arxiv: v1 [math.na] 29 Nov 2017

Transcription

1 LINEAR SECOND-ORDER IMEX-TYPE INTEGRATOR FOR THE (EDDY CURRENT) LANDAU LIFSHITZ GILBERT EQUATION GIOVANNI DI FRATTA, CARL-MARTIN PFEILER, DIRK PRAETORIUS, MICHELE RUGGERI, BERNHARD STIFTNER arxiv: v1 [mat.na] 29 Nov 217 Abstract. Combining ideas from [Alouges et al. (Numer. Mat., 128, 214)] and [Praetorius et al. (Comput. Mat. Appl., 217)], we propose a numerical algoritm for te integration of te nonlinear and time-dependent Landau Lifsitz Gilbert (LLG) equation wic is unconditionally convergent, formally (almost) second-order in time, and requires only te solution of one linear system per time-step. Only te excange contribution is integrated implicitly in time, wile te lower-order contributions like te computationally expensive stray field are treated explicitly in time. Ten, we extend te sceme to te coupled system of te Landau Lifsitz Gilbert equation wit te eddy current approximation of Maxwell equations (ELLG). Unlike existing scemes for tis system, te new integrator is unconditionally convergent, (almost) second-order in time, and requires only te solution of two linear systems per time-step. 1. Introduction 1.1. State of te art. Nowadays, te study of magnetization processes in magnetic materials and te development of fast and reliable tools to perform large-scale micromagnetic simulations are te focus of considerable researc as tey play a fundamental role in te design of many tecnological devices. Applications to magnetic recording, in wic te external field can cange fast so tat te ysteresis properties are not accurately described by a static approac, require accurate numerical metods to study te dynamics of te magnetization distribution. In tis context, a well-establised model to describe te time evolution of te magnetization in ferromagnetic materials is te Landau Lifsitz Gilbert equation (LLG) introduced in [LL35, Gil55]. Recently, te numerical integration of LLG as been te subject of many matematical studies; see, e.g., te review articles [KP6, GC7, Cim8], te monograp [Pro1] and te references terein. Te main callenges concern te strong nonlinearity of te problem, a nonconvex unit-lengt constraint wic enforces te solutions to take teir pointwise values in te unit spere, an intrinsic energy law, wic combines conservative and dissipative effects and sould be preserved by te numerical sceme, as well as te presence of nonlocal field contributions, wic prescribe te (possibly nonlinear) coupling 21 Matematics Subject Classification. 35K55, 65M12, 65M6, 65Z5. Key words and prases. micromagnetism, finite elements, linear second-order time integration, implicit-explicit time-marcing sceme, unconditional convergence. Acknowledgement. Te autors tankfully acknowledge support by te Austrian Science Fund (FWF) troug te doctoral scool Dissipation and dispersion in nonlinear PDEs (grant W1245) and te special researc program Taming complexity in partial differential systems (grant SFB F65) as well as te Vienna Science and Tecnology Fund (WWTF) troug te project Termally controlled magnetization dynamics (grant MA14-44). November 3, 217 1

2 wit oter partial differential equations (PDEs). One important aspect of te researc is related to te development of unconditionally convergent metods, for wic te numerical analysis does not require to impose any CFL-type condition on te relation of te spatial and temporal discretization parameters. Te seminal works [BP6, Alo8] propose numerical time-marcing scemes, based on lowest-order finite elements in space, wic are proven to be unconditionally convergent towards a weak solution of LLG in te sense of [AS92]. Te implicit midpoint sceme of [BP6] is formally of second order in time. It inerently preserves some of te fundamental properties of LLG, suc as te pointwise constraint (at te nodes of te mes) and te energy law. However, it requires te solution of a nonlinear system of equations per time-step. Te tangent plane sceme of [Alo8] is based on an equivalent reformulation of LLG, wic gives rise to a variational formulation in te tangent space of te current magnetization state. It requires only te solution of one linear system per time-step and employs te nodal projection at eac time-step to enforce te pointwise constraint at a discrete level. For an implicit-explicit approac for te full effective field, we refer to [AKT12, BFF + 14]. Moreover, extensions for te discretization of te coupling of LLG wit te full Maxwell equations, te eddy current equation, a balance law for te linear momentum (magnetostriction), and a spin diffusion equation for te spin accumulation ave been considered in [LT13, BPPR14, AHP + 14, LPPT15, BPP15, FT17]. Formally, te tangent plane sceme and its aforementioned extensions are of first order in time. Te nodal projection step can be omitted and tis leads to an additional consistency error wic is also (formally) first-order in time [AHP + 14]. For tis projection-free variant, te recent work [FT17] derives rigorous a priori error estimates wic are of first order in time and space. A tangent plane sceme wit an improved convergence order in time is introduced and analyzed in [AKST14]. Like [Alo8], te proposed metod is based on a predictorcorrector approac wic combines a linear reformulation of te equation wit te use of te nodal projection for te numerical treatment of te pointwise constraint. However, te variational formulation for te linear update is designed in suc a way tat te sceme as a consistency error of order 2 ε for any < ε < 1. For tis reason, tis metod is named (almost) second-order tangent plane sceme in [AKST14] Contributions of te present work. In tis work, we propose a treefold extension of te improved tangent plane sceme from [AKST14]: During te design and te implementation of a micromagnetic code, one of te main issues concerns te computation of te nonlocal magnetostatic interactions. In many situations, it turns out to be te most time-consuming part of micromagnetic simulations [AES + 13]. To cope wit tis problem, we follow te approac of [PRS17] and propose an implicit-explicit treatment for te lower-order effective field contributions. Ten, only one expensive stray field computation per time-step needs to be carried out. Neverteless, our time-stepping preserves te (almost) second-order convergence in time of te sceme as well as te unconditional convergence result. Te discovery of te giant magnetoresistance (GMR) effect in [BBF + 88, BGSZ89] determined a breaktroug in magnetic ard disk storage capacity and encouraged several extensions of te micromagnetic model, wic aim to describe te effect of spin-polarized currents on magnetic materials. Te most used approaces involve extended forms of November 3, 217 2

3 LLG, in wic te classical energy-based effective field is augmented by additional terms in order to take into account te spin transfer torque effect; see [Slo96, ZL4, TNMS5]. In tis work, we extend te abstract setting, te proposed algoritm, and te convergence result so tat te aforementioned extended forms of LLG are covered by our analysis. For te treatment of systems in wic LLG is bidirectionally coupled wit anoter time-dependent PDE, te works [BPPR14, AHP + 14, LPPT15, BPP15] propose integrators wic completely decouple te time integration of LLG and te coupled equation. Tis treatment is very attractive in terms of computational cost and applicability of te sceme, since existing implementations, including solvers and preconditioning strategies for te building blocks of te system, can easily be reused. We sow ow suc an approac can also be adopted for te improved tangent plane sceme. Combined wit a second-order metod for te coupled equation, tis leads to algoritms of global (almost) second order, for wic te convergence result can be generalized. As an illustrative example, we analyze te coupling of LLG wit eddy currents (ELLG), wic is of relevant interest in several concrete applications [BMMS2, SCMW4, HSE + 5] Outline. Te remainder of tis work is organized as follows: We conclude tis section by recalling te notation used trougout te paper. In Section 2 and in Section 3, we present te problem formulation and introduce te numerical algoritm. Ten, we state te convergence result for pure LLG and ELLG, respectively. In Section 4, for te convenience of te reader, we reformulate te argument of [AKST14] and propose a formal derivation of te (almost) second-order algoritm. In Section 5 and Section 6, we prove te main results for pure LLG (Teorem 4) and ELLG (Teorem 9), respectively. Finally, Section 7 is devoted to numerical experiments General notation. Trougout tis work, we use te standard notations for Lebesgue, Sobolev, and Bocner spaces and norms. For any domain U, we denote te scalar product in L 2 (U) by, U and te corresponding norm by U. Vector-valued functions (as well as te corresponding function spaces) are indicated by bold letters. To abbreviate notation in proofs, we write A B wen A cb for some generic constant c >, wic is clear from te context and always independent of te discretization parameters. Moreover, A B abbreviates A B A. 2. Landau Lifsitz Gilbert equation 2.1. LLG and weak solutions. For a bounded Lipscitz domain ω R 3, te Gilbert form of LLG reads t m = m ( eff (m) + Π(m) ) + α m t m in ω T := (, T ) ω, (1a) n m = on (, T ) ω, (1b) m() = m in ω, (1c) were T > is te final time, α (, 1] is te Gilbert damping constant, and m H 1 (ω) is te initial data wit m = 1 a.e. in ω. Te so-called effective field reads eff (m) = l 2 ex m + π(m) + f, were l ex > is te excange lengt, wile te linear, self-adjoint, and bounded operator π : L 2 (ω) L 2 (ω) collects te lower-order terms suc as stray field and uniaxial November 3, (1d)

4 anisotropy, and f C 1 ([, T ], L 2 (ω)) is te applied field. We note tat eff (m) = δe LLG(m) δm, were E LLG(m) = l2 ex 2 m 2 ω 1 2 π(m), m ω f, m ω (2) is te micromagnetic energy functional. Furter dissipative (e.g., spintronic) effects suc as te Slonczewski contribution [Slo96] or te Zang Li contribution [ZL4, TNMS5] are collected in te (not necessarily linear) operator Π : H 1 (ω) L (ω) L 2 (ω). Note tat solutions of LLG (1) formally satisfy = t m m = 1 2 t m 2 and ence m = 1 a.e. in ω T. As in [AS92], we use te following notion of weak solutions of (1): Definition 1. Wit te foregoing notation, a function m : ω T R 3 is called a weak solution of LLG (1), if te following properties (i) (iv) are satisfied: (i) m H 1 (ω T ) L (, T ; H 1 (ω)) wit m = 1 a.e. in ω T ; (ii) m() = m in te sense of traces; (iii) for all ϕ H 1 (ω T ), it olds tat t m, ϕ ω dt = l 2 ex + α (iv) for almost all τ (, T ), it olds tat E LLG (m(τ)) + α τ t m 2 ω dt + m m, ϕ ω dt m π(m), ϕ ω dt τ m f, ϕ ω dt m Π(m), ϕ ω dt m t m, ϕ ω dt; (3) t f, m ω dt τ Π(m), t m ω dt E LLG (m ). (4) 2.2. Time discretization. Let N N and k := T/N. Consider te uniform timesteps t i := ik for i =,..., N and te corresponding midpoints t i+1/2 := (t i+1 + t i )/2. For a Banac space B, e.g., B {L 2 (ω), H 1 (ω)}, and a sequence (ϕ i ) N i= 1 B, define te mean value and te discrete time derivative by ϕ i+1/2 := ϕi+1 + ϕ i 2 and d t ϕ i+1 := ϕi+1 ϕ i For Θ k R N 3, define te two-step approac by k for i =,..., N 1. (5a) ϕ i,θ := Θ k i3ϕ i+1 + Θ k i2ϕ i + Θ k i1ϕ i 1 for i =,..., N 1. (5b) For i =,..., N 1 and t [t i, t i+1 ), define ϕ = k (t) := ϕ i 1, ϕ k (t) := ϕi, ϕ + k (t) := ϕi+1, ϕ k (t) := ϕ i+1/2, ϕ Θ k (t) := ϕ i,θ, and ϕ k (t) := ϕ i+1 t t i + ϕ i t i+1 t. t i+1 t i t i+1 t i Note tat ϕ = k, ϕ k, ϕ+ k, ϕ k, ϕ Θ k L2 (, 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 ). November 3, (6)

5 2.3. Space discretization. Let T be a conforming triangulation of ω into compact tetraedra K T wic is κ-quasi-uniform, i.e., te global mes-size > assures tat κ 1 K 1/3 diam(k) κ for all K T. (7) We suppose tat T is weakly acute, i.e., te diedral angles of all elements are π/2. Define te space of T -piecewise affine and globally continuous functions by V := (V ) 3 H 1 (ω) wit V := {v C(ω) : v K P 1 (K) for all K T }. Let N be te set of nodes of T. Recall tat m = 1 and m t m =. To mimic te latter properties, we define te set of discrete admissible magnetizations on ω by M := { ψ V : ψ (z ) = 1 for all z N } (8) as well as te discrete tangent space K (ψ ) := { ϕ V : ψ (z ) ϕ (z ) = for all z N } for all ψ M. (9) 2.4. Almost second-order tangent plane sceme. In tis section, we formulate our numerical integrator wic is analyzed below. For eac time-step t i, it approximates m(t i ) by m i M and t m(t i ) by v i K (m i ). For a practical formulation, suppose (computable) operators π, Π : M L 2 (ω) and π i, Π i : V M M L 2 (ω) suc tat π (m i ) π(mi ) and Π (m i ) Π(mi ) as well as πi (vi ; mi, mi 1 ) ) and Π i (v i ; mi, mi 1) Π(mi+1/2 ). We suppose tat te operators π i and π(m i+1/2 Π i are affine in v i sequences (π i )N 1 i= and (Π i ) N 1 i= via (cf. Remark 3). We extend te construction in (6) to te operator π k (t) := πi and Π k (t) := Πi for all t [t i, t i+1 ). (1) Finally, we require two stabilizations M : R > R > and ρ : R > R > suc tat Te canonical coices are lim M(k) = wit lim M(k)k =, (11a) k k lim k ρ(k) = wit lim k k 1 ρ(k) =. (11b) ρ(k) := k log k and M(k) := k log k 1, (11c) We proceed as in [AKST14, p.415] and define te weigt function α + k min{s, M(k)} for s, W M(k) (s) := 2 α 1 + k min{ s, M(k)} for s <. 2α Wit tese preparations, our numerical integrator reads as follows: Algoritm 2 (Implicit-explicit tangent plane sceme). Input: Approximation := m M of initial magnetization. m 1 November 3, (12)

6 Loop: For i =,..., N 1, iterate te following steps (a) (c): (a) Compute te discrete function λ i := l 2 ex m i 2 + ( f(t i ) + π (m i ) + Π (m i ) ) m i. (13) (b) Find v i K (m i ) suc tat, for all ϕ K (m i ), it olds tat (c) Define m i+1 W M(k) (λ i ) v i, ϕ ω + m i v i, ϕ ω + l2 ex 2 k (1 + ρ(k)) vi, ϕ ω = l 2 ex m i, ϕ ω + f(t i+1/2 ), ϕ ω + π i (v i ; m i, m i 1 ), ϕ ω + Π i (v i ; m i, m i 1 ), ϕ ω. M by m i+1 (z ) := mi (z ) + kv i (z ) m i (z ) + kv i (z ) Output: Approximations m i m(t i) for all i =,..., N. (14) for all z N. (15) Remark 3. (i) Te variational formulation (14) gives rise to a linear system for v i. However, in particular for stray field computations, te part of te resulting system matrix wic corresponds to te π i -contribution may be fully populated (resp. not explicitly available for ybrid FEM-BEM metods [FK9]). To deal wit tis issue, we can, on te one and, employ te fixpoint iteration (45) and, on te oter and, coose π i and Πi independent of v i. For te latter, see (ii) below for a coice tat does not impair te convergence order. (ii) Natural coices for te operators π i and Πi are te following: Te cain rule gives rise to an operator D(m, t m) := t [Π(m)] wic is linear in te second argument. Suppose tat D is a discretization of D. For i =, we follow [AKST14, Algoritm 2] and coose π i (v i ; m i, m i 1 ) := π (m i ) + k 2 π (v i ), (16a) Π i (v i ; m i, m i 1 ) := Π (m i ) + k 2 D (m i, v i ); (16b) cf. Proposition 13(i). For te subsequent time-steps i 1 and unlike [AKST14], we set π i (v i ; m i, m i 1 Π i (v i ; m i, m i 1 ) := 3 2 π (m i ) 1 2 π (m i 1 ), (17a) ) := Π (m i ) D (m i, m i ) 1 2 D (m i, m i 1 ); (17b) cf. Proposition 13(ii). In tis way, te rigt-and side of (14) is independent of v i. (iii) Te coice of ρ in (11c) leads to formally almost second-order in time convergence of Algoritm 2. In principle, it suffices to coose a sufficiently large constant M(k) M > ; for details see Proposition 13. (iv) Teorem 4 states well-posedness of Algoritm 2 as well as unconditional convergence towards a weak solution of LLG in te sense of Definition 1. Moreover, te proof of Teorem 4(i) provides a convergent fixpoint solver for te first time-step i =. November 3, 217 6

7 (v) Unlike te stabilized sceme, we note tat te non-stabilized sceme ρ(k) requires a CFL-type coupling k = o() for te convergence proof; see also Remark Main teorem for LLG integration. To formulate te main result wic generalizes [AKST14, Teorem 2], we require te following assumptions: Let T satisfy te assumptions of Section 2.3. Let m M satisfy m m in H 1 (ω) as. (18) For all i {,..., N 1}, let π i satisfy, for all ψ, ψ V and all ϕ, ϕ M, te Lipscitz-type continuity and te stability-type estimate π i (ψ ; ϕ, ϕ ) π i ( ψ ; ϕ, ϕ ) ω C π k ψ ψ ω π i (ψ ; ϕ, ϕ ) ω C π ( k ψ ω + ϕ ω + ϕ ω ). (19a) (19b) Moreover, for all sequences ψ k in L 2 (, T ; V ) and ϕ k, ϕ k in L 2 (, T ; M ) wit ψ k ψ and ϕ k, ϕ k ϕ in L 2 (ω T ), we suppose consistency π k (ψ k; ϕ k, ϕ k ) π(ϕ) in L 2 (ω T ) as, k. (19c) For all i {,..., N 1}, let Π i satisfy, for all ψ, ψ V and all ϕ, ϕ M, te Lipscitz-type continuity Π i (ψ ; ϕ, ϕ ) Π i ( ψ ; ϕ, ϕ ) ω C Π k ψ ψ H 1 (ω) and te stability-type estimate (2a) Π i (ψ ; ϕ, ϕ ), ψ ω C Π ψ ω ( k ψ H 1 (ω) + ϕ H 1 (ω) + ϕ H 1 (ω)). (2b) Moreover, for all sequences ψ k in L 2 (, T ; V ) and ϕ k, ϕ k in L 2 (, T ; M ) wit ψ k ψ and ϕ k, ϕ k ϕ in L 2 (ω T ), we suppose consistency Π k (ψ k; ϕ k, ϕ k ) Π(ϕ) in L 2 (ω T ) as, k. (2c) Teorem 4. (i) If te Lipscitz-type estimates (19a) and (2a) are satisfied, ten tere exists k > suc tat for all < k < k te discrete variational formulation (14) admits a unique solution v i K (m i ). In particular, Algoritm 2 is well-defined. (ii) Suppose tat all preceding assumptions (18) (2) are satisfied. Let m k be te postprocessed output (6) of Algoritm 2. Ten, tere exists m H 1 (ω T ) L (, T ; H 1 (ω)) wic satisfies Definition 1(i) (iii), and a subsequence of m k converges weakly in H 1 (ω T ) towards m as, k. (iii) Under te assumptions of (ii), suppose tat te convergence properties (18) as well as (19c) and (2c) old wit strong convergence. Moreover, suppose additionally tat f C 1 ([, T ], L 2 (ω)) C([, T ], L 3 (ω)) and tat π is L 3 -stable, i.e., π(ϕ) L 3 (ω) C π ϕ L 3 (ω) for all ϕ H 1 (ω). (21) Ten, m from (ii) is a weak solution of LLG in te sense of Definition 1(i) (iv). November 3, 217 7

8 Remark 5. (i) If te solution m H 1 (ω T ) L (, T ; H 1 (ω)) of Definition 1 is unique, ten te full sequence m k converges weakly in H 1 (ω T ) towards m. (ii) Te assumptions (19) on π (even wit strong convergence) as well as (21) on π are satisfied, e.g., for uniaxial anisotropy and stray field. Possible stray field discretizations include ybrid FEM-BEM approaces [FK9]; see [BFF + 14, PRS17]. (iii) Te Lipscitz-type estimates (19a) and (2a) are only used to prove tat Algoritm 2 is well-defined for sufficiently small k >. Te stability estimates (19b) and (2b) are ten used to prove some discrete energy estimate (Lemma 18). Finally, te consistency assumptions (19c) and (2c) are used to sow tat te existing limit satisfies te variational formulation of Definition 1(iii). (iv) Te assumptions on π and Π from (19) (2) are only exploited for ϕ = m i, ϕ = m i 1, and ϕ k = m k, ϕ k = m = k, ψ k = v k. Moreover, only (19a) and (2a) require general ψ, ψ, wile (19b) and (2b) are only exploited for ψ = v i. Te proof of Teorem 4 is postponed to Section 5. Unique solvability of (14) will be proved wit te Banac fixpoint teorem. Teorem 4(ii) (iii) will be proved troug an energy argument wic consists of te following tree steps: bound te discrete energy (Lemma 15); extract weakly convergent subsequences aving a common limit (Lemma 16); verify tat tis limit is a weak solution in te sense of Definition Landau Lifsitz Gilbert equation wit eddy currents 3.1. ELLG and weak solutions. Let Ω R 3 be a bounded Lipscitz domain wit Ω ω tat represents a conducting body wit its ferromagnetic part ω. ELLG reads t m = m ( eff (m) + Π(m) + ) + α m t m in ω T := (, T ) ω, (22a) µ t m = µ t + (σ 1 ) in Ω T := (, T ) Ω, (22b) n m = on (, T ) ω, (22c) ( ) n = on (, T ) Ω, (22d) (m, )() = (m, ) in ω Ω. (22e) Here, σ L (Ω) wit σ σ > is te conductivity of Ω, and µ > is te vacuum permeability. Te initial condition H (curl; Ω) satisfies te compatibility conditions ( + χ ω m ) = in Ω and ( + χ ω m ) n = on Ω. (23) Unlike [LT13, Definition 2.1], we define te energy functional E ELLG (m, ) := l2 ex 2 m 2 ω 1 2 π(m), m ω f, m ω Ω. (24) As in [AS92, LT13], we use te following notion of weak solutions of ELLG (22): Definition 6. Wit te foregoing notation, te pair (m, ) is called a weak solution of ELLG (22), if te following conditions (i) (v) are satisfied: (i) m H 1 (ω T ) L (, T ; H 1 (ω)) wit m = 1 a.e. in ω T ; November 3, 217 8

9 (ii) H 1 (, T ; L 2 (Ω)) L (, T ; H(curl; Ω)). (iii) m() = m and () = in te sense of traces; (iv) for all ϕ H 1 (ω T ) and for all ζ L 2 (, T ; H(curl, Ω)), it olds tat t m, ϕ ω dt = l 2 ex µ t m, ζ ω dt = µ m m, ϕ ω dt m π(m), ϕ ω dt m, ϕ ω dt +α m f, ϕ ω dt m Π(m), ϕ ω dt m t m, ϕ ω dt, (25a) t, ζ Ω dt + σ 1, ζ Ω dt; (25b) (v) for almost all τ (, T ), it olds tat τ τ E ELLG (m(τ), (τ)) + α t m 2 ω dt + t f, m ω dt + 1 τ τ σ 1/2 2 Ω dt Π(m), t m µ ω dt E ELLG (m, ). (26) 3.2. Discretization. We adopt te notation of Section 2.2. Let T be a conforming triangulation of Ω into compact tetraedra K T. Suppose tat T is κ-quasi-uniform (cf. (7)). We suppose tat T resolves ω, i.e., ω = { K, were T ω := K T : K ω }. (27) K T ω Let N (resp. N ω ) be te set of nodes of T (resp. T ω ). We suppose tat T ω is weakly acute and define V, M, and K ( ) wit respect to T ω as in Section 2.3. Finally, te space of Nédélec edge elements of second type [Néd86] on Ω reads X := {ζ H (curl; Ω) : ζ K P 1 (K) for all K T } H (curl; Ω) Almost second-order tangent plane sceme. In tis section, we extend Algoritm 2 to ELLG (22). More precisely, we combine Algoritm 2 for te LLG-part wit an implicit midpoint sceme for te eddy current part. Algoritm 7 (Decoupled ELLG algoritm). Input: Θ k R N 3, approximations m 1 := m M and 1 := X of te initial values. Loop: For i =,..., N 1, iterate te following steps (a) (d): (a) Compute te discrete function λ i := l 2 ex m i 2 + ( f(t i ) + π (m i ) + Π (m i ) + i ) m i. (28) November 3, 217 9

10 (b) Find v i K (m i ) suc tat, for all ϕ K (m i ), it olds tat (c) Define m i+1 (d) Find i+1 W M (λ i )v i, ϕ ω + m i v i, ϕ ω + l2 ex 2 k (1 + ρ(k)) vi, ϕ ω = l 2 ex m i, ϕ ω + f(t i+1/2 ), ϕ ω + π i (v i ; m i, m i 1 ), ϕ ω + Π i (v i ; m i, m i 1 ), ϕ ω + i,θ, ϕ ω. (29a) M by m i+1 (z ) := mi (z ) + kv i (z ) m i (z ) + kv i (z ) X suc tat, for all ζ X, it olds tat for all z N. (29b) µ d t m i+1, ζ ω = µ d t i+1, ζ Ω + σ 1 i+1/2, ζ Ω. (29c) Output: Approximations m i m(t i) and i (t i ) for all i =,..., N. Remark 8. (i) It depends on te coice of Θ k (and ence of i,θ in (29a)) weter step (b) (d) of Algoritm 7 ave to be solved simultaneously or sequentially. (ii) For te first time-step i =, we coose Θ k 3 := Θ k 2 := 1/2 and Θ k 1 =, i.e., i,θ = i+1/2 = i + k 2 d t i+1. (3) Ten, step (b) (d) of Algoritm 7 ave to be solved simultaneously. Moreover, because of step (c), te overall system is nonlinear in v i. For te subsequent time-steps i 1, we coose Θ k i3 :=, Θ k i2 := 3/2, and Θ k i1 = 1/2, i.e., i,θ = 3 2 i 1 2 i 1. (31) Ten, te numerical integrator decouples te time-stepping for LLG and eddy currents, and we need to solve only two linear systems per time-step. (iii) Te coice of Θ k i for i 1 is motivated by te explicit Adams Basfort twostep metod wic is of second order in time. By coice (11c) of ρ, Algoritm 7 ten is formally of almost second order in time. (iv) In principle, we can replace µ d t m i+1, ζ ω in equation (29c) of Algoritm 7 by µ v i, ζ ω. Even in te implicit case (3), te resulting sceme is ten linear in v i and i+1/2. However, Lemma 11 predicts tat t m = v + O(k), and tus we only expect first-order convergence in time. Tis is also confirmed numerically in Section 7.3. (v) In practice, we solve (29c) for te unknown ν := i+1/2 X, i.e., we compute te unique ν X suc tat, for all ζ X, 2µ k ν, ζ Ω + σ 1 ν, ζ Ω = µ d t m i+1, ζ ω + 2µ k i, ζ Ω. (32) Ten, i+1 := 2 ν i solves (29c). (vi) Teorem 9 states well-posedness of Algoritm 7 as well as unconditional convergence towards a weak solution of ELLG in te sense of Definition 6. Te proof of Teorem 9 (i) provides a convergent fixpoint solver for te first (nonlinear) time-step i =. November 3, 217 1

11 3.4. Main teorem for ELLG integration. Tis section states our convergence result for Algoritm 7. In [LT13, LPPT15] and [BPP15], similar results are proved for a first-order tangent plane sceme for ELLG and for te Maxwell-LLG system, respectively. Teorem 9. (i) Suppose tat te Lipscitz-type estimates (19a) and (2a) are satisfied. Suppose tat te coupling parameter Θ k R N 3 satisfies max Θ k ij C Θ < and ij 3 Θ k ij = 1 for all i {,..., N 1}. (33) j=1 Ten, tere exists k > suc tat for all < k < k te discrete variational formulation (29) admits a unique solution (v i, i+1 ) K (m i ) X. In particular, Algoritm 7 is well-defined. (ii) Suppose tat (33) as well as all assumptions from Section 2.5 are satisfied. Let (m k, k ) be te postprocessed output (6) of Algoritm 7. Ten, tere exist m H 1 (ω T ) L (, T ; H 1 (ω)) and H 1 (, T ; L 2 (Ω)) L (, T ; H(curl, Ω)) wic satisfy Definition 6(i) (iv), and a subsequence of (m k, k ) converges weakly in H 1 (ω T ) L 2 (Ω T ) towards (m, ) as, k. (iii) Under te assumptions of (ii), suppose tat te convergence properties (18) as well as (19c) and (2c) old wit strong convergence. Moreover, suppose additionally tat f C 1 ([, T ], L 2 (ω)) C([, T ], L 3 (ω)) and tat π is L 3 -stable (21). Finally, let te CFL condition k = o( 2 ) be satisfied. Ten, te pair (m, ) from (ii) is a weak solution of ELLG in te sense of Definition 6(i) (v). Remark 1. (i) If te solution (m, ) of Definition 6 is unique, ten te full sequence (m k, k ) converges weakly in H 1 (ω T ) L 2 (Ω T ) towards (m, ). (ii) If te CFL condition k = o( 2 ) is satisfied (as required for Teorem 9(iii)), ten Teorem 9(ii) olds also for vanising stabilization ρ(k). (iii) Te compatibility condition (23) of te initial data is not exploited in te proof of Teorem 9. In particular, te discrete initial data do not ave to satisfy any discrete compatibility condition. (iv) If d t m i+1, ζ ω in (29c) is replaced by v i, ζ ω, ten Teorem 9(iii) olds witout te CFL condition k = o( 2 ) wic is only exploited in (8) below. However, as mentioned in Remark 8, te overall integrator ten appears to be only of first order in time. Te proof of Teorem 9 is postponed to Section 6. For te LLG-part of ELLG (22), we follow our proof of Teorem 4. For te eddy current part, we adapt te tecniques of [LT13, LPPT15, BPP15, PRS17] to te setting of Algoritm Derivation of second-order tangent plane sceme In tis section, we adapt [AKST14, PRS17] in order to motivate Algoritm 2 and to underpin tat it is of (almost) second order in time. Since solutions m to LLG satisfy m t m = a.e. in ω, we define, for any ψ C (ω) wit ψ = 1 its tangent space November 3, K(ψ) := { ϕ C (ω) : ψ ϕ = in ω } (34)

12 as well as te pointwise projection onto K(ψ) by P ψ (u) := u (u ψ)ψ for all u C (ω). (35) Lemma 11 ([AKST14, p. 413]). For m C (ω T ) wit m = 1, it olds tat m(t) + kv(t) m(t) + kv(t) = m(t + k) + O(k3 ), were v(t) := t m(t) + k 2 P m(t)( tt m(t)) (36) for all t [, T k]. Recall te stabilizations M( ) and ρ( ) from (11) as well as te weigt function W M(k) ( ) from (12). Te following lemma is implicitly found in [AKST14, p.415]. Wit (11a), it proves, in particular, tat W M(k) ( ) α/2, if k > is sufficiently small. Lemma 12. Te weigt function W M(k) ( ) satisfies te following two assertions (i) (ii): (i) W M(k) (s) α M(k)k for all s R. 2 (ii) If M(k) B > and k < k := α/b, ten α + k 2 s W M(k)(s) B2 2α k2 for all s [ B, B]. (37) Proof. For s, (i) follows immediately from te definition (12). For s <, we get tat W M(k) (s) α (12) k min{ s, M(k)} 2 = 1 + k min{ s, M(k)} k M(k)k min{ s, M(k)} α Tis proves (i). We come to te proof of (ii): If s B, ten B M yields tat α + k 2 s W M(k)(s) (12) =. If B s < and j N, te j-t derivative of W M(k) ( ) reads Since k < k := α/b, it olds tat q := ks s 1 2α 2B 2 W (j) M(k) (s) = 2α2 k j j! (2α ks) 1+j. j=2 and tus j= q j = 1 1 q 2. Te Taylor expansion at s = sows tat α + k 2 s W k j s j k 2 s 2 ( ks ) j k 2 s 2 M(k)(s) = = 2 2 j α 4α 2α 4α B2 k 2 2α. Tis concludes te proof. Te following proposition is te main result of tis section. It sows tat te consistency error of Algoritm 2 is of order O(k 2 + kρ(k)). For Π = and f constant in time, (4a) is implicitly contained in [AKST14, Section 6], wile (4b) adapts some furter ideas from [PRS17]. Note tat (4a) corresponds to (14) in combination wit (16) November 3, j=

13 and requires te evaluation of π(v) and D(m, v). In contrast to tat, (4b) corresponds to (14) in combination wit (17) and avoids tese evaluations at v. Proposition 13. Let D(, ) be obtained from D(m(t), t m(t)) := t [Π(m(t))] and te cain rule. For ψ C (ω) and w, ϕ H 1 (ω), define te bilinear form b(ψ; w, ϕ) := W M(k) ( λ(ψ) ) w, ϕ ω + ψ w, ϕ ω + l2 ex 2 k (1 + ρ(k)) w, ϕ ω, (38a) were λ(ψ) := ( eff (ψ) + Π(ψ) ) ψ. Let m C (ω T ) be a strong solution of LLG (1) wic satisfies (38b) B := λ(m) L (ω T ) M(k) <. (39) Ten, v from (36) satisfies te following two assertions (i) (ii): (i) For t [, T k], tere exists R 1 = O(k 2 + kρ(k)) suc tat, for all ϕ K(m), b(m; v(t), ϕ) k 2 π(v(t)), ϕ ω k 2 D(m(t), v(t)), ϕ ω = l 2 ex m(t), ϕ ω + f ( t + k/2 ), ϕ ω + π(m(t)), ϕ ω + Π(m(t)), ϕ ω + R 1, ϕ ω. (4a) (ii) For t [k, T k], tere exists R 2 = O(k 2 + kρ(k)) suc tat, for all ϕ K(m), b(m; v(t), ϕ) = l 2 ex m(t), ϕ ω + f ( t + k/2 ), ϕ ω π(m(t)), ϕ ω 1 2 π(m(t k)), ϕ ω + Π(m(t)), ϕ ω D(m(t), m(t)), ϕ ω 1 2 D(m(t), m(t k)), ϕ ω + R 2, ϕ ω. (4b) Moreover, it olds tat λ(m) = l 2 ex m 2 + ( f + π(m) + Π(m) ) m. (41) Proof. Te proof is split into te following tree steps. Step 1. For te proof of (i), we extend [AKST14, Section 6] to our setting: Define Te cain rule yields tat eff,π (m) := eff (m) + Π(m). t [ eff,π (m) ] = t [ eff (m) ] + t [ Π(m) ] = l 2 ex t m + t f + π( t m) + D(m, t m). Since m = 1 a.e., (1a) is equivalent to α t m + m t m = eff,π (m) ( eff,π (m) m ) m; (43) see, e.g., [Gol12, Lemma 1.2.1]. Differentiating (43) wit respect to time, we obtain tat α tt m + m tt m = t [ eff,π (m) ] ( t [ eff,π (m) ] m)m November 3, ( eff,π (m) t m)m ( eff,π (m) m) t m.

14 Since t m m = in ω T, it olds tat α t m + m t m = P m (α t m + m t m). Terefore, we furter obtain tat α v + m v (36) = P m (α t m + m t m + k 2 α ttm + k ) 2 m ttm (43) = P m ( eff,π (m) + k 2 t[ eff,π (m) ] k ) (44) 2 ( eff,π(m) m) t m. For t [, T k], we multiply (44) by ϕ K(m) and integrate over ω. We rearrange te terms and use tat te definition (36) of v yields tat t m = v + O(k). Ten, α v(t), ϕ ω + m(t) v(t), ϕ ω + k m( 2 P (eff,π (m(t)) m(t) ) ) v(t), ϕ ω (44) = P m ( eff,π (m(t)) ), ϕ ω + k 2 P m( t [ eff,π (m(t)) ]), ϕ ω + O(k 2 ). Since any ϕ K(m) is invariant under te pointwise definition (35), te projection P m can be omitted in te latter equation. By definition (38b) of λ(m), it follows tat ( α + k 2 λ(m(t))) v(t), ϕ ω + m(t) v(t), ϕ ω = eff,π (m(t)), ϕ ω + k 2 t[ eff,π (m(t)) ], ϕ ω + O(k 2 ). Note tat n v = t n m + O(k) = O(k). Terefore, integration by parts yields tat eff,π (m(t)), ϕ ω + k 2 t[ eff,π (m(t)) ], ϕ ω + O(k 2 ) (42) = l 2 ex m(t), ϕ ω + f ( t ), ϕ ω + π(m(t)), ϕ ω + Π(m(t)), ϕ ω l2 ex 2 k v(t), ϕ ω + k 2 tf(t), ϕ ω + k 2 π(v(t)), ϕ ω + k 2 D(m(t), v(t)), ϕ ω. Togeter wit f(t) + k 2 tf(t) = f(t + k/2) + O(k 2 ), te latter two equations prove tat ( α + k 2 λ(m(t))) v(t), ϕ ω + m(t) v(t), ϕ ω = l2 ex 2 k v(t), ϕ ω + f(t + k/2), ϕ ω + π(m(t)), ϕ ω + Π(m(t)), ϕ ω + k 2 π(v(t)), ϕ ω + k 2 D(m(t), v(t)), ϕ ω + O(k2 ). It remains to replace ( α+ k 2 λ(m(t))) by W M(k) ( λ(m(t)) ), wic yields an additional error of O(k 2 ) (see (39) and Lemma 12(ii)), and to add te stabilization term l2 ex 2 k ρ(k) v, ϕ ω, wic yields an additional error of O(kρ(k)). Tis proves (i). Step 2. For te proof of (ii), we first observe tat an implicit Euler step satisfies tat Togeter wit Lemma 11, we obtain tat m(t k) + k t m(t) = m(t) + O(k 2 ). v(t) (36) = t m(t) + O(k) = November 3, m(t) m(t k) k + O(k).

15 Since π is linear and bounded, it follows tat k 2 π(v(t)) = 1 2 π(m(t)) 1 2 π(m(t k)) + O(k2 ). Similarly, since D(, ) is linear in te second argument, we also obtain tat k 2 D(m(t), v(t)) = 1 2 D(m(t), m(t)) 1 2 D(m(t), m(t k)) + O(k2 ). Combining te latter two equations wit (i), we conclude te proof of (ii). Step 3. Note tat m = 1 in ω yields tat m m = m 2. In particular, λ(m) = ( eff (m) + Π(m) ) m = l 2 ex m 2 + ( f + π(m) + Π(m) ) m. Tis proves (41) and concludes te proof. Remark 14. (i) For ρ(k) = O(k), Proposition 13 yields tat R 1, R 2 = O(k 2 ) and terefore second-order accuracy of te consistency error. In tis case, owever, te convergence result of Teorem 4 requires te CFL-type condition k = o(). Instead, te coice ρ(k) := k log(k) requires no CFL-type condition and leads to ρ(k) = O(k 1 ε ) and ence to R 1, R 2 = O(k 2 ε ) for any ε >. For details, we refer to Remark 17 below. (ii) In te proof of Proposition 13, ( α + k λ(m)) ( ) is replaced by W 2 M(k) λ(m) to ensure ellipticity of te bilinear form b(m;, ). 5. Proof of Teorem 4 (Numerical integration of LLG) Proof of Teorem 4(i). Togeter wit te Lax Milgram teorem, we employ a fixpoint iteration in order to solve (14) wit η l vi : Let η :=. For l N, let η l+1 K (m i ) solve, for all ϕ K (m i ), W M(k) (λ i ) η l+1, ϕ ω + m i η l+1, ϕ ω + l2 ex k (1 + ρ(k)) ηl+1, ϕ 2 ω = l 2 ex m i, ϕ ω + f(t i+1/2 ), ϕ ω + π i (η l ; m i, m i 1 ), ϕ ω + Π i (η l ; m i, m i 1 ), ϕ ω. We equip K (m i ) wit te norm η 2 := (α/4) η 2 ω +(l 2 ex/2) k (1+ρ(k)) η 2 ω. For sufficiently small k, Lemma 12(i) and (11a) prove tat W M(k) ( ) α/2. Since ρ(k), te bilinear form on te left-and side of (45) is positive definite on K (m i ), i.e., te fixpoint iteration is well-defined. We subtract (45) for η l+1 from (45) for η l and test wit ϕ := η l+1 η l K (m i ). Wit (19a) and (2a), we get tat α 2 ηl+1 η l 2 ω + l2 ex k (1 + ρ(k)) ηl+1 2 (45) π i (η l ; m i, m i 1 + Π i (η l ; m i, m i 1 η l 2 ω ) πi (η l 1 ; m i, m i 1 ) ω η l+1 η l ω ) Πi (η l 1 ; m i, m i 1 ) ω η l+1 η l ω (45) (C π + C Π ) k η l η l 1 ω η l+1 η l ω + C Π k (η l η l 1 ) ω η l+1 η l ω. (46) November 3,

16 For arbitrary δ >, te Young inequality tus yields tat { min 1, 2 1 } αδ (C π + 2 C Π ) k η l+1 η l 2 [ α 2 1 4δ (C π + 2 C Π ) k] η l+1 η l 2 ω + l2 ex 2 δ (C π + C Π ) k η l η l 1 2 ω + δ C Π k (η l η l 1 { 4 δ max α (C π + C Π ) k, 2 C } Π l 2 ex k (1 + ρ(k)) ηl+1 ) 2 ω η l η l 1 2 for all l N. η l 2 ω For sufficiently small δ and k, te iteration is tus a contraction wit respect to. Te Banac fixpoint teorem yields te existence and uniqueness of te solution v i K (m i ) to (14). For all z N, it olds tat m i (z ) + k v i (z ) 2 = 1 + k 2 v i (z ) 2 1 so tat m i+1 M in (15) is well-defined. Altogeter, Algoritm 2 is tus well-posed. Lemma 15. Under te assumptions of Teorem 4(ii), te following assertions (i) (ii) are satisfied, if k > is sufficiently small. (i) For all i =,..., N 1, it olds tat l 2 ex 2 d t m i+1 2 ω + W M(k) (λ i )v i, v i ω + l2 ex 2 k ρ(k) vi 2 ω f(t i+1/2 ), v i ω + π i (v i ; m i, m i 1 ), vi ω + Π i (v i ; m i, m i 1 ), vi ω (47) (ii) For all j =,..., N, it olds tat m j 2 ω + k v i 2 ω + k 2 ρ(k) v i 2 ω C, (48) were C > only depends on T, ω, α, l 2 ex, f, π, Π, m, and κ. Proof. Testing (14) wit ϕ := v i K (m i ), we see tat i= W M(k) (λ i )v i, v i ω + l2 ex 2 k vi 2 ω + l2 ex 2 kρ(k) vi 2 ω = l 2 ex m i, v i ω + f(t i+1/2 ), v i ω (49) + π i (v i ; m i, m i 1 ), vi ω + Π i (v i ; m i, m i 1 ), vi ω. Since T is weakly acute, [Bar5, Lemma 3.2] provides te estimate m i+1 2 ω (m i + kv i ) 2 ω = m i 2 ω + 2k m i, v i ω + k 2 v i 2 ω. Rearranging tis estimate and multiplying it by l 2 ex/(2k), we derive tat i= l 2 ex Adding (49) and (5), we prove (i). 2 d t m i+1 2 ω l2 ex 2 k vi 2 ω l 2 ex m i, v i ω. (5) November 3,

17 To prove (ii), we sum (47) over i =,..., j 1 and multiply by k. For k sufficiently small, we ave W M(k) ( ) α/2 > (cf. Lemma 12(i)) and altogeter get tat χ j := l2 ex 2 mj 2 ω + α 2 k v i 2 ω + l2 ex 2 k2 ρ(k) v i 2 ω i= i= (47) l2 ex 2 m 2 ω + k f(t i+1/2 ), v i ω + k π i (v i ; m i, m i 1 ), vi ω + k Π i (v i ; m i, m i 1 ), vi ω. i= Let δ >. Te Young inequality proves tat k 2 i= i= i= i= v i ω v i ω δk 2 ρ(k) v i 2 ω + k2 δρ(k) (51) v i 2 ω. (52) Togeter wit (19b) and (2b), furter applications of te Young inequality prove tat ( m 2 ω + k f(t i+1/2) ω v i ω + k k v i ω + m i ω + m i 1 χ j (51) i= i= i= ( + k k v i H 1 (ω) + m i H 1 (ω) + m i 1 (52) m 2 ω + k δ + ( δ + k + H 1 (ω) ) v i ω i= f(t i+1/2 ) 2 ω + k m i δ 2 ω + k m i δ 2 ω i= k δρ(k) ) k i= i= v i 2 ω + δ k 2 ρ(k) v i 2 ω. i= i= ω ) v i ω Since k/ρ(k) as k, we coose δ > sufficiently small and can absorb te sums k i= vi 2 ω and k 2 ρ(k) i= vi 2 ω in χ j. Using tat f C 1 ([, T ], L 2 (ω)), we altogeter arrive at te estimate χ j m 2 ω + k f(t i+1/2 ) 2 ω + k m i 2 ω + k m i 2 ω 1 + k χ i. i= i= Tis fits in te setting of te discrete Gronwall lemma (cf. [QV94, Lemma 1.4.2]), i.e., We obtain tat Tis concludes te proof. i= χ j α + β χ i wit α > and β k. i= χ j α exp ( i= ) β exp(t ). (53) i= November 3,

18 Lemma 16. Under te assumptions of Teorem 4(ii), consider te postprocessed output (6) of Algoritm 2. Ten, tere exists m H 1 (ω T ) L (, T ; H 1 (ω)) as well as a subsequence of eac m k {m k, m = k, m k, m+ k } and of v k suc tat te following convergence statements (i) (viii) old true simultaneously for te same subsequence as, k : (i) m k m in H 1 (ω T ), (ii) m k m in L (, T ; H 1 (ω)), (iii) m k m in L2 (, T ; H 1 (ω)), (iv) m k m in L2 (ω T ), (v) m k (t) m(t) in L2 (ω) for t (, T ) a.e., (vi) m k m pointwise a.e. in ω T, (vii) v k tm in L 2 (ω T ), (viii) k v k in L2 (ω T ). Proof. Lemma 15 yields uniform boundedness of m k in H 1 (ω T ) and of m k L (, T ; H 1 (ω)). Terefore, (i) (vii) follow as in [Alo8, BFF + 14]. Lemma 15(ii) yields tat N 1 k 2 v k 2 L 2 (ω T ) = kρ(k) 1 ρ(k)k 2 i= Tis proves (viii) and concludes te proof. v i 2 ω (48) 1 (11b) kρ(k) as, k. (54) Remark 17. Under te CFL-type condition k = o(), one may coose ρ(k) and ence violate (11b). To see tis, note tat (11b) is only used for te proof of (52) and (54). An inverse inequality yields tat v i ω v i ω (k 1 ) k v i 2 ω, k 2 i= were k/ as k. Similarly, N 1 k 2 v k 2 L 2 (ω T ) = k3 i= N 1 v i 2 ω k 3 2 i= v i 2 ω i= (48) k 2 2 as, k. Terefore, Lemma 15 as well as Lemma 16 (and ence also Teorem 4) remain valid. Proof of Teorem 4(ii). We verify tat m H 1 (ω T ) L (, T ; H 1 (ω)) from Lemma 16 satisfies Definition 1(i) (iii). Te modulus constraint m = 1 a.e. in ω T as well as m() = m in te sense of traces follow as in [Alo8, BFF + 14]. Hence, m satisfies Definition 1(i) (ii). It remains to prove tat m from Lemma 16 satisfies te variational formulation (3) from Definition 1(iii): To tat end, let ϕ C (ω T ). Let I : C(ω) V be te (vector-valued) nodal ( interpolation operator. For t [t i, t i+1 ) and i =,..., N 1, we test (14) wit I m i ϕ(t) ) K (m i ) and integrate over time. Wit te definition of November 3,

19 te postprocessed output (6) and f k (t) := f(t i+1/2 ) for t [t i, t i+1 ), we obtain tat I 1 k + I 2 k + l2 ex := + l2 ex 2 (14) = l 2 ex + 2 I3 k W M(k) (λ k )v k, I (m k ϕ) dt + m ω k v k, I (m k ϕ) ω dt k (1 + ρ(k)) v k, I (m k ϕ) ω dt m k, I (m k ϕ) ω dt + π k (v k ; m k, m= k), I (m k ϕ) ω dt f k, I (m k ϕ) ω dt + Π k (v k ; m k, m= k), I (m k ϕ) ω dt =: l 2 exi 4 k + I 5 k + I 6 k + I 7 k. (55) In te following, we prove convergence of te integrals from (55) towards teir continuous counterparts in te variational formulation (3): To tis end, recall te approximation properties of te nodal interpolation operator I and note tat f k f in C([, T ]; L 2 (Ω)). Wit Lemma 16, we get as in [Alo8, BFF + 14] tat I 2 k I 4 k I 6 k m t m, m ϕ ω dt = t m, ϕ ω dt as, k, m m, ϕ ω dt as, k, f, m ϕ ω dt as, k. Since M(k)k, Lemma 12(i) yields tat W M(k) (λ k ) α in L (ω T ). Togeter wit te assumption ρ(k) as k, we get as in [AKST14] tat I 1 k α t m, m ϕ ω dt and I 3 k as, k. (56) Wit te assumptions (19c) and (2c) on π k and Π k, respectively, we conclude tat I 5 k = I 7 k = π k (v k ; m k, m= k), I (m k ϕ) ω Π k (v k ; m k, m= k), I (m k ϕ) ω dt (19c) dt (2c) π(m), m ϕ ω dt, Π(m), m ϕ ω dt, (57) as, k. Altogeter, m from Lemma 16 satisfies te variational formulation (3). Proof of Teorem 4(iii). It remains to verify tat m from Lemma 16 satisfies te energy estimate of Definition 1(iv): To tat end, let τ (, T ) be arbitrary and j {1,..., N} suc tat τ [t, t j ). Besides te sortand notation f j := f(t j ), define te time reconstructions f k and f k according to (6). For any i =,..., j 1, Lemma 15(i) sows November 3,

20 tat E LLG (m k (t i+1 )) E LLG (m k (t i )) (2) = l2 ex (47) 2 mi π(mi+1 2 ω l2 ex 2 mi 2 ω ), mi+1 ω π(mi ), m i ω f i+1, m i+1 ω + f i, m i ω k W M(k) (λ i )v i, v i ω l2 ex 2 k2 ρ(k) v i 2 ω + k Π i (v i ; m i, m i 1 ), vi ω + k π i (v i ; m i, m i 1 ), vi ω 1 2 π(mi+1 ), mi+1 ω π(mi ), m i ω }{{} =:T π + k f(t i+1/2 ), v i ω f i+1, m i+1 ω + f i, m i }{{ ω. (58) } =:T f Since π is linear and self-adjoint, we obtain tat T π = 1 2 π(mi+1 ), mi+1 ω π(mi ), m i ω + k π i (v i ; m i, m i 1 ), vi ω = k π i (v i ; m i, m i 1 ) π(mi ), v i ω π(m i ), m i+1 m i kv i Similarly, it olds tat 1 2 π(mi+1 m i ), m i+1 m i ω. (59) T f = k f(t i+1/2 ), v i ω k d t f i+1, m i ω f i+1, m i+1 m i ω = k f(t i+1/2 ) f i+1, v i ω k d t f i+1, m i ω f i+1, m i+1 m i kv i ω =: T f,1 k d t f i+1, m i ω + T f,2. Elementary calculations (see, e.g., [Gol12, Lemma 3.3.2]) sow tat m i+1 (z ) m i (z ) k v i (z ) for all z N. A scaling argument tus proves tat k d t m i+1 L 2 (ω) = m i+1 m i L 2 (ω) k v i L 2 (ω). (6) Elementary calculations (see, e.g., [AJ6, eq. (22)] or [Gol12, Lemma 3.3.3]) sow tat m i+1 (z ) m i (z ) k v i (z ) k2 2 vi (z ) 2 for all z N. A scaling argument tus proves tat k d t m i+1 v i L p (ω) = m i+1 m i k v i L p (ω) k 2 v i 2 L 2p (ω) for 1 p <. (61) Te Sobolev embedding H 1 (ω) L 6 (ω) yields tat v i 2 L 3 (ω) vi L 2 (ω) v i L 6 (ω) v i L 2 (ω) v i H 1 (ω) v i 2 ω + v i ω v i ω. Terefore, we obtain tat m i+1 m i kv i L 3/2 (ω) November 3, (61) k 2 v i 2 L 3 (ω) k2 v i ω v i ω + k 2 v i 2 ω.

21 Wit te stronger boundedness (21) of π and te Hölder inequality, we derive tat T π (59) k π i (v i ; m i, m i 1 ) π(mi ), v i ω + π(m i ) L 3 (ω) m i+1 m i kv i L 3/2 (ω) + π(m i+1 m i ) ω m i+1 m i ω k π i (v i ; m i, m i 1 ) π(mi ), v i ω + k 2 v i ω v i ω + k 2 v i 2 ω. Similarly, te additional assumption f C 1 ([, T ]; L 2 (ω)) C([, T ]; L 3 (ω)) yields tat (62) T f,1 + T f,2 k f(t i+1/2 ) f i+1, v i ω + k 2 v i ω v i ω + k 2 v i 2 ω. (63) Te combination of (58) wit (62) (63) and summation over i =,..., j 1 yields tat E LLG (m + k (τ)) E LLG(m ) + + k + tj tj tj tj W M(k) (λ k )v k, v k ω dt tj t f k, m k ω dt Π k (v k ; m k, m= k), v k ω dt tj v k 2 ω dt +k v k ω v k ω dt tj π k (v k ; m k, m= k) π(m k ), vj ω dt + f k f + k, v k ω dt. From strong convergence in (18), it follows tat E LLG (m ) E LLG(m ) as, k. Te first and second term on te rigt-and side vanis as, k due to Lemma 16(vii) (viii). Tanks to (19c) and (2c) wit strong convergence, te last two terms on te rigt-and side of (64) vanis as, k. Standard lower semicontinuity arguments for te remaining terms in (64) conclude te proof. 6. Proof of Teorem 9 (Numerical integration of ELLG) Proof of Teorem 9(i). Note tat te rigt-and side of (29a) can depend non-linearly on v i. As in te proof of Teorem 4(i), we employ a fixpoint iteration, were ( η l, ) νl ( v i, i+1/2 ) K (m i ) X. To tis end, let η := and ν := i. For l N, let η l+1 K (m i ) satisfy, for all ϕ K (m i ), (64) W M(k) (λ i )η l+1, ϕ ω + m i η l+1, ϕ ω + l2 ex 2 = l 2 ex m i, ϕ ω + π i (η l ; m i, m i 1 k (1 + ρ(k)) ηl+1, ϕ ω, ϕ ω + Π i (η l ; m i, m i 1 ), ϕ ω + 2Θ k i3 ν l, ϕ ω + (Θ k i2 Θ k i3) i +Θ k i1 i 1, ϕ ω. Moreover, let ν l+1 X satisfy, for all ζ X, 2µ k νl+1, ζ Ω + σ 1 ν l+1, ζ Ω ( m i + kη l+1 m i + kηl+1 = µ k I ), ϕ ω + f i+1/2 ), ζ ω + µ k mi, ζ ω + 2µ k i, ζ Ω, (65a) (65b) November 3,

22 were I : C(ω) V denotes te nodal interpolation operator. Since ρ(k) and W M(k) ( ) >, te bilinear forms on te left-and sides of (65) are elliptic on (K (m i ), ω) and (X, Ω ), respectively. Since η l+1 is known for te computation of ν l+1, te fixpoint iteration is tus well-defined. We subtract (65) for (η l, νl ) from (65) for (η l+1, ν l+1 ) and test wit ϕ := η l+1 η l K (m i ) and ζ := ν l+1 ν l X. For sufficiently small k, Lemma 12(i) and (11a) prove tat W M(k) ( ) α/2. Wit sup k max ij Θ k ij C Θ < as well as (19a) and (2a), we get as in te proof of Teorem 4(i) tat α 2 ηl+1 η l 2 ω + l2 ex k (1 + ρ(k)) (ηl+1 η l 2 ) 2 ω (65a) ( ) C π + C Π k η l η l 1 ω η l+1 η l ω + C Π k (η l η l 1 ) ω η l+1 η l ω + 2C Θ ν l ν l 1 Ω η l+1 η l ω for all l N. (66) For all ϕ V, it olds tat I ϕ ω 5 ϕ ω ; see, e.g., [Gol12, Lemma 2.2.3]. Moreover, for all x, y R wit x, y 1, it olds tat x/ x y/ y x y. Since m i (z ) + kη l (z ) 1 for all l N and for all nodes z N ω, we get tat ν l+1 ν l 2 Ω + k (65b) = 1 2 σ 1/2 ( ν l+1 ν l 2µ ) 2 Ω ( m i I + kη l+1 ) m i + kηl+1 I ( m i + kη l m i + kηl 5k 2 k ηl+1 η l ω ν l+1 ν l Ω for all l N. ), ν l+1 ν l ω Te latter equation yields tat ν l+1 ν l Ω 5 2 k ηl+1 η l ω for all l N. (67) We add (66) (67) and obtain tat α 2 ηl+1 η l 2 ω + l2 ex k (1 + ρ(k)) (ηl+1 η l 2 ) 2 ω + ν l+1 ν l 2 Ω ( C π + C Π + ) 5 C Θ k η l η l 1 ω η l+1 η l ω + C Π k (η l η l 1 ) ω η l+1 η l ω k2 η l+1 η l 2 ω for all l N. (68) November 3,

23 We equip te product space K (m i ) X wit te norm (η, ν ) 2 := (α/4) η 2 ω + (l 2 ex/2) k (1 + ρ(k)) η 2 ω + ν 2 Ω. For δ >, te Young inequality ten proves tat min {1, 2 1 αδ (C π + 2 C Π + 5 C Θ ) k 5 } α k2 (η l+1, ν l+1 ) (η l, ν l ) 2 [ α 2 1 4δ (C π + 2 C Π + 5 C Θ ) k 5 ] 4 k2 η l+1 η l 2 ω k (1 + ρ(k)) ηl+1 η l 2 2 ω + ν l+1 ν l 2 Ω δ (C π + C Π + 5 C Θ ) k η l η l 1 2 ω + δ C Π k (η l η l 1 ) 2 ω { 4 δ max α (C π + C Π + 5 C Θ ) k, 2 C } Π (η l l, ν l ) (η l 1 2, ν l 1 ) 2 for all l N. ex For sufficiently small δ and k, te iteration is tus a contraction wit respect to. Te Banac fixpoint teorem yields existence and uniqueness of (v i, i+1/2 ) K (m i ) X of (65). Wit i+1 := 2 i+1/2 i X, (v i, i+1 ) K (m i ) X is te unique solution of (29); cf. Remark 8(v). Te remainder of te proof follows as for Teorem 4(i). + l2 ex Lemma 18. Under te assumptions of Teorem 9(ii), te following assertions (i) (iii) are satisfied, if k > is sufficiently small. (i) For all i =,..., N 1 it olds tat l 2 ex 2 d t m i+1 2 ω + W M(k) (λ i )v i, v i ω + l2 ex 2 kρ(k) vi 2 ω d t i+1 2 Ω + 1 σ 1/2 i+1/2 2 Ω µ f(t i+1/2 ), v i ω + π i (v i ; m i, m i 1 + v i d t m i+1, i+1/2 ω + v i, i,θ i+1/2 ω. (ii) For all i =,..., N 1, it olds tat ), vi ω + Π i (v i ; m i, m i 1 ), vi ω (69) µ d t i+1 2 Ω + d t σ 1/2 i+1 2 Ω µ d t m i+1 2 ω. (7) (iii) For all j =,..., N 1, it olds tat m j 2 ω + k v i 2 ω + k 2 ρ(k) v i 2 ω i= + j 2 Ω + σ 1/2 j 2 Ω + k d t i+1 2 Ω C, were C > depends only on T, ω, Ω, α, µ, σ, l 2 ex, f, π, Π, m,, C Θ, and κ. Proof. For te LLG-part (29a), we argue as in te proof of Lemma 15(i) to see tat l 2 ex 2 d t m i+1 2 ω + W M(k) (λ i )v i, v i ω + l2 ex 2 kρ(k) vi 2 ω (72) f(t i+1/2 ), v i ω + π i (v i ; m i, m i 1 November 3, i= i= ), vi ω + Π i (v i ; m i, m i 1 (71) ), vi ω + i,θ, vi ω.

24 Testing (29c) wit ζ := (1/µ ) i+1/2, we obtain tat d t m i+1, i+1/2 (29c) ω = d t i+1, i+1/2 Ω 1 µ σ 1/2 i+1/2 = 1 2 d t i+1 2 Ω 1 σ 1/2 i+1/2 2 µ Ω. (73) 2 Ω Inserting i,θ and v i in (73), we are led to v i, i,θ ω = vi, i,θ i+1/2 ω + v i d t m i d t i+1 2 Ω 1 σ 1/2 i+1/2 2 µ Ω., i+1/2 ω (74) Adding (72) and (74), we prove (i). To prove (ii), we test (29c) wit ζ := d t i+1. Wit te Young inequality, we obtain tat µ d t i+1 2 Ω d t σ 1/2 i+1 2 Ω (29c) = µ d t m i+1, d t i+1 µ 2 d t m i+1 2 ω + µ 2 d t i+1 2 Ω. (75) Tis proves (ii). To prove (iii), we sum (69) over i =,..., j 1 and multiply wit k. Wit W M(k) ( ) α/2 > for k being sufficiently small, we obtain tat χ j := l2 ex 2 mj 2 ω + α 2 k v i 2 ω + l2 ex 2 k2 ρ(k) v i 2 ω i= i= j 2 Ω + k σ 1/2 i+1/2 2 Ω µ (69) l2 ex 2 m 2 ω + k f(t i+1/2 ), v i ω + k π i (v i ; m i, m i 1 ), vi ω i= i= + k Π i (v i ; m i, m i 1 ), vi ω Ω + k i= v i d t m i+1, i+1/2 ω + k i= i= i= v i, i,θ ω i+1/2 ω. Recalling from (6) tat d t m i+1 ω v i ω, we proceed as in te proof of Lemma 15(ii). Togeter wit (19b) and (2b), te Young inequality proves tat χ j m 2 ω + 2 Ω + k f(t i+1/2 ) 2 ω + k m i δ δ 2 ω + k m i δ 2 ω + k δ j i 2 ω + i= i= ( δ + k + k ) k δρ(k) i= i= v i 2 ω + δk 2 ρ(k) v i 2 ω. i= i= (76) November 3,

25 Since k/ρ(k) as k, we coose δ sufficiently small and can absorb kδ 1 j 2 ω + k i= vi 2 ω + δk 2 ρ(k) i= vi 2 ω in χ j. Altogeter, we arrive at χ j 1 + k m i 2 ω + k i 2 Ω 1 + k χ i. i= Arguing as for Lemma 15(ii), we get tat χ j is uniformly bounded for all j = 1,..., N. In order to bound te remaining terms from (71), we sum (7) for i =,..., j 1 and multiply by k. Recall from (6) tat d t m i+1 ω v i ω. Tis yields tat i= i= µ k d t i+1 2 Ω + σ 1/2 j (7) 2 Ω µ k i= k v i 2 ω + σ 1/2 2 Ω i= Altogeter, tis proves (iii) and concludes te proof. i= d t m i+1 2 ω + σ 1/2 2 Ω (76) χ j + σ 1/2 2 Ω. Lemma 19. Under te assumptions of Teorem 9(ii) consider te postprocessed output (6) of Algoritm 7. Ten, tere exist m H 1 (ω T ) L (, T ; H 1 (ω)) and H 1 (, T ; L 2 (Ω)) L (, T ; H(curl, Ω)) and a subsequence of eac m k {m= k, m k, m+ k, m k }, k { = k, k, + k, k, Θ k}, and of v k suc tat te following convergence statements (i) (xiii) old true simultaneously for te same subsequence as, k : (i) m k m in H 1 (ω T ), (ii) m k m in L (, T ; H 1 (ω)), (iii) m k m in L2 (, T ; H 1 (ω)), (iv) m k m in L2 (ω T ), (v) m k (t) m(t) in L2 (ω) for t (, T ) a.e., (vi) m k m pointwise a.e. in ω T, (vii) v k tm in L 2 (ω T ), (viii) k v k in L2 (ω T ), (ix) k in H 1 (, T ; L 2 (Ω)), (x) k in L 2 (Ω T ), (xi) k in L (, T ; H(curl, Ω)), (xii) k in L 2 (, T ; H(curl, Ω)), (xiii) k k in L 2 (Ω T ). Proof. Lemma 18(iii) yields uniform boundedness of m k H 1 (ω T ), m k L (, T ; H 1 (ω)), k H 1 (, T ; L 2 (Ω)), and k L (, T ; H(curl, Ω)). Te proofs of (i) (viii) and (ix) (xi) follow as in [Alo8, AKST14] resp. [LT13, LPPT15, BPP15]. Finally, (33) and Lemma 18(iii) and prove tat k k 2 (6) N 1 Ω T k 2 d t i+1 (71) 2 Ω k as, k. (77) i= Tis verifies (xiii) and concludes te proof. November 3,

26 Proof of Teorem 9(ii). We prove tat (m, ) satisfies Definition 6(i) (iv). Definition 6 (i) follows as for LLG. Definition 6(ii) is an immediate consequence of Lemma 19(ix) (xi). Definition 6(iii) follows as in [LT13, LPPT15, BPP15] from Lemma 19(i) and (ix). It remains to verify Definition 6(iv): To tat end, adopt te notation of te proof of Teorem 4(ii). In addition, let J : H (curl; Ω) X denote te interpolation operator for first-order Nédélec elements of second type; see [Néd86]. Let ϕ C (ω T ), ζ C (Ω T ) and t [, T ]. For t [t i, t i+1 ) and i =,..., N 1, we test (29) wit I (m i ϕ(t)) K (m i ) and J (ζ(t)) X and integrate over (, T ). Wit te definition of te postprocessed output (6), we obtain tat I 1 k + I 2 k + l2 ex =: + l2 ex 2 (29a) = l 2 ex and I3 k W M(k) (λ k )v k, I (m k ϕ) dt + m ω k v k, I (m k ϕ) ω dt k (1 + ρ(k)) v k, I (m k ϕ) ω dt m k, I (m k ϕ) ω dt + π k (v k ; m k, m= k), I (m k ϕ) ω dt f k, I (m k ϕ) ω dt + Π k (v k ; m k, m= k), I (m k ϕ) ω dt Θ k, I (m k ϕ) ω dt =: l2 exi 4 k + I 5 k + I 6 k + I 7 k + I 8 k, (78a) µ Ik 9 := µ t m k, J ζ ω dt (29c) = µ =: µ I 1 k + I 11 k. t k, J ζ Ω dt + σ 1 k, (J ζ) Ω dt (78b) Wit Lemma 19, convergence of te integrals Ik 1,..., I7 k in (78a) towards teir continuous counterparts in te variational formulation (25) follows te lines of te proof of Teorem 4(ii). Tus, we only consider te integrals Ik 8,..., I11 k from (78): As in [LT13, LPPT15], we get from Lemma 19 and te convergence properties of I and J tat I 1 k t, ζ Ω dt as, k. For te remaining terms, Lemma 19 and te convergence properties of J yield tat I 9 k t m, ζ ω dt, I 8 k as, k. Tis concludes te proof., m ϕ ω dt, I 11 k σ 1, ζ Ω dt Proof of Teorem 9(iii). It remains to verify tat (m, ) from Lemma 19 satisfies te energy estimate of Definition 6(v). To tat end, let τ (, T ) be arbitrary and j November 3,

27 {1,..., N} suc tat τ [t, t j ). Adopt te notation of te proof of Teorem 4(iii). For any i =,..., j 1, Lemma 18(i) sows tat E ELLG (m k (t i+1 ), k (t i+1 )) E ELLG (m k (t i ), k (t i )) (26) = l2 ex 2 mi+1 2 ω l2 ex 1 2 π(mi+1 ), mi+1 2 mi 2 Ω i+1 2 ω 1 2 i 2 Ω ω π(mi ), m i ω f i+1, m i+1 ω + f i, m i ω k W M(k) (m i )v i, v i ω l2 ex 2 k2 ρ(k) v i 2 ω + k Π i (v i ; m i, m i 1 ), vi ω + k π i (v i ; m i, m i 1 ), vi ω 1 2 π(mi+1 + k f(t i+1/2 ), v i ω f i+1, m i+1 + k v i d t m i+1, i+1/2 ω. ), mj+i ω π(mi ), m i ω ω + f i, m i ω + k v i, i,θ i+1/2 ω Wit te stronger assumptions on π and f from (21), we can follow te lines of te proof of Teorem 4(iii). Tis leads to E ELLG (m + k (τ), + k (τ)) E ELLG(m, ) + + k + + tj tj tj tj tj W M(k) (m k )v k, v k ω dt tj t f k, m k ω dt Π k (v k ; m k, m= k), v k ω dt tj v k 2 Ω dt +k v k Ω v k Ω dt tj π k (v k ; m k, m= k) π(m k ), v k ω dt + f k f, v k ω dt tj Θ k k, v k ω dt + k, v k tm k ω dt. (79) Te only crucial term is te last one on te rigt-and side of (79): Recall te Sobolev embedding H 1 (ω) L 4 (ω). Togeter wit Lemma 18(iii), tis yields tat tj k, v k tm k ω dt k L (,T ;L 2 (Ω)) v k tm k L 1 (,T ;L 2 (ω)) (8) (61) k v k 2 L 2 (,T ;L 4 (ω)) k v k 2 L 2 (,T ;H 1 (ω)) k(1 + 2 ) v k 2 L 2 (ω T ) as, k, were we ave used an inverse inequality and te assumption k = o( 2 ). Arguing by lower semicontinuity, we conclude te proof as for Teorem Numerical experiments Tis section provides some numerical experiments for Algoritm 2 and Algoritm 7. Our implementation is based on te C++/Pyton library Netgen/NGSolve [Sc]. Te computation of te stray field s = u requires te approximation of te magnetostatic November 3,

28 TPS2 absolute TPS2 relative TPS1+EE relative TPS1+AB relative TPS2+EE relative TPS2+AB relative k = % 24.35% 28.13% 31.8% 35.48% k = % 24.37% 27.89% 31.49% 35.3% k = % 24.93% 28.56% 31.62% 35.2% k = % 24.42% 27.84% 31.15% 34.63% k = % 26.7% 3.3% 33.84% 37.48% Table 1. Experiment of Section 7.1: Average computational time for one time-step of te different integrators, were we provide te absolute time (in s) for te algoritm (TPS2) from [AKST14] as well as te relative times of all oter integrators. potential u H 1 (R 3 ), wic solves te full space transmission problem u = div m in ω, (81a) u = in R 3 \ ω, (81b) u ext u int = on ω, (81c) ( u ext u int ) n = m n on ω, (81d) u(x) = O( x 1 ) as x. (81e) Here, te superscript ext (resp. int) refers to te traces of u on ω wit respect to te exterior domain R 3 \ ω (resp. te interior domain ω), and n is te outer normal vector on ω. Recall from [Pra4] tat π(m) := u gives rise to a self-adjoint operator π L(L 2 (ω), L 2 (R d )) wic satisfies te stronger stability assumption (21). To discretize (81), we employ te ybrid FEM-BEM metod from [FK9]. We note tat te latter satisfies (19) wit strong convergence in (19c); see [BFF + 14, Section 4.4.1] or [PRS17, Section 4.1] for details. Tis part of te code builds upon te open-source Galerkin boundary element library BEM++ [SBA + 15]. Te arising linear systems are solved wit GMRES (resp. wit CG for te ybrid FEM-BEM approac) wit tolerance Te implicit first time-step of Algoritm 2 is solved by te fixpoint iteration used in te proof of Teorem 4(i) wic is stopped if η l ηl 1 L 2 (ω) Empirical convergence rates for LLG. We aim to illustrate te accuracy and te computational effort of Algoritm 2. We compare te following tree strategies for te integration of te lower-order terms: TPS2: fully implicit approac (16) analyzed in [AKST14]; TPS2+AB: Adams Basfort approac (17) proposed and analyzed in tis work; TPS2+EE: explicit Euler approac, were π i (vi ; mi, mi 1 ) := πi (mi ). Besides Figure 3, in wic we compare te effect of different coices for te stabilization function ρ, we always employ te canonical coices (11) for M and ρ. In addition, we consider te original (first-order) tangent plane sceme of [Alo8] wit θ = 1/2 (i.e., formal Crank Nicolson-type integrator, wic can be seen as a special case of Algoritm 2 wit W M(k) α and ρ ) togeter wit te following two strategies for te integration of te lower-order terms: November 3,

29 computational time in s TPS2 TPS2+AB TPS2+EE TPS1+AB TPS1+EE pysical time Figure 1. Experiment of Section 7.1: Cumulative computational time of te different integrators for k = TPS1+AB: Adams Basfort approac (17); TPS1+EE: explicit Euler approac analyzed in [AKT12, BFF + 14]. For te first time-step, TPS2 is used to preserve a possible second-order convergence. To test te scemes, we use te model problem proposed in [PRS17]: We consider te initial boundary value problem (1) wit ω = (, 1) 3, m (1,, ), α = 1, and T = 5. For te effective field (1d), we coose l ex = 1, a constant field f ( 2,.5, ), as well as an operator π wic only involves te stray field, i.e., π(m) = u; see (81). We consider a fixed triangulation T of ω generated by Netgen, wic consists of 394 elements and 898 nodes (mes size = 1/8). Te exact solution is unknown. To compute te empirical convergence rates, we consider a reference solution m kref computed wit TPS2, using te above mes and te time-step size k ref = Table 1 gives te average computational time per time-step for eac of te considered five integrators. In Figure 1, we plot te cumulative computational costs for te integration up to te final time T. We observe a vast improvement if te lower-order terms (i.e., te stray field) are integrated explicitly in time. Te extended (first-order) tangent plane sceme from [Alo8] leads to te ceapest costs, since Algoritm 2 involves additional computations in eac time-step for λ i as well as te weigted mass matrix corresponding to W M(k)(λ i ),. ω Figure 2 visualizes te experimental convergence order of te five integrators. As expected, TPS2 and TPS+AB lead to second-order convergence in time. Essentially, bot integrators even lead quantitatively to te same accuracy of te numerical solution. TPS2+EE as well as TPS1+EE yield first-order convergence, since te explicit Euler integration of te November 3,

30 1 3 Error O(k) TPS2 TPS2+AB TPS2+EE TPS1+AB TPS1+EE O(k 2 ) 1 3 Time-step size (k) 1 4 Figure 2. Experiment of Section 7.1: Reference error max j m kref (t j ) m k (t j ) H 1 (ω) for k = 2 l k ref wit l {1, 2, 3, 4, 5} and k ref = stray field is only first-order accurate. Differently from te classical θ-metod for linear second-order parabolic PDEs, due to te presence of te nodal projection, te original tangent plane sceme [Alo8] wit θ = 1/2 (Crank Nicolson-type TPS1+AB) does not lead to any improvement of te convergence order in time (from first-order to second-order). Overall, te proposed TPS2+AB integrator appears to be te metod of coice wit respect to bot computational time and empirical accuracy. Figure 3 sows te accuracy of te TPS2+AB integrator for different coices of te stabilization ρ(k) = k δ for δ {,.1,.2,.3,.4,.5}, were M(k) = k log k 1 for all computations. As expected from Proposition 13, we observe an increase in convergence order for bigger values of δ. In our example, owever, te increase is stronger tan te analysis predicts, e.g., for δ =.5, Proposition 13 predicts convergence order 3/2, yet, Figure 3 sows order Spintronic extensions of LLG. We consider two spintronic extensions of LLG, were te energy-based effective field is supplemented by terms wic model te effect of te so-called spin transfer torque (STT) [Slo96, Ber96]. We sow tat tese extended forms of LLG are covered by te abstract operator Π of Section 2.1 and perform pysically relevant numerical experiments wit te integrator TPS2+AB; cf. Section Slonczewski model. Since te discovery of te GMR effect [BBF + 88, BGSZ89], magnetic multilayers, i.e., systems consisting of alternating ferromagnetic and nonmagnetic sublayers, ave become te subject of intense researc in metal spintronics. A penomenological model to include te spin transfer torque in magnetic multilayer wit current-perpendicular-to-plane injection geometry was proposed in [Slo96]. Tis model November 3, 217 3

31 1 4 O(k) 1 5 Error ρ(k) = 1 ρ(k) = k.1 ρ(k) = k.2 ρ(k) = k.3 ρ(k) = k.4 ρ(k) = k.5 O(k 3/2 ) O(k 2 ) 1 3 Time-step size (k) 1 4 Figure 3. Experiment of Section 7.1: Reference error max j m kref (t j ) m k (t j ) L 2 (Ω) for k = 2 l k ref wit l {1, 2, 3, 4, 5} and k ref = is covered by our framework for LLG (1) by considering Π : L (ω) L 2 (ω), Π(ϕ) := G(ϕ p) ϕ p, (82a) were p R 3 wit p = 1 is constant, wile te function G : [ 1, 1] R belongs to C 1 ([ 1, 1]). Using te cain rule and te product rule, we obtain tat t Π(ϕ) = G (ϕ p)( t ϕ p) ϕ p + G(ϕ p) t ϕ p. Hence, we recover te framework of Section 2.4 if we consider te operator as well as te discrete operators D(ϕ, ψ) = G (ϕ p)(ψ p) ϕ p + G(ϕ p) ψ p (82b) Π (ϕ) = Π(ϕ) and D (ϕ, ψ) = D(ϕ, ψ); (82c) see Remark 3(ii). We sow tat te resulting approximate operators Π i, defined in te implicit case by (16b) and in te explicit case by (17b), and te piecewise constant time reconstruction Π k satisfy te assumptions (2) of Teorem 4. Let i =,..., N 1 and consider arbitrary ψ, ψ V and ϕ, ϕ M. In te implicit case (16b), te Lipscitz-type continuity (2a) follows from te estimate Π i (ψ ; ϕ, ϕ ) Π i ( ψ ; ϕ, ϕ ) ω (16b) = k 2 D (ϕ, ψ ) D (ϕ, ψ ) ω (82) = k 2 G (ϕ p)[(ψ ψ ) p] ϕ p + G(ϕ p) (ψ ψ ) p ω k ψ ψ ω, November 3,

32 were te idden constant in te last estimate depends only on G C 1 ([ 1,1]). explicit case (17b), (2a) is trivially satisfied. We prove te stability estimate (2b): In te implicit case (16b), it olds tat In te Π i (ψ ; ϕ, ϕ ), ψ ω (16b) = Π (ϕ ) + k 2 D (ϕ, ψ ), ψ ω (82) = G(ϕ p)ϕ p, ψ ω + k 2 G (ϕ p)(ψ p)ϕ p, ψ ω + k 2 G(ϕ p)(ψ p), ψ ω ψ ω ( ϕ ω + k ψ ω ). In te explicit case (17b), it olds tat Π i (ψ ; ϕ, ϕ ), ψ ω (17b) = Π (ϕ ) D (ϕ, ϕ ) 1 2 D (ϕ, ϕ ), ψ ω (82) = G(ϕ p)ϕ p, ψ ω G (ϕ p)(ϕ p)ϕ p, ψ ω G(ϕ p)(ϕ p), ψ ω 1 2 G (ϕ p)( ϕ p)ϕ p, ψ ω 1 2 G(ϕ p)( ϕ p), ψ ω ψ ω ( ϕ ω + ϕ ω ). Finally, we prove te consistency property (2c) wit strong convergence: To tat end, let ψ k in L 2 (, T ; V ) and ϕ k, ϕ k in L 2 (, T ; M ) wit ψ k ψ and ϕ k, ϕ k ϕ in L 2 (ω T ). As in [BFF + 14], te Lebesgue dominated convergence teorem proves tat Π (ϕ k ) Π(ϕ) in L 2 (ω T ) as, k. Moreover, we infer from G C 1 ([ 1, 1]) and ϕ k L (ω T ) = 1, tat D (ϕ k, ϕ k ϕ k ) L 2 (ω) + D (ϕ k, kψ k ) L 2 (ω) (82) ϕ k ϕ k L 2 (ω) + k ψ k L 2 (ω) as, k. Tus, for bot, te implicit case (16b) and te explicit case (17b), we get consistency (2c) wit strong convergence. To test te effectivity of our algoritm, we simulate te writing process of an STT random access memory [HYY + 5] and reproduce te switcing of a ferromagnetic film witout external field. Te computational domain is an elliptic cylinder of eigt d = 1 nm (aligned wit te z-direction) and elliptic cross section wit semiaxis lengts a = 6 nm and b = 35 nm (parallel to te xy-plane); see Figure 4a. Te film is supposed to be te free layer of a magnetic trilayer, wic also includes a second ferromagnetic layer (te so-called fixed layer) wit constant uniform magnetization p = (1,, ) and a conducting nonmagnetic spacer. For te material parameters, we coose te values of permalloy: damping parameter α =.1, saturation magnetization M s = A/m, excange stiffness constant A = J/m, uniaxial anisotropy wit constant K = November 3,

33 mx Time [ns] Energy [1 18 J] (a) Computational domain. (b) Time evolutions of m x (red solid line, left scale) and of te total energy (blue dased line, rigt scale) during te switcing process. Figure 4. Experiment of Section 7.2.1: Current-induced switcing of a ferromagnetic film J/m 3 and easy exis a = (1,, ). Wit tese coices, te effective field takes te form (1d) wit 2A l ex = 5.7 mm, π(m) = 2K (a m)a u, and f, µ Ms 2 µ Ms 2 were µ = 4π 1 7 N/A 2 is te vacuum permeability and u is te magnetostatic potential, solution of te transmission problem (81). Starting from te uniform initial configuration m ( 1,, ), we solve (1) wit Π for 1 ns to reac a relaxed state. Ten, we inject a spin-polarized electric current wit intensity J e = A/m 2 for 1 ns. Te resulting spin transfer torque is modeled by te operator (82a), were te function G takes te penomenological expression G(x) = J [ ] e (1 + P ) 3 1 (3 + x) 4 for all x [ 1, 1]; eµ Ms 2 d 4P 3/2 see [Slo96]. Here, = J s is te reduced Planck constant, e = C is te elementary carge, wile P =.8 is te polarization parameter. We solve (1) wit Π for 1 ns to relax te system to te new equilibrium. For te spatial discretization, we consider a tetraedral triangulation wit mes size 3 nm ( elements, 3821 nodes) generated by Netgen. For te time discretization, we consider a constant time-step size of.1 ps (3 time-steps). Te time evolutions of te average x-component m x of te magnetization in te free layer and of te total energy (2) are depicted in Figure 4b. Since te size of te film is well under te single-domain limit (see, e.g., [ADFM15]), te initial uniform magnetization configuration is preserved by te first relaxation process. By applying a perpendicular spin-polarized current, te uniform magnetization of te free layer can be switced from ( 1,, ) to p = (1,, ). Te fundamental pysics underlying tis penomenon is November 3,

34 understood as te mutual transfer of spin angular momentum between te p-polarized conduction electrons and te magnetization of te film. During te switcing process, te classical energy dissipation modulated by te damping parameter α is lost as an effect of te Slonczewski contribution; cf. te fourt term on te left-and side of (4). Te new state is also stable and is preserved by te final relaxation process Zang Li model. In [ZL4], te autors derived an extended form of LLG to model te effect of an electric current flow on te magnetization dynamics in single-pase samples caracterized by a current-in-plane injection geometry. A similar equation was obtained in a penomenological way in [TNMS5] for te description of te current-driven motion of domain walls in patterned nanowires. Here, te operator takes te form Π : H 1 (ω) L (ω) L 2 (ω), Π(ϕ) := ϕ (u )ϕ + β(u )ϕ, (83a) were u L (ω) and β > is constant. Te product rule yields tat t Π(ϕ) = t ϕ (u )ϕ + ϕ (u ) t ϕ + β(u ) t ϕ. Hence, we recover te framework of Section 2.4 if we consider te operators D(ϕ, ψ) = ψ (u )ϕ + ϕ (u )ψ + β(u )ψ, Under te additional assumption (83b) Π (ϕ) = Π(ϕ), and D (ϕ, ψ) = D(ϕ, ψ). (83c) sup m L (ω) C, (84) > we sow tat Teorem 4(a)-(b) still olds for te Adams Basfort approac from Remark 3(ii). To see tis, recall Remark 5(iv). First, note tat te Lipscitz-type continuity (2a) is trivially satisfied in te explicit case (i = 1,..., N 1). In te implicit case (i = ), it is not fulfilled for all ψ, ψ V and ϕ, ϕ M. However, tanks to (84), te desired inequality is satisfied in te specific situation of Remark 5(iv). Indeed, for arbitrary ψ, ψ V, it olds tat Π (ψ ; m, m 1 ) Π ( ψ ; m, m 1 ) ω (16b) = k 2 D (m, ψ ) D (m, ψ ) ω (83) = k 2 (ψ ψ ) (u )m + m (u )(ψ ψ ) + β(u )(ψ ψ ) ω (85) k ψ ψ H 1 (ω), were te idden constant depends on C and u L (ω). Next, we prove te stability estimate (2b): In te implicit case (16b), it olds tat Π i (ψ ; ϕ, ϕ ), ψ ω (16b) = Π (ϕ ) + k 2 D (ϕ, ψ ), ψ ω (83) = ϕ (u )ϕ, ψ ω + β (u )ϕ, ψ ω + k 2 ϕ (u )ψ, ψ ω + β 2 k (u )ψ, ψ ω ψ ω ( ϕ ω + k ψ ω ). November 3,

35 In te explicit case (17b), it olds tat Π i (ψ ; ϕ, ϕ ), ψ ω (17b) = Π (ϕ ) D (ϕ, ϕ ) 1 2 D (ϕ, ϕ ), ψ ω (83) = ϕ (u )ϕ, ψ ω + β (u )ϕ, ψ ω + ϕ (u )ϕ, ψ ω + β 2 (u )ϕ, ψ ω 1 2 ϕ (u )ϕ, ψ ω 1 2 ϕ (u ) ϕ, ψ ω β 2 (u ) ϕ, ψ ω ψ ω ( ϕ ω + ϕ ω ). To see (2c), let ζ L 2 (ω T ). We sow tat Π k (v k ; m k, m= k), ζ ω dt Π(m), ζ ω dt as, k. (86) Unwrapping te Adams Basfort approac from Remark 3(ii), we see tat k = Π k (v k ; m k, m= k), ζ ω dt + Π k (m k ), ζ ω dt +k 2 k =: T 1 k + + T 5 k. k Π k (m k ), ζ ω dt +1 2 D (v k, m k ), ζ ω dt k D (m k, m k ), ζ ω dt 1 2 k D (m k, m= k), ζ ω dt Wit te definitions from (83), te convergence properties from Lemma 19 prove tat T 1 k and T 3 k + T 4 k + T 5 k It remains to sow tat Tk 2 as, k. Note tat T 2 k (83) = k 2 + k 2 k k v k (u )m k, ζ ω dt m k (u )v k, ζ ω Π(m), ζ Ω dt as, k. dt +βk 2 k (u )v k, ζ ω dt. Wit te convergence properties from Lemma 19, te last two terms of Tk 2 go to as, k. To deal wit te first term, we derive from m k (t) [,k) = m tat k 2 k v k (u )m k, ζ ω dt = k 2 k v k (u )m, ζ ω dt k u L (ω) m L (ω T ) v k ω T ζ ωt (84) as, k. Tis verifies (86). Te extended LLG forms of [ZL4, TNMS5] are te subject of te µmag standard problem #5, proposed by te Micromagnetic Modeling Activity Group of te National November 3,

36 (a) Initial vortex state. (b) Final vortex state. Figure 5. Experiment of Section 7.2.2: Vortex states in µmag standard problem #5. Te color scale refers to te x-component of te magnetization..4.2 TPS2+AB m x TPS2+AB m y OOMMF m x OOMMF m y MPS m x MPS m y Time [ns] Figure 6. Experiment of Section 7.2.2: Comparison of te results obtained for µmag standard problem #5 wit TPS2+AB, OOMMF, and MPS. Institute of Standards and Tecnology (NIST) [mmag]. Te sample under consideration is a permalloy film 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. For te material parameters, we consider te same values as in Section 7.2.1, except for te magnetocrystalline anisotropy, wic is neglected, i.e., K =. Te initial state is obtained by solving (1) for te initial condition m (x, y, z) = ( y, x, 1)/ x 2 + y and Π for a sufficiently long time, until te system relaxes to equilibrium; see Figure 5a. Given te spin velocity vector u T = ( 72.17,, ) m/s and te gyromagnetic November 3,