. Adv. Comput. Math., to appear, doi:10.1007/s10444-011-9264-6.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M.N. Lukić, J.H. Beder, Stochastic processes with sample paths in reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 353, 3945–3969 (2001)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Scheuerer, R. Schaback, M. Schlather, Interpolation of Spatial Data – A Stochastic or A Deterministic Problem?, submitted data page of R. Schaback’s Research Group,
  10. 10.
    H. Wendland, Scattered Data Approximation (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Q. Ye, Analyzing reproducing kernel approximation methods via a Green function approach, Ph.D. thesis, Illinois Institute of Technology, 2012Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Applied MathematicsIllinois Institute of TechnologyChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations