arxiv: v2 [math.na] 8 Nov 2017

Transcription

1 CONVERGENCE OF AN IMPLICIT-EXPLICIT MIDPOINT SCHEME FOR COMPUTATIONAL MICROMAGNETICS DIRK PRAETORIUS, MICHELE RUGGERI, AND BERNHARD STIFTNER arxiv: v2 [mat.na] 8 Nov 217 Abstract. Based on lowest-order finite elements in space, we consider te numerical integration of te Landau Lifscitz Gilbert equation (LLG). Te dynamics of LLG is driven by te so-called effective field wic usually consists of te excange field, te external field, and lower-order contributions suc as te stray field. Te latter requires te solution of an additional partial differential equation in full space. Following Bartels and Prol (26) (Convergence of an implicit finite element metod for te Landau Lifscitz Gilbert equation. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 44(4): ), we employ te implicit midpoint rule to treat te excange field. However, in order to treat te lowerorder terms effectively, we combine te midpoint rule wit an explicit Adams Basfort sceme. Te resulting integrator is formally of second-order in time, and we prove unconditional convergence towards a weak solution of LLG. Numerical experiments underpin te teoretical findings. 1. Introduction Time-dependent micromagnetic penomena are usually modeled by te Landau Lifscitz Gilbert equation (LLG); see (1) below. Tis nonlinear partial differential equation (PDE) describes te beavior of te magnetization of some ferromagnetic body under te influence of te so-called effective field eff. Global-in-time existence (and possible nonuniqueness) of weak solutions of LLG goes back to [Vis85, AS92]. For smoot problems, LLG admits a unique strong solution locally in time, provided te initial data are smoot (cf. [CF1]). Under similar restrictions te recent work [DS14] proves a strongweak uniqueness principle for LLG. Unconditionally convergent numerical integrators ave first been analyzed matematically in [BP6, Alo8], were eff only consists of te excange field (see Section 2.1 below). Here, unconditional convergence means tat convergence of te numerical integrator enforces no CFL-type coupling of te spatial mes-size and te time-step size k. Moreover, convergence is understood in te sense tat te sequence of discrete solutions for, k admits a subsequence wic converges weakly in H 1 towards a weak solution of LLG. Te tangent plane integrator of [Alo8] requires to solve one linear system per time-step (posed in te time-dependent discrete tangent plane), but is formally only first-order in time. Instead, te midpoint sceme of [BP6] is formally second-order in time, but involves te solution of one nonlinear system per time-step. Usually, te effective field eff wic drives te dynamics of LLG couples LLG to oter stationary or time-dependent PDEs; see, e.g., [CF98] for te coupling of LLG wit te full Maxwell system, [GCW7] for te electron spin diffusion in ferromagnetic multilayers, or [CEF11] for LLG wit magnetostriction. In te case tat te effective field involves stationary PDEs only (e.g., eff consists of excange field, anisotropy field, applied exterior Date: November 9, Matematics Subject Classification. 35K55, 65M12, 65M6. Key words and prases. micromagnetism, Landau Lifsitz Gilbert equation, spin-transfer torque, finite elements, implicit-explicit time-integration. 1

2 field, and self-induced stray field), te numerical analysis of te tangent plane integrator of [Alo8] as been generalized in [AKT12, BSF + 14], were te lower-order contributions are treated explicitly in time by means of a forward Euler step. It is proved tat tis preserves unconditional convergence. In [BPP15] and [LT13, LPPT15], te tangent plane integrator is adapted to te coupling of LLG wit te full Maxwell system resp. te eddy current formulation. Te works [BPPR14] and [AHP + 14] extend te tangent plane integrator to LLG wit magnetostriction resp. LLG wit spin diffusion interaction. Trougout, [BPP15, LT13, LPPT15, BPPR14, AHP + 14] prove unconditional convergence of te overall integrator. Moreover, one general teme of [BPP15, LPPT15, BPPR14, AHP + 14] is tat te time marcing sceme decouples te integration of LLG and te coupled PDE, so tat despite te possibly nonlinear coupling [BPPR14, AHP + 14] only two linear systems ave to be solved per time-step. Moreover, [AHP + 14] proves tat te nodal projection step of te original tangent plane integrator [Alo8] can be omitted witout losing unconditional convergence. For tis projection-free variant of te tangent plane integrator, te recent work [FT17] also proves strong H 1 -convergence towards strong solutions. As far as te midpoint sceme from [BP6] is concerned, te work [BBP8] provides an extended sceme for te Maxwell LLG system. Even toug te decoupling of te nonlinear LLG equation and te linear Maxwell system appears to be of interest for a time-marcing sceme, te analysis of [BBP8] treats only te full nonlinear system in eac time-step. Te present work transfers ideas and results from [AKT12, BSF + 14] for te tangent plane integrator to te midpoint sceme. We prove tat lower-order terms can be treated explicitly in time. Tis dramatically lowers te computational work to solve te nonlinear system in eac time-step of te midpoint sceme. Unlike [AKT12, BSF + 14], owever, te effective treatment of te lower-order terms requires an explicit two-step metod (instead of te simple forward Euler metod) to preserve te second-order convergence of te midpoint sceme. We prove tat suc an approac based on te Adams Basfort sceme guarantees unconditional convergence and remains formally of second-order in time. As an application of te proposed general framework, we discuss te discretization of te extended form of LLG [ZL4, TNMS5] wic is used to describe te current driven motion of domain walls. 2. Model problem and discretization Tis section states te Gilbert formulation of LLG and extends te notion of a weak solution from [AS92] to te present situation. Ten, we introduce te notation for our finite element discretization and formulate te numerical integrator. Trougout, we employ standard Lebesgue and Sobolev spaces L 2 (Ω) resp. H 1 (Ω). For any Banac space B, we let B := B 3, e.g., L 2 (Ω) := (L 2 (Ω)) Model problem. For a bounded Lipscitz domain Ω R 3, initial data m H 1 (Ω), final time T >, and te Gilbert damping constant α >, te Gilbert form of LLG reads t m = m eff + α m t m in Ω T := (, T ) Ω, (1a) n m = on (, T ) Ω, (1b) m() = m in Ω. (1c) 2

3 Wit C ex >, f : R 3 R 3, and π : H 1 (Ω) L (Ω) L 2 (Ω), te effective field reads eff := C ex m + π(m) + f; (2) see Teorem 4 for furter assumptions on π( ) and f. Wit te L 2 -scalar product ϕ, ψ := ϕ ψ dx for all ϕ, ψ Ω L2 (Ω), consider te bulk energy E(m, f) := C ex 2 m 2 L 2 (Ω) 1 π(m), m f, m. (3) 2 Wit te convention m m, ϕ := 3 l=1 m x l m, xl ϕ, we follow [AS92] for te definition of a weak solution to (1). Note tat te variational formulation (4) is just te weak formulation of (1) after integration by parts. Definition 1. A function m is a weak solution to (1) if te following properties (i) (iv) are satisfied: (i) m H 1 (Ω T ) and m = 1 almost everywere in Ω T ; (ii) m() = m in te sense of traces; (iii) m as bounded energy in te sense tat tere exists a constant C >, wic depends only on m, π( ), and f, suc tat, for almost all τ (, T ), it olds tat τ m(τ) 2 L 2 (Ω) + t m 2 L 2 (Ω) dt C < ; (iv) for all ϕ H 1 (Ω T ), it olds tat t m, ϕ dt = C ex m m, ϕ dt m π(m), ϕ dt m f, ϕ dt +α m t m, ϕ dt. Moreover, m is a pysical weak solution if, additionally, it olds tat (v) for almost all τ (, T ), it olds tat E (m(τ), f(τ)) + α τ (4) τ t m 2 L 2 (Ω) dt + t f, m dt E ( m, f() ). (5) 2.2. Spatial discretization. Let T be a quasi-uniform triangulation of Ω into compact tetraedra K T, i.e., wit te corresponding (global) mes-size >, it olds tat C 1 mes K 1/3 diam(k) C mes for all K T. (6) Define te space of T -piecewise affine, globally continuous functions V := { v C(Ω) : v K P 1 (K) for all K T } H 1 (Ω), and recall tat V := (V ) 3 denotes te corresponding space of vector fields. Let N = {z 1, z 2,..., z N } be te set of nodes of T. For z l N, let φ l S be te nodal basis function, i.e., φ l (z l ) = δ l,l wit Kronecker s delta. Let I : C(Ω) V be te nodal interpolation N (I ψ)(x) = φ l (x)ψ(z l ) for all ψ C(Ω). (7) l=1 3

4 Besides te standard L 2 -product,, define te approximate L 2 -product N ϕ, ψ := β l ϕ (z l ) ψ (z l ) for all ϕ, ψ C(Ω) wit β l := φ l dx. (8) l=1 Wit ϕ 2 := ϕ, ϕ, elementary calculations and scaling arguments (see, e.g. [Bar15, Lemma 3.9]) sow tat ϕ L 2 (Ω) ϕ 5 ϕ L 2 (Ω) for all ϕ V. (9) Moreover, tere exists C prod > wic depends only on Ω and C mes, suc tat ϕ, ψ ϕ, ψ C prod 2 ϕ L 2 (Ω) ψ L 2 (Ω) for all ϕ, ψ V. (1) Define te discrete Laplacian : H 1 (Ω) V via and similarly P : L 2 (Ω) V via ϕ, ψ = ϕ, ψ for all ψ V (11) P ϕ, ψ = ϕ, ψ for all ψ V. (12) Note tat P ϕ, ψ = P ϕ, I ψ = ϕ, I ψ for all ϕ, ψ C(Ω) Temporal discretization. Consider uniform time-steps t j := jk for j =,..., M. Let k := T/M be te time-step size. For a Banac space B and a sequence (ϕ i ) M i= 1 in B, define te mean-value and te discrete time-derivative by ϕ i+ 1 ϕ i+1 + ϕ i 2 := 2 For t [t i, t i+1 ), define and d t ϕ i+1 := ϕi+1 ϕ i k for i =,..., M 1. (13) ϕ = k (t) := ϕ i 1, ϕ k (t) := ϕi, ϕ + k (t) := ϕi+1, ϕ k (t) := ϕ i+ 1 2, and (14a) ϕ k (t) := ϕ i+1 t t i + ϕ i t i+1 t. (14b) t i+1 t i t i+1 t i Note tat ϕ = k, ϕ k, ϕ+ k, ϕ k L 2 (, T ; B) and ϕ k H 1 (, T ; B) wit t ϕ k (t) = d t ϕ i+1 for t [t i, t i+1 ) Implicit-explicit midpoint sceme. Let Π : V V V L 2 (Ω) be an approximation to π( ). For i =,..., M 1, let f i+ 1 2 V be an approximation of f(t i + k). 2 Te following algoritm as first been proposed and analyzed in [BP6] for vanising lower-order terms, i.e., eff = C ex m. Tis result caugt a lot of attention in te literature [Bar6, BBP8, BPS9, BPS12], were lower-order terms are treated implicity in time. Since some of te lower-order terms (e.g., te stray field) are computationally expensive, our formulation of Algoritm 2 aims to treat tese terms explicitly in time. Algoritm 2. Input: Approximation m 1 := m V of initial condition m. Loop: For i M 1, find m i+1 V suc tat, for all ϕ V, it olds tat d t m i+1, ϕ = C ex m i+ 1 2 m i+ 1 2, ϕ m i+ 1 2 P Π (m i+1 Ω, mi, m i 1 ), ϕ m i+ 1 2 P f i+ 1 2, ϕ + α m i+ 1 2 d t m i+1, ϕ. (15) Output: Sequence m i of approximations to m(t i) for all i =, 1,..., M. 4

5 We aim to coose Π suc tat te sceme is (formally) of second order and explicit in time for i 1. If π (ψ ) π(ψ ), we mainly tink of te following two coices: (i) te implicit midpoint rule Π (m i+1, mi, m i 1 ) := π ( m i+1 (ii) te explicit Adams Basfort two-step metod Π (m i+1, mi, m i 1 + m i 2 ), (16a) ) := 3 2 π (m i ) 1 2 π (m i 1 ). (16b) Te natural coice will be te implicit midpoint rule (16a) for te first time-step i = and te explicit Adams Basfort metod (16b) for all succeeding time-steps i 1. We note tat te Adams Basfort approac (16b) is computationally attractive, since te by (15) does only require te evaluation of π (m i ), but does not involve π (m i+1 ). Formally, owever, it preserves te second-order accuracy of te overall integrator (cf. Section 6.1). Moreover, te forward Euler sceme (wic is employed and analyzed in [AKT12, BSF + 14] for te tangent plane integrator from [Alo8]) reads computation of m i+1 Π (m i+1, mi, m i 1 ) := π (m i ), (16c) but will generically lead to a reduced first-order convergence. Te next proposition transfers [BP6, Lemma 3.1] from eff = C ex m to te present situation. In particular, Algoritm 2 is well-defined. Proposition 3. Given m i V, te variational formulation (15) admits a solution m i+1 V. Te latter satisfies m i+1 (z l) = m i (z l) for all z l N. In particular, it olds tat m i = m as well as m i L (Ω) = m L (Ω). Proof. Let m i V. Let I be te nodal interpolant (7). Define F i k : V V by were F i k(ϕ ) := 2 k (ϕ m i ) + I ( ϕ Θ(ϕ, m i, m i 1 )) for all ϕ V, (17) Θ(ϕ, m i, m i 1 ) := C ex ϕ + P Π (2ϕ m i, m i, m i 1 ) + P f i α k (ϕ m i ). Let ψ V and suppose F i k(ψ ) =. Ten, direct calculation sows tat m i+1 := 2ψ m i V solves te variational formulation (15). Wit φ l being te nodal basis function corresponding to some node z l N, it olds tat = F i k(ψ ), ψ (z l )φ l (8),(17) = 2β l k (ψ (z l ) m i (z l )) ψ (z l ) = β l 2k (mi+1 Tis proves m i+1, yields m i+1 (z l) m i (z l )) (m i+1 (z l) + m i (z l )) = β l 2k ( mi+1 (z l) 2 m i (z l ) 2 ). (z l) = m i (z l) for all z l N. In particular, te definition (8) of = m i. Since te affine functions m i, mi+1 attain teir L norm in one of te vertices z l N, we also conclude m i+1 L (Ω) = m i L (Ω). It remains to sow tat tere exists ψ V wit F i k(ψ ) =. For ϕ V, it olds tat F i k(ϕ ), ϕ = 2 k ( ϕ 2 m i, ϕ ) 2 k ϕ ( ϕ m i ). 5

6 For r 2 > M l= β l m i (z l) 2 (8) = m i 2, it olds tat F i k(ϕ ), ϕ for all ϕ V wit ϕ = r. Terefore, an application of te Brouwer fixed-point teorem (resp. its corollary [Eva1, Section 9.1, p.529]) yields te existence of ψ V wit ψ r and F i k(ψ ) =. Tis concludes te proof. 3. Convergence teorem 3.1. Statement and discussion of te main teorem. Te following teorem is te main result of te present work. Teorem 4. (a) Let m H 1 (Ω) wit m = 1 a.e. in Ω. Let m V satisfy m m weakly in H 1 (Ω) as, (18a) m L (Ω) C, were C does not depend on >. Let te approximation operator Π : V 3 be stable in te sense tat, for all ϕ 1, ϕ2, ϕ3 V, it olds tat Π ( ϕ 1, ϕ 2, ϕ 3 ) L 2 (Ω) C π (1 + max i=1,2,3 ϕi L (Ω)) (18b) L 2 (Ω) 3 ϕ i H 1 (Ω), (19) were C π does not depend on >. Define f k L 2 (, T ; H 1 (Ω)) via f k (t) := f i+ 1 2 for t [t i, t i+1 ) and suppose tat f k f weakly in L 2 (Ω T ) as (, k) (, ). (2) Ten, as (, k) (, ) unconditionally, tere exists a subsequence of te postprocessed output m k of Algoritm 2 wic converges weakly in H 1 (Ω T ), towards some limit m H 1 (Ω T ), wic additionally satisfies m L (, T ; H 1 (Ω)) wit m = 1 a.e. in Ω T. Moreover, tere exists a constant C > suc tat te same subsequence guarantees strong convergence m k m in L2 (Ω T ) and uniform boundedness m k L (Ω T ) C for all m k {m k, m + k, m k, m k, m = k }. (b) In addition, suppose tat we can extract a furter subsequence suc tat Π ( m + k, m k, m= k) π(m) weakly in L 2 (Ω T ) as (, k) (, ). (21) Ten, te limit m from (a) is a weak solution of LLG according to Definition 1 (i) (iv). (c) In addition, let f C 1 ( [, T ], L 2 (Ω) ) and π : L 2 (Ω) L 2 (Ω) be continuous, linear, and self-adjoint. Let (18a) and (2) (21) old wit strong convergence. Ten, m from (a) is even a pysical weak solution in te sense of Definition 1 (i) (v). Remark 5. If LLG admits a unique weak solution m H 1 (Ω T ) in te sense of Definition 1 (i) (iv), ten standard arguments prove indeed tat all convergences of Teorem 4 old for te full sequences m k {m k, m + k, m k, m k, m = k } instead of only subsequences. For te excange-only formulation of LLG wit eff = C ex m, nonuniqueness of solutions is sown in [AS92]. However, te recent work [DS14] proves a strong-weak uniqueness principle of te solutions of LLG, i.e., if a strong solution exists up to some time T >, it is also te unique weak solution up to time T. 6 i=1

7 Remark 6. Unlike [BP6], were te fact tat m (z l) = 1 for all z l N is used, our proof requires only m V. However, tis coice and ence C = 1 is allowed and, for instance, met if m is te nodal interpolant of m H 1 (Ω) C(Ω). Unlike [BSF + 14, Appendix A], te present proof of te energy estimate of Definition 1 (v), does not require t f = and allows weaker stability assumptions on π. Remark 7. If we suppose te stronger estimate ( ) 3 Π ϕ 1, ϕ 2, ϕ 3 L 2 (Ω) C π ϕ i H 1 (Ω) for all ϕ 1, ϕ 2, ϕ 3 V (22) i=1 instead of (19), ten Teorem 4 remains valid, even if (18b) fails to old. To see tis, note tat (18b) is only used below to derive (36) from (35). Here, te stronger bound (22) simplifies (35) and guarantees (36) even if (18b) fails. Terefore, Lemma 9 and ence also Teorem 4 remain valid. Remark 8. Suppose tat π( ) satisfies stability in te sense of π(ϕ) L 2 (Ω) C π ( 1 + ϕ L (Ω)) ϕ H 1 (Ω) for all ϕ H 1 (Ω) L (Ω). (23) Suppose tat Π satisfies stability (19) as well as te following consistency condition: Convergence ϕ 1, ϕ2, ϕ3 ϕ in L2 (Ω) as implies Π ( ϕ 1, ϕ 2, ϕ 3 ) π(ϕ) in L 2 (Ω). (24) Ten, te Lebesgue dominated convergence teorem implies (21). To see tis, recall m k m in L2 (Ω T ) and m k L (,T ;H 1 (Ω)) C < as (, k) (, ) for some appropriate subsequence for all m k {m k, m + k, m k, m k, m = k }. Since L2 (Ω T ) = L 2 (, T ; L 2 (Ω)), we can extract a furter subsequence suc tat m k (t) m(t) for almost all t [, T ]. Let ψ L 2 (, T ; L 2 (Ω)). Ten, assumption (24) implies π ( m(t) ) ( Π m + k (t), m k (t), m= k(t) ), ψ(t) for almost all t [, T ]. Moreover, assumptions (19) and (23) togeter wit te properties of m and m k ( ) ( imply π m(t) Π m + k (t), m k (t), m= k(t) ), ψ(t) ψ(t) L 2 (Ω) Since T <, te Lebesgue dominated converge teorem implies (21). Moreover, strong convergence in (24) will also result in strong convergence in (21). We note tat in many relevant situations (see Section 4 below), te assumptions (23) (24) are usually easier to verify tan (21). Te proof of Teorem 4 extends tat of [BP6] for eff = m, but additionally employs certain ideas of [BSF + 14]. Rougly, it consists of te following four steps: Sow tat (m i )M i= fulfills a discrete energy identity. Successively extract subsequences of te postprocessed output (14) of Algoritm 2, namely m + k, m k, m k, m = k, and m k, wic simultaneously converge (weakly) to te same limit m H 1 (Ω T ) as (, k) (, ). Verify tat te limit m satisfies Definition 1 (i) (iv). Verify tat te limit m satisfies te energy estimate of Definition 1 (v). To simplify our notation and for te rest of tis section, we abbreviate Π i := Π (m i+1, mi, m i 1 ) and Π k := Π (m + k, m k, m= k). (25) 3.2. Discrete energy equality and weakly convergent subsequences. Te following discrete energy identity will prove te boundedness of te discrete solutions and will ence allow to extract weakly convergent subsequences. 7

8 Lemma 9. (a) For i =,..., M 1, it olds tat C ex 2 d t m i+1 2 L 2 (Ω) + α d t m i+1 2 = d t m i+1, Πi + f i (26) (b) For i =,..., M 1, it olds tat C ex 2 mi+1 2 L 2 (Ω) +αk i j= d t m j+1 2 = C ex 2 m 2 L 2 (Ω) +k i j= d t m j+1, Π j +f j Proof. Let i {,..., M 1}. Wit i+ 1 2 := C ex m i P Π i + P f i+ 1 2 V, equation (15) reads as d t m i+1, ϕ = m i+ 1 2 i+ 1 2, ϕ + α m i+ 1 2 d t m i+1, ϕ for all ϕ V. (28) Testing (28) wit ϕ := d t m i+1 V, we obtain (27) d t m i+1 2 (28) = m i+ 1 2 i+ 1 2, d t m i+1 = 1 mi+ 2 d t m i+1, 1 i+ 2. (29) Testing (28), wit ϕ := i+ 1 2 V, we obtain We multiply (29) wit α and get We calculate d t m i+1, i+ 1 2 (28) = α m i+ 1 2 d t m i+1, i (3) α d t m i+1 2 (29) = α m i+ 1 2 d t m i+1, 1 i+ (3) 2 = d t m i+1, 1 i+ 2 = C ex d t m i+1, m i d t m i+1, P Π i + P f i d t m i+1, m i+ 1 (11) 2 = d t m i+1, 1 mi+ 2 (13) = 1 2k mi+1 m i, m i+1 + m i = 1 (31) 2 d t m i+1 2 L 2 (Ω). Combining te latter two identities and exploiting te definition (12) of P, we prove (a). To prove (b), we employ te telescopic series togeter wit (a). Tis concludes te proof. Lemma 1. Let m, f k, Π resp. m, f, π satisfy te assumptions of Teorem 4 (a). Ten, tere exists k > suc tat for all k < k, te postprocessed output (14) of Algoritm 2 satisfies, for all m k {m k, m + k, m k, m k, m = k }, sup m k(τ) 2 H 1 (Ω) + sup t m k 2 L 2 ((,τ) Ω) C. τ (,T ) τ (,T ) Te constant C > depends only on C ex, α, m, f, π, C π, T, Ω, and C mes. Proof. Let m k {m k, m + k, m k, m k, m = k } and t [t i, t i+1 ). Proposition 3 yields m k(t) 2 L 2 (Ω) mi+1 (9) m i+1 2 L 2 (Ω) + mi 2 L 2 (Ω) + mi 1 2 L 2 (Ω) 2 + m i 2 + m i Prop. 3 = 3 m 2 (9) (32) m 2 L 2 (Ω).

9 By definition of m k, it olds tat t ti+1 m k(t) 2 L 2 (Ω) + α t m k 2 L 2 (Ω) dt m k(t) 2 L 2 (Ω) + α t m k 2 L 2 (Ω) dt (14) m i+1 2 L 2 (Ω) + mi 2 L 2 (Ω) + mi 1 2 L 2 (Ω) + αk i Wit te discrete energy equality (27) from Lemma 9 (b), we estimate ρ i (9),(27) m 2 L 2 (Ω) + k i Wit te Young inequality and for arbitrary δ >, we get ρ i m 2 L 2 (Ω) + δk i (19) j= m 2 L 2 (Ω) + δk i j= j= d t m j+1 2 L 2 (Ω) + k δ d t m j+1 2 L 2 (Ω) j= j= d t m j+1 2 L 2 (Ω) =: ρi. (33) d t m j+1, Π j + f j (34) i Π j 2 L 2 (Ω) + 1 δ j= + k (1 + max δ j=,...,i+1 mj i+1 L (Ω)) 2 m j 2 H 1 (Ω) + 1 δ ti+1 ti+1 f k 2 L 2 (Ω) dt f k 2 L 2 (Ω) dt. (35) Proposition 3 yields m i+1 L (Ω) = m L (Ω) for all i {,..., M 1}. Combining (35) wit (18b), we obtain i m 2 L 2 (Ω) + δk d t m j+1 2 L 2 (Ω) + 1 ti+1 f δ k 2 L 2 (Ω) dt j= (36) + T δ m 2 L 2 (Ω) + k i+1 m j δ 2 L 2 (Ω). ρ i (18b),(32) j= We coose δ α suc tat δk i j= d t m j+1 2 from (36) can be absorbed into te L 2 (Ω) corresponding term of ρ i. Moreover, k m i+1 L 2 (Ω) from (36) can be absorbed into ρ i if k < k is sufficiently small. Overall, (34) (36) result in ti+1 i ρ i m 2 L 2 (Ω) + 1 f δ k 2 L 2 (Ω) dt +T δ m 2 L 2 (Ω) + k m j δ 2 L 2 (Ω) j= (37) m 2 L 2 (Ω) + 1 δ f k 2 L 2 (Ω T ) + T δ m 2 L 2 (Ω) + k i 1 ρ j δ for i =,..., M 1 and k < k. Wit te assumptions on m, f k, Π resp. m, f, π, estimate (37) takes te form j= i 1 ρ i α + β ρ j for all i = 1,..., M 1, j= 9

10 were ρ < α < and < β k/δ <. Tus, te discrete Gronwall lemma (e.g., [QV94, Lemma 1.4.2]) yields tat ( i 1 ) ( i 1 ) ρ i k α exp β exp exp(t/δ). δ j= j= Togeter wit (32) (33), tis concludes te proof. Lemma 11. Let m, f k, Π resp. m, f, π satisfy te assumptions of Teorem 4 (a). Ten, tere exist m H 1 (Ω T ) L (, T ; H 1 (Ω)) as well as subsequences of te postprocessed output (14) of Algoritm 2 suc tat, for all m k {m k, m + k, m k, m k, m = k }, (a) m k m in H 1 (Ω T ), (b) m k m in L (, T ; H 1 (Ω)), (c) m k m in L2 (, T ; H 1 (Ω)), (d) m k m in L2 (Ω T ), (e) m k m pointwise almost everywere in Ω T, (f) m k (t) m(t) in L2 (Ω) for t [, T ) almost everywere. were all convergences old wit respect to te same subsequence as (, k) (, ). Proof. Let m k {m k, m + k, m k, m k, m = k }. Lemma 1 yields te existence of C > wic is independent of, k >, suc tat m k H 1 (Ω T ) + m k L (H 1 (Ω)) C <. Wit te Eberlein Šmulian teorem (resp. te Banac Alaoglu teorem) and successive extraction of subsequences for all m k {m k, m + k, m k, m k, m = k }, we get te convergences of (a) (c) wit possibly different limits. Let m be te limit of (a). To prove (d), we use te Rellic Kondracov teorem and deduce from (a) tat m k m in L 2 (Ω T ). By definition of m k, we get m k m k 2 L 2 (Ω T ) (14) = (13) = M 1 j= M 1 j= tj+1 (t t j ) 2 m j+1 t j k 2 tj+1 m j 2 L 2 (Ω) dt t j (t t j ) 2 t m k (t) 2 L 2 (Ω) dt k2 t m k 2 L 2 (Ω T ). Since t m k t m and m k m in L 2 (Ω T ), it follows tat m k m in L2 (Ω T ). Te convergences m + k, m k, m k m in L 2 (Ω T ) follow analogously. Moreover, m k m= k L 2 (Ω T ) m + k m k L 2 (Ω T ) concludes te proof of (d). Moreover, tis concludes (a) (c), since it identifies te limits. Upon successive extraction of furter subsequences, (e) and (f) are direct consequences of (d). Convention. For te rest of tis section, all limits are interpreted as (, k) (, ) resp.. Wenever limits of te postprocessed output (14) of Algoritm 2 are considered, tis is understood in te sense of Lemma 11, i.e., all convergences old wit respect to te same subsequence Proof of Teorem 4 (a). In tis subsection, we sow tat m H 1 (Ω T ) from Lemma 11 satisfies Definition 1 (i) (iii). To tat end, we adopt te notation of Lemma 11. 1

11 To see tat m = 1 a.e. on Ω T, let K T and t [t i, t i+1 ). Ten, for almost all x K, it olds tat m k (t, x) 1 = m i (x) m (x) m i (x) m (x) + m (x) m (x). Let z l N be an arbitrary node of K. Since m i K is constant and m i (z l) = m (z l) (cf. Proposition 3), we get m i (x) m (x) m i (x) m i (z l ) + m (z l ) m (x) m i K x zl + m K x zl. Combining te last estimates, we obtain m k (t, x) 1 m k K x zl + m K x zl + m (x) m (x). Integrating tis estimate over Ω T, we derive m 1 L 2 (Ω T ) m m k L 2 (Ω T ) + m k 1 L 2 (Ω T ) m m k L 2 (Ω T ) + m k L 2 (Ω T ) + T m L 2 (Ω) + T m m L 2 (Ω). Since m k m in L2 (Ω T ), m k m in L2 (, T ; H 1 (Ω)), and m m in H 1 (Ω), te rigt-and side vanises as (, k) (, ). Tis concludes m 1 L 2 (Ω T ) = and ence verifies Definition 1 (i). To see tat m() = m in te sense of traces, note tat m k () = m m in H 1 (Ω). On te oter and, boundedness of te trace operator implies m k () m () in H 1/2 (Ω). Since weak limits are unique and H 1 (Ω) H 1/2 (Ω), we conclude m = m () and verify Definition 1 (ii). Bounded energy in te sense of Definition 1 (iii) is an immediate consequence of Lemma 1. Tis concludes te proof of Teorem 4 (a) Proof of Teorem 4 (b). It only remains to verify Definition 1 (iv). To tis end, let ϕ C (Ω T ). Let I be te nodal interpolant (7). Define ϕ C ([, T ]; H 1 (Ω)) by ϕ (t) := I (ϕ(t)). Ten, ϕ (t) ϕ(t) in W 1,p (Ω) for all p (3/2, ] and, consequently, ϕ ϕ in L 2 (, T ; W 1,p (Ω)) for all p (3/2, ]. (38) Step 1. We collect some auxiliary results: First, m k ϕ H 2 (K) m k L 2 (K) ϕ L (K) proves (m k ϕ ) I (m k ϕ ) L 2 (Ω T ) ( M 1 j= K T tj+1 t j m k ϕ 2 H 2 (K) dt ) 1/2 m k L 2 (Ω T ) ϕ L (Ω T ). (39) Te same argument proves Second, it olds tat m k ϕ I (m k ϕ ) L 2 (Ω T ). (4) m ϕ m k ϕ L 2 (Ω T ) m ( ϕ ϕ ) L 2 (Ω T ) + (m m k ) ϕ L 2 (Ω T ) m L (Ω T ) ϕ ϕ L 2 (Ω T ) + m m k L 2 (Ω T ) ϕ L (Ω T ). 11 (41)

12 Te same argument proves tat so tat te combination wit (4) implies tat m ϕ m k ϕ L 2 (Ω T ), (42) m ϕ I (m k ϕ ) L 2 (Ω T ). (43) Step 2. Plugging in te definitions of m k, m + k, m k, m k, m = k, Π k, f k, and ϕ in (15) and integrating in time, we obtain I 1 k := (15) = C ex t m k, ϕ dt m k m k, ϕ dt m k P Π k, ϕ dt m k P f k, ϕ dt +α m k t m k, ϕ dt =: C ex Ik 2 Ik 3 Ik 4 + α Ik. 5 (44) We aim to sow tat Ik i for i = 1,..., 5 converge to teir continuous counterparts in (4). Step 3 (Convergence of I 1 k, I2 k, I5 k ). Wit te auxiliary results from Step 1, [BP6, Section 3] proves tat it olds I 1 k I 2 k I 5 k Step 4 (Convergence of I 3 k and I4 k ). π(m) from assumption (21), we obtain t m, ϕ dt =: I 1, (45a) m m, ϕ dt =: I 2, (45b) m t m, ϕ dt =: I 5. (45c) Using te definition (12) of P and Π k I 3 k (12) = Π k, I (m k ϕ ) dt (43) = π(m), m ϕ dt m π(m), ϕ dt =: I 3. (46) By use of weak convergence f k f from assumption (2), te same argument sows Ik 4 (12) = f k, m k ϕ dt (43) f, m ϕ dt = m f, ϕ dt. Step 5. Taking te limit (, k) (, ) in (44), we derive te variational formulation (4). By use of a density argument for C (Ω T ) H 1 (Ω T ), tis verifies Definition 1 (iv) and concludes te proof of Teorem 4 (b) Proof of Teorem 4 (c). Let τ (, T ). Let i M 1 suc tat τ [t i, t i+1 ). To simplify te notation, we set f i := f (t i ) wit i =,..., M. Let f k, 12

13 f + k, f k, and f k te corresponding postprocessing (14). For j {, 1,..., M}, we obtain E(m j+1, f j+1 ) E(m j, f j ) (3) = C exk 2 (26) d t m j+1 2 L 2 (Ω) 1 2 π(mj+1 ), m j π(mj ), mj f j+1, m j+1 + f j, m j = αk d t m j π(mj+1 ), m j π(mj ), mj + k d t m j+1, P Π j f j+1, m j+1 + f j, m j + k d t m j+1, P f j+ 1 2 =: αk d t m j T 1 + T 2 First, we consider T 1. Since π is linear and self-adjoint, simple calculations reveal tat (12) T 1 = 1 2 π(mj+1 ), m j π(mj ), mj + k d t m j+1, Π j = k d t m j+1, Π j 1 π(mj+ 2 ) 1 2 π(mj+1 ), m j π(mj ), mj + k d t m j+1, π(m j+ 1 2 ) = k d t m j+1, Π j π(mj+ 1 2 ). For T 2, we proceed similarly and obtain Since T 2 (12) = f j+1, m j+1 + f j, m j + k d t m j+1, f j+ 1 2 we obtain = k d t m j+1, f j+ 1 2 f j+ 1 2 f j+1, m j+1 + f j, m j + k d t m j+1, f j+ 1 2 }{{} =:T 21. T 21 = f j+1, m j+1 + f j, m j mj+1 m j, f j+1 + f j = 1 2 mj+1 + m j, f j+1 f j = k d t f j+1, m j+ 1 2, T 2 = k d t m j+1, f j+ 1 2 f j+ 1 2 k dt f j+1, m j Wit tese preliminary computations, we altogeter obtain E(m j+1, f j+1 ) E(m j, f j ) + αk d t m j k d t f j+1, m j+ 1 2 = k d t m j+1, Π j π(mj+ 1 2 ) + k d t m j+1, f j+ 1 2 f j Summing over j i, te telescopic series proves E(m i+1, f i+1 ) + αk = E(m, f ) + k i j= d t m j k i j= d t f j+1, m j+ 1 2 i d t m j+1, Π j 1 π(mj+ 2 ) + k j= 13 i j= d t m j+1, f j+ 1 2 f j+ 1 2.

14 Tis is equivalently written as τ ti+1 E(m + k (τ), f + k (τ)) + α t m k 2 L 2 (Ω) dt + t f k, m k dt (9) ti+1 ti+1 E(m, f ) + t m k, Π k π(m k ) dt + t m k, f k f k dt. According to strong L 2 (Ω) convergence and no-concentration of Lebesgue functions (togeter wit τ < t i+1 τ + k), it olds tat ti+1 t f k, m k dt τ t f, m dt. Togeter wit strong convergence m m of te initial data in H 1 (Ω), te same argument implies E(m, f ) + ti+1 t m k, Π k π(m k ) dt + ti+1 (47) t m k, f k f k dt E(m, f ). Weakly lower semicontinuity wit respect to m + k proves, for all measurable I [, T ], ( τ ) E(m(τ), f(τ)) + α t m 2 L 2 (Ω) dt dτ I τ ) lim inf (E(m +k (τ), f +k (τ)) dτ +α t m k 2 L (,k) (,) 2 (Ω) dt dτ. Overall, (47) tus leads to ( E(m(τ), f(τ)) + α I τ τ ) t m 2 Ω dt + t f, m dt dτ E(m, f ) dτ. I I Since I [, T ] was an arbitrary measurable subset, we obtain te estimate pointwise almost everywere in [, T ] for te integrand. Tis verifies Definition 1 (v) and concludes te proof of Teorem 4 (b). 4. Lower-order effective field contributions In tis section, we discuss some concrete examples for te general effective field contribution modeled by te operator π : H 1 (Ω) L (Ω) L 2 (Ω). We sow tat bot te operators and teir numerical approximations are covered by te abstract framework of Section 3. We recall te notation introduced in Section 2.4: For eac π we denote by π te corresponding approximation, i.e., π (ϕ ) π(ϕ ) for any ϕ V. Tis is ten used to define te generalized approximate operator Π ; see, e.g., (16) Classical contributions. Te most common effective field contributions in micromagnetics are excange, applied external field, magnetocrystalline anisotropy, and stray field, wic already allow to describe a large variety of penomena (cf. [HS98]). Te terms C ex m and f of te abstract effective field (2) clearly refer to te first two contributions. In te case of uniaxial magnetocrystalline anisotropy, given te easy axis a R 3 satisfying a = 1, we consider te operators π (m) := π(m) := (a m)a L 2 (Ω) defined for all m L 2 (Ω). It is straigtforward to sow tat, as far as te uniaxial anisotropy is concerned, all approaces (16) for te generalized approximation operator Π satisfy te assumptions of Teorem 4 (c) and Remark 8. 14

15 General magnetocrystalline anisotropies π(m) := φ(m) wit φ C 1 (R 3 ) can be treated as in [BSF + 14, Section 4.1] and satisfy te assumptions of Teorem 4 (b) and Remark 8. As for te stray field, it olds tat π(m) = u Ω, were te magnetostatic potential u H 1 (R 3 ) solves te full space transmission problem u = div m in Ω, (48a) u = in R 3 \ Ω, (48b) u ext u int = on Ω, (48c) ( u ext u int ) n = m n on Ω, (48d) u(x) = O( x 1 ) as x. (48e) Here, te superscripts ext and int refer to te traces of u on Ω wit respect to te exterior domain R 3 \Ω and te interior domain Ω, respectively, and n is te outer normal vector on Ω wic points to R 3 \ Ω. It can be sown tat π : L 2 (Ω) L 2 (Ω) is a linear, bounded, and self-adjoint operator (cf. [Pra4, Proposition 3.1]). However, π is nonlocal and beind te discrete operator π tere is an effective discretization metod for te transmission problem. As an example, we consider te ybrid FEM-BEM approac from [FK9]; see also [BSF + 14, Section 4.4.1] for more details. Te starting point is te decomposition π(m) = u Ω = u 1 u 2, were u 1, u 2 H 1 (Ω) are te weak solutions of te boundary value problems and respectively, were u 1 = div m in Ω, (49a) n u 1 = m n on Ω, (49b) u 2 = in Ω, (49c) K ( u 1 Ω ) (x) := 1 4π u 2 = (K 1/2)(u 1 Ω ) on Ω, (49d) Ω (x y) n(y) x y 3 u int 1 (y) ds(y) (5) is te double-layer integral operator associated wit te Laplace problem; see, e.g., [SS11, Capter 3]. Taking te caracterization (49) into account, an effective approximation of π(m) can be obtained wit te following algoritm. Algoritm 12. Input: Approximation m V of m L 2 (Ω). (i) Compute u 1, V := {v V : Ω v dx = } suc tat (ii) Compute g V Ω u 1,, v = m, v for all v V. := {v Ω : v V } via te relation g, v Ω = (K 1/2)(u 1, Ω ), v Ω for all v V Ω. (iii) Compute u 2, V suc tat u 2, Ω = g and u 2,, v = for all v V := {v V : v Ω = }. (iv) Define π (m ) := u 1, u 2, L 2 (Ω). Output: Approximation π (m ) of π(m). 15

16 Wile [BSF + 14, Section 4.4.1] employed te Scott Zang projection from [SZ9] in step (ii) of Algoritm 12, we found in our numerical experiments tat te L 2 ( Ω)- ortogonal projection onto V Ω leads to better results on coarse meses. Since, on quasi-uniform meses, te L 2 -ortogonal projection is H 1 -stable and satisfies a firstorder approximation property, te result of [BSF + 14, Proposition 4.2] remains valid; see also [Gol12, Section 4]. In particular, it follows tat te approaces (16) for te generalized approximation operator Π fulfill te assumptions in Remark 8, even wit strong convergence in (24). Overall, te stray field approximation of [FK9] in te sense of Algoritm 12 tus fits in te setting of Teorem 4 (c) Zang Li model for current-driven domain wall motion. To take te transfer of te spin angular momentum between te local magnetization and spin-polarized currents into account, various extensions of te micromagnetic model ave been considered. In [TNMS5, ZL4], te autors propose to add an additional torque term to LLG, wic allows to model te current-driven motions of domain walls. Tis extended LLG equation is usually referred to as Zang Li model. Given te spin velocity vector v C(Ω) and te constant ξ > (ratio of nonadiabaticity), te corresponding operator π : H 1 (Ω) L (Ω) L 2 (Ω) (and its discretization) is defined by π (m) := π(m) := m (v )m + ξ(v )m for all m H 1 (Ω) L (Ω), (51) were [(v )m] j = 3 k=1 v k k m j for all j = 1, 2, 3. In te matematical literature, existence of (weak) solutions for an extended form of LLG wit Zang Li spin transfer torque was studied in [MP13]. We now sow tat te operator (51) satisfies te assumptions of Teorem 4 (a) (b). Note tat part (c) is clearly excluded, because π is nonlinear. It olds tat π (m ) L 2 (Ω) v L (Ω) ( ξ + m L (Ω)) m L 2 (Ω) for all m V. Tis sows tat, for any of te tree approaces (16), te generalized operator Π satisfies stability (19). As for te consistency condition (21), let m k {m k, m + k, m k, m k, m = k } be te postprocessed output (14) of Algoritm 2 and let m H 1 (Ω T ) be teir common weak limit obtained from Teorem 4 (a). From te convergence properties of Lemma 11, it follows tat (v )m k (v )m in L2 (Ω T ) and m k ϕ m ϕ in L2 (Ω T ) for all ϕ L 2 (Ω T ). Tis implies m k (v )m k m (v )m and (v )m k (v )m in L 2 (Ω T ). Tis proves (21), so tat te framework of Teorem 4 (b) applies. 5. Iterative solution of nonlinear system Eac time-step of Algoritm 2 requires te numerical solution of te nonlinear system (15). To tat end, we follow [BP6] and employ te fixed-point iteration of te following algoritm. Up to a different stopping criterion, similar algoritms are also proposed in [Bar6, BBP8, BPS9]. Algoritm 13 (Midpoint sceme wit inexact solver). Input: Approximation m 1 := m V of initial condition m, := C ex m + P Π (m, m, m 1 ) + P f 1 2, tolerance ɛ >. Loop: For i M 1, iterate te following steps (i) (iv): (i) Define η i, := mi, i, := i. (ii) For n =, 1, 2,..., repeat te following steps (ii-a) (ii-b) until i,n+1 16 i,n ɛ:

17 (ii-a) Find η i,n+1 V suc tat, for all ϕ V, it olds tat 2 k ηi,n+1, ϕ + η i,n+1 i,n, ϕ + α 2k ηi,n+1 m i, ϕ = 2 k mi, ϕ. (52) (ii-b) Compute i,n+1 := C ex η i,n+1 (iii) Define m i+1 := 2η i,n+1 m i. (iv) Compute i+1 := C ex m i+1 + P Π (2η i,n+1 m i, mi, mi 1 ) + P f i P Π (m i+1, mi+1, mi ) + P f i Output: Sequence m i of approximations to m(t i) for all i =, 1,..., M. Remark 14. We state some elementary properties of Algoritm 13. (i) Te Lax Milgram teorem yields tat te linear system (52) admits a unique solution. Let φ l be te nodal basis function corresponding to some node z l N. Testing (52) wit ϕ := η i,n+1 (z l )φ l V, we obtain 2β l k ηi,n+1 (z l ) 2 = 2β l k ηi,n+1 (z l ) m i (z l ) 2β l k ηi,n+1 (z l ) m i (z l ). (53) Tis proves η i,n+1 (z l ) m i (z l) for all nodes z l N and all n. In particular, tis yields η i,n+1 m i for all n. (ii) In contrast to Algoritm 2, te sequence (m i )M i= from Algoritm 13 satisfies d t m i+1, ϕ = C ex m i+ 1 2 m i+ 1 2, ϕ m i+ 1 2 P Π (m i+1 m i+ 1 2 P f i+ 1 2, ϕ + α m i+ 1 2 d t m i+1, ϕ + m i+ 1 2, mi, m i 1 ), ϕ r i,n, ϕ. (54) for all ϕ V, were r i,n+1 := i,n+1 i,n and n. As in Proposition 3, te variational formulation (54) implies m i+1 (z l) = m i (z l) for all nodes z l N. (iii) Under te assumption k = o( 2 ), [BP6, Lemma 4.1] proves tat step (ii) of Algoritm 13 gives rise to a contraction Φ : V V, were te contraction property olds wit respect to. In te presence of lower-order terms, te argument additionally requires te stability condition Π (2η i,n+1 1 η i,n+1 m i, m i, m i 1 ) Π (2η i,n η i,n H 1 (Ω), mi, m i, m i 1 ) L 2 (Ω) (55) wic is satisfied for te approaces (16) if π : H 1 (Ω) L 2 (Ω) is Lipscitz continuous. Ten, te Banac fixed-point teorem applies and proves tat (η i,n ) n> converges in L 2 (Ω) to a solution η i, V and tat 2η i, m i V solves (15). (iv) In consequence of (ii), it olds tat η i,n+1 η i,n L 2 (Ω). (56) In contrast to Algoritm 13, [BP6, Algoritm 4.1] as well as [BBP8, BPS9] use te stopping criterion η i,n+1 η i,n L 2 (Ω) < ɛ. [Bar6, Algoritm A] uses te same stopping criterion as Algoritm 13, owever, only eff = C ex m is considered. We note tat our stopping criterion generically leads to less iterations. Togeter wit (55), te inverse 17

18 inequality yields tat i,n+1 i,n η i,n+1 + Π (2η i,n+1 (55) 2 η i,n+1 2 η i,n+1 η i,n m i, m i, m i 1 ) Π (2η i,n η i,n L 2 (Ω) + 1 η i,n+1 η i,n H 1 (Ω) mi, m i, m i 1 ) L 2 (Ω) η i,n L 2 (Ω). (57) Hence, te stopping criterion of [BP6, Bar6, BBP8, BPS9] implies te one used in Algoritm 13. Moreover, convergence η i,n+1 η i,n L 2 (Ω) togeter wit (57) proves tat te repeat loop in step (ii) of Algoritm 13 terminates for some n N. (v) For te Adams Basfort approac (16b) and te explicit Euler approac (16c), it olds tat Π (2η i,n+1 m i, m i, m i 1 ) Π (2η i,n mi, m i, m i 1 ) =, and (55) is fulfilled (independently of π and π). (vi) For uniaxial magnetocrystalline anisotropy and te stray field, we ave proved in Section 4.1 tat we are in te situation of Teorem 4 (c). Moreover te operator π : L 2 (Ω) L 2 (Ω) is linear and continuous in tese cases. Hence, (55) olds also for te implicit midpoint rule (16a) even in te stronger form wit η i,n+1 η i,n L 2 (Ω) on te rigt-and side. (vii) Finally, we sow tat (55) is also satisfied for te Zang Li model from Section 4.2 and te implicit midpoint approac (16a): According to (i), it olds tat η i,n+1 m i = m for all n. Togeter wit te inverse inequality, we obtain Π (2η i,n+1 m i, m i, m i 1 ) Π (2η i,n mi, m i, m i 1 ) L 2 (Ω) (51) = η i,n+1 (v )η i,n+1 + ξ(v )η i,n+1 η i,n (v )ηi,n ξ(v )ηi,n m L (Ω) η i,n+1 1 η i,n+1 η i,n L 2 (Ω), i.e., (55) olds even in a stronger form. η i,n L 2 (Ω) + 1 m L (Ω) η i,n+1 η i,n L 2 (Ω) L 2 (Ω) Te following teorem extends Teorem 4 to Algoritm 13, were te error from te inexact solver is taken into account. Te proof follows along te arguments of Section 3. Teorem 15. Let te assumptions from Teorem 4 (b) and te additional assumptions from Remark 14 (iv) be fulfilled, i.e., it olds tat k = o( 2 ) as well as stability (55). Ten, tere old te following assertions (a) (b). (a) As, k, ɛ, tere exists a subsequence of te postprocessed output m k of Algoritm 13 wic converges weakly in H 1 (Ω T ) to some limit m H 1 (Ω T ) wic is a weak solution to LLG in te sense of Definition 1 (i) (iv). (b) In addition, suppose te assumptions of Teorem 4 (c). Ten, m H 1 (Ω T ) from (a) is a pysical weak solution in te sense of Definition 1 (i) (v). 6. Numerical Experiments Tis section provides some numerical experiments for Algoritm 13. Our implementation is based on te C++/Pyton library Netgen/NGSolve [Sc]. To compute te stray 18

19 (a) t = (b) t = 1 (c) t = 2 (d) t = 3 (e) t = 4 (f) t = 5 Figure 1. Experiment of Section 6.1: Snapsots of te magnetization. field, we additionally build on te C++/Pyton library BEM++ [ŚBA + 15] in step (ii) of Algoritm 12. Te visualization of te numerical results is done wit ParaView [AGL5] Academic experiment and empirical convergence rates. Tis experiment aims to provide some insigt into te accuracy and te computational effort for te different approaces (16) for te lower-order contributions. We consider LLG (1) in nondimensional form wit Ω := (, 1) 3 R 3, constant initial state m (1,, ), constant external field f ( 2, 1/2, ), and finite time T = 5. Besides excange field and 19

20 MP absolute MP relative AB relative EE relative k = % 1% 14.52% k = % 99.99% 14.85% k = % 1% 13.14% k = % 1% 17.% k = % 1% 13.13% Table 1. Experiment of Section 6.1: Number of iterations for one timestep and different treatments (16) of te stray field, were we provide te absolute numbers for te midpoint approac (MP absolute) as well as te relative numbers of te Midpoint approac (MP relative), te Adams Basfort approac (AB relative), and te explicit Euler approac (EE relative). MP absolute MP relative AB relative EE relative % 6.% 62.22% % 63.59% 64.49% % 6.4% 63.33% % 67.38% 66.7% % 64.16% 64.72% Table 2. Experiment of Section 6.1: Computational time for one timestep and different treatments (16) of te stray field, were we provide te absolute time (in s) for te Midpoint approac (MP absolute) as well as te relative times of te Midpoint approac (MP relative), te Adams Basfort approac (AB relative), and te explicit Euler approac (EE relative). external field, te effective field eff also involves te stray field. We use a fixed uniform mes T wic consists of 372 tetraedrons. Finally, we coose te parameter ɛ = 1 1 in Algoritm 13 to stop te iterative solver. Figure 1 sows some snapsots of te magnetization at times t {, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5}. As expected, te magnetization aligns wit te applied externed field f as time evolves. We run Algoritm 13 for different time-step sizes k := q 1 4 wit q {1, 2, 4, 8, 16}. Table 1 provides te average number of fixed-point iterations per time-step of Algoritm 13. As expected, te computational time decreases wit te time-step size, since te fixed-point iteration in step (iii) of Algoritm 13 ten requires less steps until it terminates. We observe tat te explicit treatment of te stray field by Adams Basfort (16b) resp. explicit Euler (16c) rougly requires te same number of fixed-point iterations resp. increases te number of fixed-point iterations by about 5% wen compared to te implicit midpoint rule (16a). On te oter and, Table 2 provides te computational times per time-step. Recall tat te stray field computation by Algoritm 12 requires te solution of two additional linear systems plus te evaluation of a boundary integral operator. As expected, te treatment of te stray field by te implicit midpoint rule (16a) is te most expensive approac, since te stray field is computed in eac step of te fixed-point iteration. On te oter and, Adams Basfort (16b) and explicit Euler (16c) lower te cost per time-step down to approximately 65%. Figure 2 displays te accumulation of te computational times until T = 5 for k = Overall, te explicit approaces by Adams Basfort (16b) and explicit Euler (16c) 2

21 4, 3, EE AB MP Duration in s 2, 1, Time Figure 2. Experiment of Section 6.1: Cumulative computational time for k = and different treatments (16) of te stray field O(k) 1 5 Error EE AB MP O(k 2 ) 1 3 Time-step size (k) 1 4 Figure 3. Experiment of Section 6.1: Reference error max j m kref (t j ) m k (t j ) L 2 (Ω) for different k and treatments (16) of te stray field. only require 65% of te computational time wen compared to te implicit midpoint rule (16a). Finally, Figure 3 compares te different approaces (16) wit respect to accuracy in terms of te experimental convergence rate. Since te exact solution is unknown, we consider te error max j M m kref (t j ) m k (t j ) L 2 (Ω) wit respect to a reference solution m kref, constructed from te output of Algoritm 13 for a finer time-step size k ref := As expected, bot te implicit midpoint rule (16a) and te explicit 21

22 Adams Basfort (16b) approac exibit second-order convergence and lead to approximately te same accuracy, wile te treatment of te stray field by te explicit Euler approac (16c) lowers te possible convergence rate down to linear. Overall, te numerical results clearly underpin tat te proposed explicit Adams Basfort approac (16b) is favorable for te treatment of te stray field µmag standard problem #5. To test our metod for te simulation of practically relevant problem sizes, we consider te µmag standard problem #5, proposed by te Micromagnetic Modeling Activity Group [mum] of te National Institute of Standards and Tecnology (NIST) of Gaitersburg (USA). Te computational domain is a ferromagnetic film Ω wit dimensions 1 nm 1 nm 1 nm, aligned wit te x, y, and z axes of a Cartesian coordinate system, wit origin at te center of te film. Te dynamics is driven by LLG wit pysical units and we make use of capital letters to distinguis it from te nondimensional form (1) of LLG: were H eff := t M = γ M H eff + α M s M t M in (, T ) Ω, (58a) n M = on (, T ) Ω, (58b) M() = M in Ω, (58c) 2A M + π(m) µ Ms 2 wit π(m) := H s Ω + m (ṽ )m + ξ (ṽ )m. (58d) Te constants γ = m/(a s) and µ = 4π 1 7 N/A 2 denote te gyromagnetic ratio and te magnetic permeability, respectively. As for te material parameters, we consider te values of permalloy, i.e., A = J/m for te excange stiffness constant, M s = A/m for te saturation magnetization, and α =.1 for te damping parameter. Te lower-order terms in (58d) comprise te stray field H s = u, were te magnetostatic potential u is te solution of te transmission problem (48) for m = M/M s, as well as te Zang Li contribution, wit ṽ being te spin velocity vector (in m/s) and ξ > te ratio of nonadiabacity. Te initial state is obtained by solving (58) for te initial condition M (x, y, z) = M s ( y, x, 1)/ x 2 + y and ṽ = for a sufficiently long time, until te equilibrium configuration is reaced; see Figure 4a. Ten, for t, we set ṽ := ( 72.17,, ) and ξ :=.5, and simulate te system until te system reaces te new equilibrium (te coice T = 8 ns is sufficient); see Figure 4b. Wit te scaling parameter L := 1 9, te function m := M/M s fulfills te nondimensional Gilbert form (1) wit C ex := 2A and v := 1 µ Ms 2 L 2 γ M s Lṽ (59) in (51) and Ω := ( 5, 5) 2 ( 5, 5). To discretize te problem, we employ a regular triangulation of Ω into approximately 25 elements and coose k in order to obtain a time-step size of ps in pysical units. We use ɛ = in Algoritm 13 to stop te iterative solver. For te lower-order contributions, we use te explicit Adams Basfort approac (16b). In Figure 5, we plot te time evolution of te averaged value of te x- resp. y-component of m, and compare our results wit tose obtained wit OOMMF [DP99]. Due to te 22

23 (a) Initial vortex state at t = ns. (b) Final vortex state at t = 8 ns. Figure 4. µmag standard problem #5: Magnetization at different time-steps. different nature of te considered metods (e.g., FEM vs. FDM for te spatial discretization, FFT vs. Algoritm 12 for te computation of te stray field, adaptive vs. uniform time-stepping), we cannot expect a perfect quantitative agreement of te simulation results. However, te comparison sows tat te qualitative beavior of te solutions is preserved..4.2 NGS m x NGS m y OOMMF m x OOMMF m y Time (in ns) Figure 5. µmag standard problem #5: Comparison of te results obtained by Algoritm 13 wit OOMMF. Acknowledgement. Te autors acknowledge support of te Vienna Science and Tecnology fund (WWTF) under grant MA14-44, of te Austrian Science Fund (FWF) under grant W1245, and of TU Wien troug te innovative projects initiative. We tank Alexander Rieder (TU Wien) and Alexander Haberl (TU Wien) for teir elp wit coupling NGSolve to te BEM++ library. 23

24 References [AGL5] J. Arens, B. Geveci, and C. Law. ParaView: An End-User Tool for Large Data Visualization. Visualization Handbook, Elsevier, 25. [AHP + 14] C. Abert, G. Hrkac, M. Page, D. Praetorius, M. Ruggeri, and D. Suess. Spin-polarized transport in ferromagnetic multilayers: an unconditionally convergent FEM integrator. Comput. Mat. Appl., 68(6): , 214. [AKT12] F. Alouges, E. Kritsikis, and J.-C. Toussaint. A convergent finite element approximation for Landau-Lifscitz-Gilbert equation. Pysica B, 47: , 212. [Alo8] F. Alouges. A new finite element sceme for Landau-Lifcitz equations. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. Ser. S, 1(2): , 28. [AS92] F. Alouges and A. Soyeur. On global weak solutions for Landau-Lifsitz equations: existence and nonuniqueness. Nonlinear Anal., 18(11): , [Bar6] S. Bartels. Constraint preserving, inexact solution of implicit discretizations of Landau Lifsitz Gilbert equations and consequences for convergence. PAMM, 6(1):19 22, 26. [Bar15] S. Bartels. Numerical metods for nonlinear partial differential equations, volume 47 of Springer Series in Computational Matematics. Springer, Cam, 215. [BBP8] L. Baňas, S. Bartels, and A. Prol. A convergent implicit finite element discretization of te Maxwell-Landau-Lifsitz-Gilbert equation. SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 46(3): , 28. [BP6] S. Bartels and A. Prol. Convergence of an implicit finite element metod for te Landau- Lifsitz-Gilbert equation. SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 44(4): (electronic), 26. [BPP15] L. Baňas, M. Page, and D. Praetorius. A convergent linear finite element sceme for te Maxwell-Landau-Lifsitz-Gilbert equations. Electron. Trans. Numer. Anal., 44:25 27, 215. [BPPR14] L. Baňas, M. Page, D. Praetorius, and J. Rocat. A decoupled and unconditionally convergent linear FEM integrator for te Landau-Lifsitz-Gilbert equation wit magnetostriction. IMA J. Numer. Anal., 34(4): , 214. [BPS9] L. Baňas, A. Prol, and M. Slodička. Modeling of termally assisted magnetodynamics. SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 47(1): , 28/9. [BPS12] L. Baňas, A. Prol, and M. Slodička. Numerical sceme for augmented Landau-Lifsitz equation in eat assisted recording. J. Comput. Appl. Mat., 236(18): , 212. [BSF + 14] F. Bruckner, D. Suess, M. Feiscl, T. Fürer, P. Goldenits, M. Page, D. Praetorius, and M. Ruggeri. Multiscale modeling in micromagnetics: existence of solutions and numerical integration. Mat. Models Metods Appl. Sci., 24(13): , 214. [CEF11] G. Carbou, M. Efendiev, and P. Fabrie. Global weak solutions for te Landau-Lifscitz equation wit magnetostriction. Mat. Metods Appl. Sci., 34(1): , 211. [CF98] G. Carbou and P. Fabrie. Time average in micromagnetism. J. Differential Equations, 147(2):383 49, [CF1] G. Carbou and P. Fabrie. Regular solutions for Landau-Lifscitz equation in a bounded domain. Differential Integral Equations, 14(2): , 21. [DP99] M. J. Donaue and D. G. Porter. OOMMF user s guide, Version 1.. Interagency Report NISTIR 6376, National Institute of Standards and Tecnology, Gaitersburg, MD, [DS14] E. Dumas and F. Sueur. On te weak solutions to te Maxwell-Landau-Lifsitz equations and to te Hall-Magneto-Hydrodynamic equations. Commun. Mat. Pys., 33: , 214. [Eva1] L. C. Evans. Partial differential equations, volume 19 of Graduate Studies in Matematics. American Matematical Society, Providence, RI, second edition, 21. [FK9] D. Fredkin and T. Koeler. Hybrid metod for computing demagnetizing fields. IEEE Trans. Magn., 26(2): , 199. [FT17] M. Feiscl and T. Tran. Te eddy current-llg equations: FEM-BEM coupling and a priori error estimates. SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 55(4): , 217. [GCW7] C. J. García-Cervera and X.-P. Wang. Spin-polarized transport: existence of weak solutions. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. Ser. B, 7(1):87 1, 27. [Gol12] P. Goldenits. Konvergente numerisce Integration der Landau-Lifsitz-Gilbert Gleicung. PD tesis, TU Wien, Institute for Analysis and Scientific Computing, 212. [HS98] A. Hubert and R. Scäfer. Magnetic domains; te analysis of magnetic microstructures. Springer, Berlin, Corrected Printing 2. 24