We introduce a method based on Gaussian process regression to identify discrete variational principles from observed solutions of a field theory. The method is based on the data-based identification of a discrete Lagrangian density. It is a geometric machine learning technique in the sense that the variational structure of the true field theory is reflected in the data-driven model by design. We provide a rigorous convergence statement of the method. The proof circumvents challenges posed by the ambiguity of discrete Lagrangian densities in the inverse problem of variational calculus. Moreover, our method can be used to quantify model uncertainty in the equations of motions and any linear observable of the discrete field theory. This is illustrated on the example of the discrete wave equation and Schrödinger equation. The article constitutes an extension of our previous article arXiv:2404.19626 for the data-driven identification of (discrete) Lagrangians for variational dynamics from an ode setting to the setting of discrete pdes.
Let \mathring c_b = \mathring{L_d}(u,u^+,u_+,u^+_+), \mathring{p_b}=\mathrm{Mm}^-( \mathring{L_d})(\mathfrak{u}_b), F=(F_1,0,0,0,0,0) with F_1(u) = (\mathring{p_b}-p_b)^\top u, and c = c_b - \mathring{c_b} + (\mathring{p}_b - p_b)(u^+-u). The Lagrangian
is equivalent to \mathring{L_d} and fulfils the conditions (?).
Assume that there is a reflexive, uniformly convex Banach space B with continuous embedding B \hookrightarrow \mathcal{C}^1(\overline\Omega) such that
In other words, B is assumed to contain a Lagrangian consistent with the normalisation and the underlying dynamics.
The proof consists of the following steps and follows the same strategy as in the case of temporal Lagrangians [DLGPode]. We will prove:
The sequence ({L_d}_{(j)})_j has a weakly convergent subsequence.
The weak limit L_{d(\infty)}^\dagger is contained in A^{(\infty)}.
L_{d(\infty)}^\dagger coincides with L_{d(\infty)}.
The whole sequence ({L_d}_{(j)})_j converges weakly against L_{d(\infty)}.
The norms \|{L_d}_{(j)}\|_B converge to \|L_{d(\infty)}\|_B.
Step 4 and 5 imply that the sequence ({L_d}_{(j)})_j converges strongly against L_{d(\infty)}.
Step 1. The sequence of affine spaces A^{(1)} \supseteq A^{(2)} \supseteq A^{(2)} \supseteq \ldots decreases monotonously. Moreover, \emptyset \not = A^{(\infty)} \subseteq \bigcap_{j=1}^\infty A^{(j)}. It follows that the norms \|L_{d(j)}\|_B increase monotonously. The sequence is bounded by \|L_{d(\infty)}\|_B. By reflexivity of B, we find a weakly convergent subsequence (L_{d(j_i)})_{i \in \mathbb{N}} (see [Brezis2011, Theorem 3.18]). Let L_{j_i} \rightharpoonup L^\dagger_{d(\infty)} denote the weak limit in B. We have
by the weak lower semi-continuity of the norm.
Step 2. We show L^\dagger_{d(\infty)} \in A^{(\infty)}.
Let \mathfrak u \in \hat \Omega. As the sequence \Omega_0 = (\mathfrak{u}^{(m)} )_{m=1}^\infty is dense in \hat \Omega, there exists a subsequence (\mathfrak{u}^{(m_l)} )_{l=1}^\infty converging to \mathfrak{u}.
For each l there is N such that j_N \ge m_l. For i \ge N it holds that \Phi^{(\infty)}_b (L_{d(j_i)}) (\mathfrak{u}^{(m_l)})=0. Therefore, for each l
For each l the linear operator \Phi^{(\infty)}_b(\cdot) (\mathfrak{u}^{(m_l)}) \colon B \to \mathbb{R}^d \times \mathbb{R}^{d+1} into the finite-dimensional space \mathbb{R}^d \times \mathbb{R}^{d+1} is bounded. By the weak convergence L_{d(j_i)} \rightharpoonup L_{d(\infty)}^\dagger we have
By continuity \Phi^{(\infty)}_b(L^\dagger_{d(\infty)}) \in \mathcal{C}^0(\overline{\Omega}), we have
As this holds for all \mathfrak{u}\in \hat \Omega we conclude L^\dagger_{d(\infty)} \in A^{(\infty)}.
Step 3. As L^\dagger_{d(\infty)} \in A^{(\infty)} by Step 2, we have \| L^\dagger_{d(\infty)} \|_B \ge \| L_{d(\infty)} \|_B since L_{d(\infty)} is the unique minimiser of the minimisation problem of (?). Together with (?) we conclude \| L^\dagger_{d(\infty)} \|_B = \| L_{d(\infty)} \|_B. By uniqueness of the minimiser L_{d(\infty)} this implies L^\dagger_{d(\infty)} = L_{d(\infty)}. It follows that L_{d(j_i)} converges weakly to L_{d(\infty)}.
Step 4. The choice of a weakly convergent subsequence of L_{d(j)} in Step 1 was arbitrary. Thus any subsequence of L_{d(j)} has a weakly convergent subsequence and any weakly convergent subsequence has weak limit L_{d(\infty)}. It follows that the whole series L_{d(j)} converges weakly to the unique weak limit L_{d(\infty)}.
Step 5. As L_{d(j)} \rightharpoonup L_{d(\infty)}, and \|L_{d(j)}\|_B \le \|L_{d(\infty)}\|_B, and by the weak lower semi-continuity of the norm
Therefore
Step 6. As B is uniformly convex, by [Brezis2011, Prop. 3.32] weak convergence L_{d(j)} \rightharpoonup L^\dagger_{d(\infty)} together with (?) implies strong convergence \lim_{j \to \infty} L_{d(j)} = L_{d(\infty)}.
By [OwhadiScovel2019OptimalRecoverySplines, Thm 12.5] the unique minimisers L_{d(j)} in (?) coincide with the conditional means considered in ?. Moreover, reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces are uniformly convex, reflexive Banach spaces. Thus the statement follows directly from ?.
The proof of ? can be adapted easily.
The text on this page is from arXiv:2407.07642v1 by Christian Offen, under the licence CC BY 4.0. The corpus made these changes: it read the items out of the LaTeX source, it expanded the macros of the paper, it put each proof after its statement, and it converted the text to HTML. The formulas are the TeX of the paper, and KaTeX renders them. A formula or a reference can look different from the PDF. The page is published under CC BY 4.0.
The record of each item is in analysis/objects/2407/2407.07642.jsonl.