This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

Numerical weighted integration of functions having mixed smoothness

Dinh Dũng Information Technology Institute, Vietnam National University, Hanoi
144 Xuan Thuy, Cau Giay, Hanoi, Vietnam
Email: dinhzung@gmail.com
Abstract

We investigate the approximation of weighted integrals over d\mathbb{R}^{d} for integrands from weighted Sobolev spaces of mixed smoothness. We prove upper and lower bounds of the convergence rate of optimal quadratures with respect to nn integration nodes for functions from these spaces. In the one-dimensional case (d=1)(d=1), we obtain the right convergence rate of optimal quadratures. For d2d\geq 2, the upper bound is performed by sparse-grid quadratures with integration nodes on step hyperbolic crosses in the function domain d\mathbb{R}^{d}.

Keywords and Phrases: Numerical multivariate weighted integration; Quadrature; Weighted Sobolev space of mixed smoothness; Step hyperbolic crosses of integration nodes; Convergence rate.

MSC (2020): 65D30; 65D32; 41A25; 41A55.

1 Introduction

The aim of the present paper is to investigate approximation of weighted integrals over d\mathbb{R}^{d} for integrands lying in weighted Sobolev spaces W1,wr(d)W^{r}_{1,w}(\mathbb{R}^{d}) of mixed smoothness rr\in\mathbb{N}. We want to give upper and lower bounds of the approximation error for optimal quadratures with nn integration nodes over the unit ball of W1,wr(d)W^{r}_{1,w}(\mathbb{R}^{d}).

We first introduce weighted Sobolev spaces of mixed smoothness. Let

w(𝒙):=wλ,a,b(𝒙):=i=1dw(xi),w({\boldsymbol{x}}):=w_{\lambda,a,b}({\boldsymbol{x}}):=\prod_{i=1}^{d}w(x_{i}), (1.1)

where

w(x):=wλ,a,b(x):=exp(a|x|λ+b),λ>1,a>0,b,w(x):=w_{\lambda,a,b}(x):=\exp(-a|x|^{\lambda}+b),\ \ \lambda>1,\ \ a>0,\ \ b\in{\mathbb{R}}, (1.2)

is a univariate Freud-type weight. The most important parameter in the weight wλ,a,bw_{\lambda,a,b} is λ\lambda. The parameter bb which produces only a possitive constant in the weight wλ,a,bw_{\lambda,a,b} is introduced for a certain normalization for instance, for the standard Gaussian weight which is one of the most important weights. In what follows, we fix the parameters λ,a,b\lambda,a,b and for simplicity, drop them from the notation. Let 1p<1\leq p<\infty and Ω\Omega be a Lebesgue measurable set on d{\mathbb{R}}^{d}. We denote by Lwp(Ω)L_{w}^{p}(\Omega) the weighted space of all functions ff on Ω\Omega such that the norm

fLwp(Ω):=(Ω|f(𝒙)w(𝒙)|pd𝒙)1/p\displaystyle\|f\|_{L_{w}^{p}(\Omega)}:=\bigg{(}\int_{\Omega}|f({\boldsymbol{x}})w({\boldsymbol{x}})|^{p}{\rm d}{\boldsymbol{x}}\bigg{)}^{1/p} (1.3)

is finite. For rr\in{\mathbb{N}}, we define the weighted Sobolev space Wp,wr(Ω)W^{r}_{p,w}(\Omega) of mixed smoothness rr as the normed space of all functions fLwp(Ω)f\in L_{w}^{p}(\Omega) such that the weak (generalized) partial derivative D𝒌fD^{{\boldsymbol{k}}}f belongs to Lwp(Ω)L_{w}^{p}(\Omega) for every 𝒌0d{\boldsymbol{k}}\in{\mathbb{N}}^{d}_{0} satisfying the inequality |𝒌|r|{\boldsymbol{k}}|_{\infty}\leq r. The norm of a function ff in this space is defined by

fWp,wr(Ω):=(|𝒌|rD𝒌fLwp(Ω)p)1/p.\displaystyle\|f\|_{W^{r}_{p,w}(\Omega)}:=\Bigg{(}\sum_{|{\boldsymbol{k}}|_{\infty}\leq r}\|D^{{\boldsymbol{k}}}f\|_{L_{w}^{p}(\Omega)}^{p}\Bigg{)}^{1/p}. (1.4)

It is useful to notice that any function fWp,wr(d)f\in W^{r}_{p,w}({\mathbb{R}}^{d}) is equivalent in the sense of the Lesbegue measure to a continuous (not necessarily bounded) function on d{\mathbb{R}}^{d}, see Lemma 3.1 below. Hence throughout the present paper, we always assume that the functions fWp,wr(d)f\in W^{r}_{p,w}({\mathbb{R}}^{d}) are continuous. We need this assumption for well-defined quadratures for functions fWp,wr(d)f\in W^{r}_{p,w}({\mathbb{R}}^{d}).

Let γ\gamma be the standard dd-dimensional Gaussian measure γ\gamma with the density function

g(𝒙)=(2π)d/2exp(|𝒙|22/2).g({\boldsymbol{x}})=(2\pi)^{-d/2}\exp(-|{\boldsymbol{x}}|_{2}^{2}/2).

The well-known spaces Lp(Ω;γ)L^{p}(\Omega;\gamma) and Wpr(Ω;γ)W^{r}_{p}(\Omega;\gamma) which are used in many applications, are defined in the same way by replacing the norm (1.3) with the norm

fLp(Ω;γ):=(Ω|f(𝒙)|pγ(d𝒙))1/p=(Ω|f(𝒙)|pg(𝒙)d𝒙)1/p.\|f\|_{L^{p}(\Omega;\gamma)}:=\bigg{(}\int_{\Omega}|f({\boldsymbol{x}})|^{p}\gamma({\rm d}{\boldsymbol{x}})\bigg{)}^{1/p}=\bigg{(}\int_{\Omega}|f({\boldsymbol{x}})|^{p}g({\boldsymbol{x}}){\rm d}{\boldsymbol{x}}\bigg{)}^{1/p}.

The spaces Lp(Ω;γ)L^{p}(\Omega;\gamma) and Wpr(Ω;γ)W^{r}_{p}(\Omega;\gamma) can be seen as the Lwp(Ω)L_{w}^{p}(\Omega) and Wp,wr(Ω)W^{r}_{p,w}(\Omega), where

w(𝒙)=wλ,a,b(𝒙),withλ=2/p,a=1/2p,b=(dlog2π)/2pw({\boldsymbol{x}})=w_{\lambda,a,b}({\boldsymbol{x}}),\ \ \text{with}\ \ \lambda=2/p,\ a=1/2p,\ b=-(d\log 2\pi)/2p

for a fixed 1p<1\leq p<\infty.

In the present paper, we are interested in approximation of weighted integrals

df(𝒙)w(𝒙)d𝒙\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{d}}f({\boldsymbol{x}})w({\boldsymbol{x}})\,{\rm d}{\boldsymbol{x}} (1.5)

for functions ff lying in the space W1,wr(d)W^{r}_{1,w}(\mathbb{R}^{d}). To approximate them we use quadratures of the form

Qkf:=i=1kλif(𝒙i),Q_{k}f:=\sum_{i=1}^{k}\lambda_{i}f({\boldsymbol{x}}_{i}), (1.6)

where 𝒙1,,𝒙kd{\boldsymbol{x}}_{1},\ldots,{\boldsymbol{x}}_{k}\in{\mathbb{R}}^{d} are the integration nodes and λ1,,λk\lambda_{1},\ldots,\lambda_{k} the integration weights. For convenience, we assume that some of the integration nodes may coincide.

Let 𝑭{\boldsymbol{F}} be a set of continuous functions on d{\mathbb{R}}^{d}. Denote by 𝒬n{\mathcal{Q}}_{n} the family of all quadratures QkQ_{k} of the form (1.6) with knk\leq n. The optimality of quadratures from 𝒬n{\mathcal{Q}}_{n} for f𝑭f\in{\boldsymbol{F}} is measured by

Intn(𝑭):=infQn𝒬nsupf𝑭|df(𝒙)w(𝒙)d𝒙Qnf|.{\rm Int}_{n}({\boldsymbol{F}}):=\inf_{Q_{n}\in{\mathcal{Q}}_{n}}\ \sup_{f\in{\boldsymbol{F}}}\bigg{|}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{d}}f({\boldsymbol{x}})w({\boldsymbol{x}})\,{\rm d}{\boldsymbol{x}}-Q_{n}f\bigg{|}. (1.7)

We recall that the space Wpr(Ω)W^{r}_{p}(\Omega) is defined as the classical Sobolev space of mixed smoothness by replacing Lwp(Ω)L_{w}^{p}(\Omega) with Lp(Ω)L^{p}(\Omega) in (1.4), where as usually, Lp(Ω)L^{p}(\Omega) denotes the Lebesgue space of functions on Ω\Omega equipped with the usual pp-integral norm.

For approximation of integrals

Ωf(𝒙)d𝒙\int_{\Omega}f({\boldsymbol{x}}){\rm d}{\boldsymbol{x}}

over the set Ω\Omega, we need natural modifications QnΩfQ_{n}^{\Omega}f for functions ff on Ω\Omega, and IntnΩ(𝑭){\rm Int}_{n}^{\Omega}({\boldsymbol{F}}) for a set 𝑭{\boldsymbol{F}} of functions on Ω\Omega, of the definitions (1.6) and (1.7). For simplicity we will drop Ω\Omega from these notations if there is no misunderstanding.

We first briefly describe the main results of the present paper and then give comments on related works.

For a normed space XX of functions on d{\mathbb{R}}^{d}, the boldface 𝑿{\boldsymbol{X}} denotes the unit ball in XX. Throughout the present paper we make use of the notation

rλ:=(11/λ)r.r_{\lambda}:=(1-1/\lambda)r.

For the set 𝑾1,wr(d)){\boldsymbol{W}}^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}}^{d})), we prove the upper and lower bounds

nrλ(logn)rλ(d1)Intn(𝑾1,wr(d))nrλ(logn)(rλ+1)(d1),n^{-r_{\lambda}}(\log n)^{r_{\lambda}(d-1)}\ll{\rm Int}_{n}({\boldsymbol{W}}^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}}^{d}))\ll n^{-r_{\lambda}}(\log n)^{(r_{\lambda}+1)(d-1)}, (1.8)

in particular, in the case of Gaussian measure

nr/2(logn)r(d1)/2Intn(𝑾1r(d;γ))nr/2(logn)(r/2+1)(d1).n^{-r/2}(\log n)^{r(d-1)/2}\ll{\rm Int}_{n}({\boldsymbol{W}}^{r}_{1}({\mathbb{R}}^{d};\gamma))\ll n^{-r/2}(\log n)^{(r/2+1)(d-1)}. (1.9)

In the one-dimensional case, we prove the right convergence rate

Intn(𝑾1,wr())nrλ.{\rm Int}_{n}({\boldsymbol{W}}^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}}))\asymp n^{-r_{\lambda}}. (1.10)

The difference between the upper and lower bounds in (1.8) is the logarithmic factor (logn)d1(\log n)^{d-1}.

There is a large number of works on high-dimensional unweighted integration over the unit dd-cube 𝕀d:=[0,1]d{\mathbb{I}}^{d}:=[0,1]^{d} for functions having a mixed smoothness (see [2, 5, 12] for results and bibliography). However, there are only a few works on high-dimensional weighted integration for functions having a mixed smoothness. The problem of optimal weighted integration (1.5)–(1.7) has been studied in [6, 7, 4] for functions in certain Hermite spaces, in particular, the space d,r{\mathcal{H}}_{d,r} which coincides with W2r(d;γ)W^{r}_{2}(\mathbb{R}^{d};\gamma) in terms of norm equivalence. It has been proven in [4] that

nr(logn)(d1)/2Intn(𝑾2r(d;γ))nr(logn)d(2r+3)/41/2.n^{-r}(\log n)^{(d-1)/2}\ll{\rm Int}_{n}\big{(}{\boldsymbol{W}}^{r}_{2}({\mathbb{R}}^{d};\gamma))\ll n^{-r}(\log n)^{d(2r+3)/4-1/2}.

Recently, in [1, Theorem 2.3] for the space Wpr(d,γ)W^{r}_{p}(\mathbb{R}^{d},\gamma) with rr\in{\mathbb{N}} and 1<p<1<p<\infty, we have constructed an asymptotically optimal quadrature QnγQ_{n}^{\gamma} of the form (1.6) which gives the asymptotic order

supf𝑾pr(d;γ)|df(𝒙)γ(d𝒙)Qnγf|Intn(𝑾pr(d;γ))nr(logn)(d1)/2.\sup_{f\in{\boldsymbol{W}}^{r}_{p}({\mathbb{R}}^{d};\gamma)}\bigg{|}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{d}}f({\boldsymbol{x}})\gamma({\rm d}{\boldsymbol{x}})-Q_{n}^{\gamma}f\bigg{|}\asymp{\rm Int}_{n}\big{(}{\boldsymbol{W}}^{r}_{p}({\mathbb{R}}^{d};\gamma)\big{)}\asymp n^{-r}(\log n)^{(d-1)/2}. (1.11)

The results (1.9) and (1.11) show a substantial difference of the convergence rates between the cases p=1p=1 and 1<p<1<p<\infty. In constructing the asymptotically optimal quadrature QnγQ_{n}^{\gamma} in (1.11), we used a technique collaging a quadrature for the Sobolev spaces on the unit dd-cube to the integer-shifted dd-cubes. Unfortunately, this technique is not suitable to constructing a quadrature realizing the upper bound in (1.8) for the space W1r(d;γ)W^{r}_{1}(\mathbb{R}^{d};\gamma) which is the largest among the spaces Wpr(d;γ)W^{r}_{p}(\mathbb{R}^{d};\gamma) with 1p<1\leq p<\infty. It requires a different technique based on the well-known Smolyak algorithm. Such a quadrature relies on sparse grids of integration nodes which are step hyperbolic crosses in the function domain d{\mathbb{R}}^{d}, and some generalization of the results on univariate numerical integration by truncated Gaussian quadratures from [3]. To prove the lower bound in (1.8) and (1.10) we adopt a traditional technique to construct for arbitrary nn integration nodes a fooling function vanishing at these nodes.

It is interesting to compare the results (1.9) and (1.11) on Intn(𝑾pr(d;γ)){\rm Int}_{n}\big{(}{\boldsymbol{W}}^{r}_{p}({\mathbb{R}}^{d};\gamma)\big{)} with known results on Intn(𝑾pr(𝕀d)){\rm Int}_{n}\big{(}{\boldsymbol{W}}^{r}_{p}({\mathbb{I}}^{d})\big{)} for the unweighted Sobolev space Wpr(𝕀d)W^{r}_{p}({\mathbb{I}}^{d}) of mixed smoothness rr. For 1<p<1<p<\infty, there holds the asymptotic order

Intn(𝑾pr(𝕀d))nr(logn)(d1)/2,{\rm Int}_{n}\big{(}{\boldsymbol{W}}^{r}_{p}({\mathbb{I}}^{d})\big{)}\asymp n^{-r}(\log n)^{(d-1)/2},

and for p=1p=1 and r>1r>1, there hold the bounds

nr(logn)(d1)/2Intn(𝑾1r(𝕀d))nr(logn)d1n^{-r}(\log n)^{(d-1)/2}\ll{\rm Int}_{n}({\boldsymbol{W}}^{r}_{1}({\mathbb{I}}^{d}))\ll n^{-r}(\log n)^{d-1}

which are so far the best known (see, e.g., [2, Chapter 8], for detail). Hence we can see that Intn(𝑾pr(d;γ)){\rm Int}_{n}\big{(}{\boldsymbol{W}}^{r}_{p}({\mathbb{R}}^{d};\gamma)\big{)} and Intn(𝑾pr(𝕀d)){\rm Int}_{n}\big{(}{\boldsymbol{W}}^{r}_{p}({\mathbb{I}}^{d})\big{)} have the same asymptotic order in the case 1<p<1<p<\infty, and very different lower and upper bounds in both power and logarithmic terms in the case p=1p=1. The right asymptotic orders of the both Intn(𝑾1r(𝕀d)){\rm Int}_{n}\big{(}{\boldsymbol{W}}^{r}_{1}({\mathbb{I}}^{d})\big{)} and Intn(𝑾1r(d;γ)){\rm Int}_{n}\big{(}{\boldsymbol{W}}^{r}_{1}({\mathbb{R}}^{d};\gamma)\big{)} are still open problems (cf. [2, Open Problem 1.9]).

The problem of numerical integration considered in the present paper is related to the research direction of optimal approximation and integration for functions having mixed smoothness on one hand, and the other research direction of univariate weighted polynomial approximation and integration on {\mathbb{R}}, on the other hand. For survey and bibliography, we refer the reader to the books [2, 12] on the first direction, and [11, 9, 8] on the second one.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we prove the asymptotic order of Intn(𝑾1,wr()){\rm Int}_{n}({\boldsymbol{W}}^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}})) and construct asymptotically optimal quadratures. In Section 3, we prove upper and lower bounds of Intn(𝑾1,wr(d)){\rm Int}_{n}({\boldsymbol{W}}^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}}^{d})) for d2d\geq 2, and construct quadratures which give the upper bound. Section 4 is devoted to some extentions of the results in the previous sections to Markov-Sonin weights.

Notation. Denote 𝟏:=(1,,1)d{\boldsymbol{1}}:=(1,...,1)\in{\mathbb{R}}^{d}; for 𝒙d{\boldsymbol{x}}\in{\mathbb{R}}^{d}, 𝒙=:(x1,,xd){\boldsymbol{x}}=:\left(x_{1},...,x_{d}\right), |𝒙|:=max1jd|xj||{\boldsymbol{x}}|_{\infty}:=\max_{1\leq j\leq d}|x_{j}|, |𝒙|p:=(j=1d|xj|p)1/p|{\boldsymbol{x}}|_{p}:=\left(\sum_{j=1}^{d}|x_{j}|^{p}\right)^{1/p} (1p<)(1\leq p<\infty). For 𝒙,𝒚d{\boldsymbol{x}},{\boldsymbol{y}}\in{\mathbb{R}}^{d}, the inequality 𝒙𝒚{\boldsymbol{x}}\leq{\boldsymbol{y}} means xiyix_{i}\leq y_{i} for every i=1,,di=1,...,d. For xx\in{\mathbb{R}}, denote sign(x):=1\operatorname{sign}(x):=1 if x0x\geq 0, and sign(x):=1\operatorname{sign}(x):=-1 if x<0x<0. We use letters CC and KK to denote general positive constants which may take different values. For the quantities An(f,𝒌)A_{n}(f,{\boldsymbol{k}}) and Bn(f,𝒌)B_{n}(f,{\boldsymbol{k}}) depending on nn\in{\mathbb{N}}, fWf\in W, 𝒌d{\boldsymbol{k}}\in{\mathbb{Z}}^{d}, we write An(f,𝒌)Bn(f,𝒌)A_{n}(f,{\boldsymbol{k}})\ll B_{n}(f,{\boldsymbol{k}}), fWf\in W, 𝒌d{\boldsymbol{k}}\in{\mathbb{Z}}^{d} (nn\in{\mathbb{N}} is specially dropped), if there exists some constant C>0C>0 such that An(f,𝒌)CBn(f,𝒌)A_{n}(f,{\boldsymbol{k}})\leq CB_{n}(f,{\boldsymbol{k}}) for all nn\in{\mathbb{N}}, fWf\in W, 𝒌d{\boldsymbol{k}}\in{\mathbb{Z}}^{d} (the notation An(f,𝒌)Bn(f,𝒌)A_{n}(f,{\boldsymbol{k}})\gg B_{n}(f,{\boldsymbol{k}}) has the obvious opposite meaning), and An(f,𝒌)Bn(f,𝒌)A_{n}(f,{\boldsymbol{k}})\asymp B_{n}(f,{\boldsymbol{k}}) if An(f,𝒌)Bn(f,𝒌)A_{n}(f,{\boldsymbol{k}})\ll B_{n}(f,{\boldsymbol{k}}) and Bn(f,𝒌)An(f,𝒌)B_{n}(f,{\boldsymbol{k}})\ll A_{n}(f,{\boldsymbol{k}}). Denote by |G||G| the cardinality of the set GG. For a Banach space XX, denote by the boldface 𝑿{\boldsymbol{X}} the unit ball in XX.

2 One-dimensional integration

In this section, for one-dimensional numerical integration, we prove the asymptotic order of Intn(𝑾1,wr()){\rm Int}_{n}\big{(}{\boldsymbol{W}}^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}})\big{)} and present some asymptotically optimal quadratures. We start this section with a well-known inequality in the following lemma which is implied directly from the definition (1.7) and which is quite useful for lower estimation of Intn(𝑭){\rm Int}_{n}({\boldsymbol{F}}).

Lemma 2.1

Let 𝐅{\boldsymbol{F}} be a set of continuous functions on d{\mathbb{R}}^{d}. Then we have

Intn(𝑭)inf{𝒙1,,𝒙n}dsupf𝑭:f(𝒙i)=0,i=1,,n|df(𝒙)w(𝒙)d𝒙|.{\rm Int}_{n}({\boldsymbol{F}})\geq\inf_{\left\{{\boldsymbol{x}}_{1},...,{\boldsymbol{x}}_{n}\right\}\subset{\mathbb{R}}^{d}}\ \sup_{f\in{\boldsymbol{F}}:\ f({\boldsymbol{x}}_{i})=0,\ i=1,...,n}\bigg{|}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{d}}f({\boldsymbol{x}})w({\boldsymbol{x}})\,{\rm d}{\boldsymbol{x}}\bigg{|}. (2.1)

We now consider the problem of approximation of integral (1.5) for univariate functions from W1,wr()W^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}}). Let (pm(w))m(p_{m}(w))_{m\in{\mathbb{N}}} be the sequence of orthonormal polynomials with respect to the weight ww. In the classical quadrature theory, a possible choice of integration nodes is to take the zeros of the polynomials pm(w)p_{m}(w). Denote by xm,kx_{m,k}, 1km/21\leq k\leq\lfloor m/2\rfloor the positive zeros of pm(w)p_{m}(w), and by xm,k=xm,kx_{m,-k}=-x_{m,k} the negative ones (if mm is odd, then xm,0=0x_{m,0}=0 is also a zero of pm(w)p_{m}(w)). These zeros are located as

am+Camm2/3<xm,m/2<<xm,1<xm,1<<xm,m/2amCamm2/3,-a_{m}+\frac{Ca_{m}}{m^{2/3}}<x_{m,-\lfloor m/2\rfloor}<\cdots<x_{m,-1}<x_{m,1}<\cdots<x_{m,\lfloor m/2\rfloor}\leq a_{m}-\frac{Ca_{m}}{m^{2/3}}, (2.2)

with a positive constant CC independent of mm (see, e. g., [8, (4.1.32)]). Here ama_{m} is the Mhaskar-Rakhmanov-Saff number which is

am=am(w)=(γλm)1/λ,γλ:=2Γ((1+λ)/2)πΓ(λ/2),a_{m}=a_{m}(w)=(\gamma_{\lambda}m)^{1/\lambda},\ \ \gamma_{\lambda}:=\frac{2\Gamma((1+\lambda)/2)}{\sqrt{\pi}\Gamma(\lambda/2)}, (2.3)

and Γ\Gamma is the gamma function. Notice that the formula (2.3) is given in [8, (4.1.4)] for the weight w(x)=exp(|x|λ)w(x)=\exp\left(-|x|^{\lambda}\right). Inspecting the definition of Mhaskar-Rakhmanov-Saff number (see, e.g., [8, Page 116]), one easily verify that it still holds true for the general weight ww for any a>0a>0 and bb\in{\mathbb{R}}.

For a continuous function on {\mathbb{R}}, the classical Gaussian quadrature is defined as

QmGf:=|k|m/2λm,k(w)f(xm,k),Q^{\rm G}_{m}f:=\sum_{|k|\leq\lfloor m/2\rfloor}\lambda_{m,k}(w)f(x_{m,k}), (2.4)

where λm,k(w)\lambda_{m,k}(w) are the corresponding Cotes numbers. This quadrature is based on Lagrange interpolation (for details, see, e.g., [11, 1.2. Interpolation and quadrature]). Unfortunately, it does not give the optimal convergence rate for functions from 𝑾1,wr(){\boldsymbol{W}}^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}}), see Remark 2.3 below.

In [3], for the weight w(x)=exp(|x|λ)w(x)=\exp\left(-|x|^{\lambda}\right), the authors proposed truncated Gaussian quadratures which not only improve the convergence rate but also give the asymptotic order of Intn(𝑾1,wr()){\rm Int}_{n}\big{(}{\boldsymbol{W}}^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}})\big{)} as shown in Theorem 2.2 below. Let us introduce in the same manner truncated Gaussian quadratures for the weight w(x)w(x) with any a>0a>0 and bb\in{\mathbb{R}}.

Throughout this paper, we fix a number θ\theta with 0<θ<10<\theta<1, and denote by j(m)j(m) the smallest integer satisfying xm,j(m)θamx_{m,j(m)}\geq\theta a_{m}. It is useful to remark that

dm,kammm1/λ1,|k|j(m);xm,j(m)m1/λ,d_{m,k}\,\asymp\,\frac{a_{m}}{m}\asymp m^{1/\lambda-1},\ \ |k|\leq j(m);\quad x_{m,j(m)}\,\asymp\,m^{1/\lambda}, (2.5)

where dm,k:=xm,kxm,k1d_{m,k}:=x_{m,k}-x_{m,k-1} is the distance between consecutive zeros of the polynomial pm(w)p_{m}(w). These relations were proven in [3, (13)] for the weight w(x)=exp(|x|λ)w(x)=\exp\left(-|x|^{\lambda}\right). From their proofs there, one can easily see that they are still hold true for the general case of the weight ww. By (2.2) and (2.5), for mm sufficiently large we have that

Cmj(m)m/2Cm\leq j(m)\leq m/2 (2.6)

with a positive constant CC depending on λ,a,b\lambda,a,b and θ\theta only.

For a continuous function on {\mathbb{R}}, consider the truncated Gaussian quadrature

Q2j(m)TGf:=|k|j(m)λm,k(w)f(xm,k).Q^{\rm{TG}}_{2j(m)}f:=\sum_{|k|\leq j(m)}\lambda_{m,k}(w)f(x_{m,k}). (2.7)

Notice that the number 2j(m)2j(m) of samples in the quadrature Q2j(m)TGfQ^{\rm{TG}}_{2j(m)}f is strictly smalller than mm – the number of samples in the quadrature QmGfQ^{\rm G}_{m}f. However, due to (2.6) it has the asymptotic order as 2j(m)m2j(m)\asymp m when mm going to infinity.

Theorem 2.2

For any nn\in{\mathbb{N}}, let mnm_{n} be the largest integer such that 2j(mn)n2j(m_{n})\leq n. Then the quadratures Q2j(mn)TG𝒬nQ^{\rm{TG}}_{2j(m_{n})}\in{\mathcal{Q}}_{n}, nn\in{\mathbb{N}}, are asymptotically optimal for 𝐖1,wr(){\boldsymbol{W}}^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}}) and

supf𝑾1,wr()|f(x)w(x)dxQ2j(mn)TGf|Intn(𝑾1,wr())nrλ.\sup_{f\in{\boldsymbol{W}}^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}})}\bigg{|}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}f(x)w(x){\rm d}x-Q^{\rm{TG}}_{2j(m_{n})}f\bigg{|}\asymp{\rm Int}_{n}\big{(}{\boldsymbol{W}}^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}})\big{)}\asymp n^{-r_{\lambda}}. (2.8)

Proof. For fW1,wr()f\in W^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}}), there holds the inequality

|f(x)w(x)dxQ2j(m)TGf|C(m(11/λ)rf(r)Lw1()+eKmfLw1())\bigg{|}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}f(x)w(x){\rm d}x-Q^{\rm{TG}}_{2j(m)}f\bigg{|}\leq C\left(m^{-(1-1/\lambda)r}\left\|{f^{(r)}}\right\|_{L^{1}_{w}({\mathbb{R}})}+e^{-Km}\left\|{f}\right\|_{L^{1}_{w}({\mathbb{R}})}\right) (2.9)

with some constants CC and KK independent of mm and ff. This inequality was proven in [3, Corollary 4] for the weight w(x)=exp(|x|λ)w(x)=\exp\left(-|x|^{\lambda}\right). Inspecting the proof of [3, Corollary 4], one can easily see that this inequality is also true for a weight of the form (1.1) with any a>0a>0 and bb\in{\mathbb{R}}. The inequality (2.9) implies the upper bound in (2.8):

Intn(𝑾1,wr())supf𝑾1,wr()|f(x)w(x)dxQ2j(mn)TGf|nrλ.{\rm Int}_{n}\big{(}{\boldsymbol{W}}^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}})\big{)}\leq\sup_{f\in{\boldsymbol{W}}^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}})}\bigg{|}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}f(x)w(x){\rm d}x-Q^{\rm{TG}}_{2j(m_{n})}f\bigg{|}\ll n^{-r_{\lambda}}.

The lower bound in (2.8) is already contained in Theorem 3.8 below. Since its proof is much simpler for the case d=1d=1, let us proccess it separately. In order to prove the lower bound in (2.8) we will apply Lemma 2.1. Let {ξ1,,ξn}\left\{\xi_{1},...,\xi_{n}\right\}\subset{\mathbb{R}} be arbitrary nn points. For a given nn\in{\mathbb{N}}, we put δ=n1/λ1\delta=n^{1/\lambda-1} and tj=δjt_{j}=\delta j, j0j\in{\mathbb{N}}_{0}. Then there is ii\in{\mathbb{N}} with n+1i2n+2n+1\leq i\leq 2n+2 such that the interval (ti1,ti)(t_{i-1},t_{i}) does not contain any point from the set {ξ1,,ξn}\left\{\xi_{1},...,\xi_{n}\right\}. Take a nonnegative function φC0([0,1])\varphi\in C^{\infty}_{0}([0,1]), φ0\varphi\not=0, and put

b0:=01φ(y)dy>0,bs:=01|φ(s)(y)|dy,s=1,,r.b_{0}:=\int_{0}^{1}\varphi(y){\rm d}y>0,\quad b_{s}:=\int_{0}^{1}|\varphi^{(s)}(y)|{\rm d}y,\ s=1,...,r.

Define the functions gg and hh on {\mathbb{R}} by

g(x):={φ(δ1(xti1)),x(ti1,ti),0,otherwise,g(x):=\begin{cases}\varphi(\delta^{-1}(x-t_{i-1})),&\ \ x\in(t_{i-1},t_{i}),\\ 0,&\ \ \text{otherwise},\end{cases}

and

h(x):=(gw1)(x).h(x):=(gw^{-1})(x).

Let us estimate the norm hW1,wr()\left\|{h}\right\|_{W^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}})}. For a given k0k\in{\mathbb{N}}_{0} with 0kr0\leq k\leq r, we have

h(k)=(gw1)(k)=s=0k(ks)g(ks)(w1)(s).h^{(k)}=(gw^{-1})^{(k)}=\sum_{s=0}^{k}\binom{k}{s}g^{(k-s)}(w^{-1})^{(s)}. (2.10)

By a direct computation we find that for xx\in{\mathbb{R}},

(w1)(s)(x)=(w1)(x)(sign(x))sj=1scs,j(λ,a)|x|λs,j,(w^{-1})^{(s)}(x)=(w^{-1})(x)(\operatorname{sign}(x))^{s}\sum_{j=1}^{s}c_{s,j}(\lambda,a)|x|^{\lambda_{s,j}}, (2.11)

where sign(x):=1\operatorname{sign}(x):=1 if x0x\geq 0, and sign(x):=1\operatorname{sign}(x):=-1 if x<0x<0,

λs,s=s(λ1)>λs,s1>>λs,1=λs,\lambda_{s,s}=s(\lambda-1)>\lambda_{s,s-1}>\cdots>\lambda_{s,1}=\lambda-s, (2.12)

and cs,j(λ,a)c_{s,j}(\lambda,a) are polynomials in the variables λ\lambda and aa of degree at most ss with respect to each variable. Hence, we obtain

h(k)(x)w(x)=s=0k(ks)g(ks)(x)(sign(x))sj=1scs,j(λ,a)|x|λs,jh^{(k)}(x)w(x)=\sum_{s=0}^{k}\binom{k}{s}g^{(k-s)}(x)(\operatorname{sign}(x))^{s}\sum_{j=1}^{s}c_{s,j}(\lambda,a)|x|^{\lambda_{s,j}} (2.13)

which implies that

|h(k)w|(x)dxCmax0skmax1jsti1ti|x|λs,j|g(ks)(x)|dx.\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}|h^{(k)}w|(x){\rm d}x\leq C\max_{0\leq s\leq k}\ \max_{1\leq j\leq s}\int_{t_{i-1}}^{t_{i}}|x|^{\lambda_{s,j}}|g^{(k-s)}(x)|{\rm d}x.

From (2.12), the inequality n1/λx(2n+2)n1/λ1n^{1/\lambda}\leq x\leq(2n+2)n^{1/\lambda-1} and

ti1ti|g(ks)(x)|dx=bksδk+s+1=bksn(ks1)(11/λ),\int_{t_{i-1}}^{t_{i}}|g^{(k-s)}(x)|{\rm d}x=b_{k-s}\delta^{-k+s+1}=b_{k-s}n^{(k-s-1)(1-1/\lambda)},

we derive

|h(k)w|(x)dx\displaystyle\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}|h^{(k)}w|(x){\rm d}x Cmax0skti1ti|x|λs,s|g(ks)(x)|dx\displaystyle\leq C\max_{0\leq s\leq k}\int_{t_{i-1}}^{t_{i}}|x|^{\lambda_{s,s}}|g^{(k-s)}(x)|{\rm d}x
Cmax0sk(n1/λ)s(λ1)ti1ti|g(ks)(x)|dx\displaystyle\leq C\max_{0\leq s\leq k}\left(n^{1/\lambda}\right)^{s(\lambda-1)}\int_{t_{i-1}}^{t_{i}}|g^{(k-s)}(x)|{\rm d}x
Cmax0skns(λ1)/λn(ks1)(11/λ)\displaystyle\leq C\max_{0\leq s\leq k}n^{s(\lambda-1)/\lambda}n^{(k-s-1)(1-1/\lambda)}
=Cn(11/λ)(k1)Cn(11/λ)(r1).\displaystyle=Cn^{(1-1/\lambda)(k-1)}\leq Cn^{(1-1/\lambda)(r-1)}.

If we define

h¯:=C1n(11/λ)(r1)h,\bar{h}:=C^{-1}n^{-(1-1/\lambda)(r-1)}h,

then h¯\bar{h} is nonnegative, h¯𝑾1,wr()\bar{h}\in{\boldsymbol{W}}^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}}), suph¯(ti1,ti)\sup\bar{h}\subset(t_{i-1},t_{i}) and

(h¯w)(x)dx\displaystyle\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}(\bar{h}w)(x){\rm d}x =C1n(11/λ)(r1)ti1tig(x)dx\displaystyle=C^{-1}n^{-(1-1/\lambda)(r-1)}\int_{t_{i-1}}^{t_{i}}g(x){\rm d}x
=C1n(11/λ)(r1)b0δn(11/λ)r\displaystyle=C^{-1}n^{-(1-1/\lambda)(r-1)}b_{0}\delta\gg n^{-(1-1/\lambda)r}

Since the interval (ti1,ti)(t_{i-1},t_{i}) does not contain any point from the set {ξ1,,ξn}\left\{\xi_{1},...,\xi_{n}\right\}, we have h¯(ξk)=0\bar{h}(\xi_{k})=0, k=1,,nk=1,...,n. Hence, by Lemma 2.1,

Intn(𝑾1,wr())h¯(x)w(x)dxnrλ.{\rm Int}_{n}\big{(}{\boldsymbol{W}}^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}})\big{)}\geq\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\bar{h}(x)w(x){\rm d}x\gg n^{-r_{\lambda}}.

The lower bound in (2.8) is proven.     

Remark 2.3

In the case when w(x)=exp(x2/2)w(x)=\exp(-x^{2}/2) is the Gaussian density, the truncated Gaussian quadratures Q2j(m)TGQ^{\rm{TG}}_{2j(m)} in Theorem 2.2 give

supf𝑾1,wr()|f(x)w(x)dxQ2j(mn)TGf|Intn(𝑾1,wr())nr/2.\sup_{f\in{{\boldsymbol{W}}}^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}})}\bigg{|}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}f(x)w(x){\rm d}x-Q^{\rm{TG}}_{2j(m_{n})}f\bigg{|}\asymp{\rm Int}_{n}\big{(}{{\boldsymbol{W}}}^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}})\big{)}\asymp n^{-r/2}. (2.14)

On the other hand, for the full Gaussian quadratures QnGQ^{\rm G}_{n}, it has been proven in [3, Proposition 1] the convergence rate

supf𝑾1,w1()|f(x)w(x)dxQnGf|n1/6\sup_{f\in{\boldsymbol{W}}^{1}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}})}\bigg{|}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}f(x)w(x){\rm d}x-Q^{\rm G}_{n}f\bigg{|}\asymp n^{-1/6}

which is much worse than the convergence rate of Intn(𝑾1,w1())n1/2{\rm Int}_{n}\big{(}{\boldsymbol{W}}^{1}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}})\big{)}\asymp n^{-1/2} as in (2.14) for r=1r=1.

3 High-dimensional integration

In this section, for high-dimensional numerical integration (d2d\geq 2), we prove upper and lower bounds of Intn(𝑾1,wr(d)){\rm Int}_{n}\big{(}{\boldsymbol{W}}^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}}^{d})\big{)} and construct quadratures based on step-hyperbolic-cross grids of integration nodes which give the upper bounds. To do this we need some auxiliary lemmata.

Lemma 3.1

Let 1p<1\leq p<\infty. Then any function fWp,wr(d)f\in W^{r}_{p,w}({\mathbb{R}}^{d}) is equivalent in the sense of the Lebesgue measure to a continuous function on d{\mathbb{R}}^{d}.

Proof. We prove this lemma in the particular case when p=1p=1, r=1r=1 and d=2d=2. The general case can be proven in a similar way.

Fix τ>λ\tau>\lambda and define for 𝒙=(x1,x2){\boldsymbol{x}}=(x_{1},x_{2}),

v(𝒙):=exp(a|x1|τ+b)exp(a|x2|τ+b).v({\boldsymbol{x}}):=\exp(-a|x_{1}|^{\tau}+b)\exp(-a|x_{2}|^{\tau}+b).

We preliminarly prove that W1,wr(𝕋2)W^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{T}}^{2}) is continuously embbeded into the space Cv(𝕋2)C_{v}({\mathbb{T}}^{2}) where 𝕋2:=[T,T]2{\mathbb{T}}^{2}:=[-T,T]^{2}, TT is any positive number and Cv(𝕋2)C_{v}({\mathbb{T}}^{2}) is the Banach space of continuous functions ff on 𝕋2{\mathbb{T}}^{2} equipped with the norm

fCv(𝕋2):=max𝒙𝕋2|(vf)(𝒙)|.\left\|{f}\right\|_{C_{v}({\mathbb{T}}^{2})}:=\max_{{\boldsymbol{x}}\in{\mathbb{T}}^{2}}|(vf)({\boldsymbol{x}})|.

Since the subspace C0(𝕋2)C^{\infty}_{0}({\mathbb{T}}^{2}) of infinitely differentiable functions with compact support is dense in both the Banach spaces C(𝕋2)C({\mathbb{T}}^{2}) and W1,w1(𝕋2)W^{1}_{1,w}({\mathbb{T}}^{2}), to prove this continuous embbeding, it is sufficient to show the inequality

fCv(𝕋2)fW1,w1(𝕋2),fC0(𝕋2).\left\|{f}\right\|_{C_{v}({\mathbb{T}}^{2})}\ll\left\|{f}\right\|_{W^{1}_{1,w}({\mathbb{T}}^{2})},\ \ f\in C^{\infty}_{0}({\mathbb{T}}^{2}). (3.1)

For 𝒌02{\boldsymbol{k}}\in{\mathbb{N}}_{0}^{2}, denote by D𝒌gD^{\boldsymbol{k}}g the 𝒌{\boldsymbol{k}}th partial derivative of gg. Taking a function fC0(𝕋2)f\in C^{\infty}_{0}({\mathbb{T}}^{2}), we have that for 𝒙𝕋2{\boldsymbol{x}}\in{\mathbb{T}}^{2},

(vf)(𝒙)=Tx1Tx2D(1,1)(vf)(𝒕)d𝒕,(vf)({\boldsymbol{x}})=\int_{-T}^{x_{1}}\int_{-T}^{x_{2}}D^{(1,1)}(vf)({\boldsymbol{t}}){\rm d}{\boldsymbol{t}},

and

D(1,1)(vf)(𝒙)\displaystyle D^{(1,1)}(vf)({\boldsymbol{x}}) =v(𝒙)[D(1,1)f(𝒙)aτsign(x1)|x1|τ1D(1,0)f(𝒙)\displaystyle=v({\boldsymbol{x}})\big{[}D^{(1,1)}f({\boldsymbol{x}})-a\tau\operatorname{sign}(x_{1})|x_{1}|^{\tau-1}D^{(1,0)}f({\boldsymbol{x}})
aτsign(x2)|x2|τ1D(0,1)f(𝒙)+a2τ2sign(x1)|x1|τ1sign(x2)|x2|τ1f(𝒙)].\displaystyle\ \ \ -a\tau\operatorname{sign}(x_{2})|x_{2}|^{\tau-1}D^{(0,1)}f({\boldsymbol{x}})+a^{2}\tau^{2}\operatorname{sign}(x_{1})|x_{1}|^{\tau-1}\operatorname{sign}(x_{2})|x_{2}|^{\tau-1}f({\boldsymbol{x}})\big{]}.

Hence by using the inequality τ>λ\tau>\lambda we derive (3.1):

fCv(𝕋2)\displaystyle\left\|{f}\right\|_{C_{v}({\mathbb{T}}^{2})} 𝕋2|(vD(1,1)f)(𝒙)|d𝒙+𝕋2|(vD(1,0)f)(𝒙)||x1|τ1d𝒙\displaystyle\ll\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^{2}}\big{|}\big{(}vD^{(1,1)}f\big{)}({\boldsymbol{x}})\big{|}{\rm d}{\boldsymbol{x}}+\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^{2}}\big{|}\big{(}vD^{(1,0)}f\big{)}({\boldsymbol{x}})\big{|}|x_{1}|^{\tau-1}{\rm d}{\boldsymbol{x}}
+𝕋2|(vD(0,1)f)(𝒙)||x2|τ1d𝒙+𝕋2|(vf)(𝒙)||x1x2|τ1d𝒙\displaystyle+\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^{2}}\big{|}\big{(}vD^{(0,1)}f\big{)}({\boldsymbol{x}})\big{|}|x_{2}|^{\tau-1}{\rm d}{\boldsymbol{x}}+\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^{2}}\big{|}\big{(}vf\big{)}({\boldsymbol{x}})\big{|}|x_{1}x_{2}|^{\tau-1}{\rm d}{\boldsymbol{x}}
𝕋2|(wD(1,1)f)(𝒙)|d𝒙+𝕋2|(wD(1,0)f)(𝒙)|d𝒙\displaystyle\ll\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^{2}}\big{|}\big{(}wD^{(1,1)}f\big{)}({\boldsymbol{x}})\big{|}{\rm d}{\boldsymbol{x}}+\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^{2}}\big{|}\big{(}wD^{(1,0)}f\big{)}({\boldsymbol{x}})\big{|}{\rm d}{\boldsymbol{x}}
+𝕋2|(wD(0,1)f)(𝒙)|d𝒙+𝕋2|(wf)(𝒙)|d𝒙=fW1,w1(𝕋2)\displaystyle+\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^{2}}\big{|}\big{(}wD^{(0,1)}f\big{)}({\boldsymbol{x}})\big{|}{\rm d}{\boldsymbol{x}}+\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^{2}}\big{|}\big{(}wf\big{)}({\boldsymbol{x}})\big{|}{\rm d}{\boldsymbol{x}}=\left\|{f}\right\|_{W^{1}_{1,w}({\mathbb{T}}^{2})}

From the continuous embbeding of W1,wr(𝕋2)W^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{T}}^{2}) into Cv(𝕋2)C_{v}({\mathbb{T}}^{2}) it follows that any function fW1,wr(𝕋2)f\in W^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{T}}^{2}) is equivalent in sense of the Lebesgue measure to a continuous (not necessarily bounded) function on 𝕋2{\mathbb{T}}^{2}. Hence we obtain the claim of the lemma for p=1p=1 since TT has been taken arbitrarily and the restriction of a function fW1,wr(2)f\in W^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}}^{2}) to 𝕋2{\mathbb{T}}^{2} belongs to W1,wr(𝕋2)W^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{T}}^{2}).     

Importantly, as noticed in Introduction from Lemma 3.1 we can assume that the functions fWp,wr(d)f\in W^{r}_{p,w}({\mathbb{R}}^{d}) are continuous. This allows to correctly define quadratures for them.

For 𝒙d{\boldsymbol{x}}\in{\mathbb{R}}^{d} and e{1,,d}e\subset\left\{1,...,d\right\}, let 𝒙e|e|{\boldsymbol{x}}^{e}\in{\mathbb{R}}^{|e|} be defined by (xe)i:=xi(x^{e})_{i}:=x_{i}, and 𝒙¯ed|e|\bar{{\boldsymbol{x}}}^{e}\in{\mathbb{R}}^{d-|e|} by (x¯e)i:=xi(\bar{x}^{e})_{i}:=x_{i}, i{1,,d}ei\in\left\{1,...,d\right\}\setminus e. With an abuse we write (𝒙e,𝒙¯e)=𝒙({\boldsymbol{x}}^{e},\bar{{\boldsymbol{x}}}^{e})={\boldsymbol{x}}.

Lemma 3.2

Let 1p1\leq p\leq\infty, e{1,,d}e\subset\left\{1,...,d\right\} and 𝐫0d{\boldsymbol{r}}\in{\mathbb{N}}^{d}_{0}. Assume that ff is a function on d{\mathbb{R}}^{d} such that for every 𝐤𝐫{\boldsymbol{k}}\leq{\boldsymbol{r}}, D𝐤fLwp(d)D^{\boldsymbol{k}}f\in L^{p}_{w}({\mathbb{R}}^{d}). Put for 𝐤𝐫{\boldsymbol{k}}\leq{\boldsymbol{r}} and 𝐱¯ed|e|\bar{{\boldsymbol{x}}}^{e}\in{\mathbb{R}}^{d-|e|},

g(𝒙e):=D𝒌¯ef(𝒙e,𝒙¯e).g({\boldsymbol{x}}^{e}):=D^{\bar{{\boldsymbol{k}}}^{e}}f({\boldsymbol{x}}^{e},\bar{{\boldsymbol{x}}}^{e}).

Then D𝐬gLwp(|e|)D^{\boldsymbol{s}}g\in L^{p}_{w}({\mathbb{R}}^{|e|}) for every 𝐬𝐤e{\boldsymbol{s}}\leq{\boldsymbol{k}}^{e} and almost every 𝐱¯ed|e|\bar{{\boldsymbol{x}}}^{e}\in{\mathbb{R}}^{d-|e|}.

Proof. Taking arbitrary test functions φeC0(|e|)\varphi^{e}\in C^{\infty}_{0}({\mathbb{R}}^{|e|}) and φ¯eC0(d|e|)\bar{\varphi}^{e}\in C^{\infty}_{0}({\mathbb{R}}^{d-|e|}) and defining φ(𝒙):=φe(𝒙e)φ¯e(𝒙¯e)\varphi({\boldsymbol{x}}):=\varphi^{e}({\boldsymbol{x}}^{e})\bar{\varphi}^{e}(\bar{{\boldsymbol{x}}}^{e}), we have that φC0(d)\varphi\in C^{\infty}_{0}({\mathbb{R}}^{d}). For 𝒌𝒓{\boldsymbol{k}}\leq{\boldsymbol{r}} and 𝒔0d{\boldsymbol{s}}\in{\mathbb{N}}^{d}_{0} with sikis_{i}\leq k_{i}, iei\in e and si:=0s_{i}:=0 otherwise, we derive that

d|e|φ¯e(𝒙¯e)|e|g(𝒙e)D𝒔φe(𝒙e)d𝒙ed𝒙¯e\displaystyle\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{d-|e|}}\bar{\varphi}^{e}(\bar{{\boldsymbol{x}}}^{e})\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{|e|}}g({\boldsymbol{x}}^{e})D^{\boldsymbol{s}}\varphi^{e}({\boldsymbol{x}}^{e}){\rm d}{\boldsymbol{x}}^{e}\,{\rm d}\bar{{\boldsymbol{x}}}^{e}
=d|e|φ¯e(𝒙¯e)|e|D𝒌¯ef(𝒙e,𝒙¯e)D𝒔φe(𝒙e)d𝒙ed𝒙¯e\displaystyle=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{d-|e|}}\bar{\varphi}^{e}(\bar{{\boldsymbol{x}}}^{e})\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{|e|}}D^{\bar{{\boldsymbol{k}}}^{e}}f({\boldsymbol{x}}^{e},\bar{{\boldsymbol{x}}}^{e})D^{\boldsymbol{s}}\varphi^{e}({\boldsymbol{x}}^{e}){\rm d}{\boldsymbol{x}}^{e}\,{\rm d}\bar{{\boldsymbol{x}}}^{e}
=dD𝒌¯ef(𝒙)D𝒔φ(𝒙)d𝒙=(1)|𝒔|1dD𝒌¯e+𝒔f(𝒙)φ(𝒙)d𝒙\displaystyle=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{d}}D^{\bar{{\boldsymbol{k}}}^{e}}f({\boldsymbol{x}})D^{\boldsymbol{s}}\varphi({\boldsymbol{x}}){\rm d}{\boldsymbol{x}}=(-1)^{|{\boldsymbol{s}}|_{1}}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{d}}D^{\bar{{\boldsymbol{k}}}^{e}+{\boldsymbol{s}}}f({\boldsymbol{x}})\varphi({\boldsymbol{x}}){\rm d}{\boldsymbol{x}}
=d|e|φ¯e(𝒙¯e)(1)|𝒔|1|e|D𝒌¯e+𝒔f(𝒙e,𝒙¯e)φe(𝒙e)d𝒙ed𝒙¯e.\displaystyle=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{d-|e|}}\bar{\varphi}^{e}(\bar{{\boldsymbol{x}}}^{e})(-1)^{|{\boldsymbol{s}}|_{1}}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{|e|}}D^{\bar{{\boldsymbol{k}}}^{e}+{\boldsymbol{s}}}f({\boldsymbol{x}}^{e},\bar{{\boldsymbol{x}}}^{e})\varphi^{e}({\boldsymbol{x}}^{e}){\rm d}{\boldsymbol{x}}^{e}\,{\rm d}\bar{{\boldsymbol{x}}}^{e}.

Hence,

|e|g(𝒙e)D𝒔φe(𝒙e)d𝒙e=(1)|𝒔|1|e|D𝒌¯e+𝒔f(𝒙e,𝒙¯e)φe(𝒙e)d𝒙e\displaystyle\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{|e|}}g({\boldsymbol{x}}^{e})D^{\boldsymbol{s}}\varphi^{e}({\boldsymbol{x}}^{e}){\rm d}{\boldsymbol{x}}^{e}=(-1)^{|{\boldsymbol{s}}|_{1}}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{|e|}}D^{\bar{{\boldsymbol{k}}}^{e}+{\boldsymbol{s}}}f({\boldsymbol{x}}^{e},\bar{{\boldsymbol{x}}}^{e})\varphi^{e}({\boldsymbol{x}}^{e}){\rm d}{\boldsymbol{x}}^{e}

for almost every 𝒙¯ed|e|\bar{{\boldsymbol{x}}}^{e}\in{\mathbb{R}}^{d-|e|}. This means that the weak derivative D𝒔gD^{\boldsymbol{s}}g exists for almost every 𝒙¯ed|e|\bar{{\boldsymbol{x}}}^{e}\in{\mathbb{R}}^{d-|e|} which coincides with D𝒌¯e+𝒔f(,𝒙¯e)D^{\bar{{\boldsymbol{k}}}^{e}+{\boldsymbol{s}}}f(\cdot,\bar{{\boldsymbol{x}}}^{e}). Moreover, D𝒔gLwp(|e|)D^{\boldsymbol{s}}g\in L^{p}_{w}({\mathbb{R}}^{|e|}) for almost every 𝒙¯ed|e|\bar{{\boldsymbol{x}}}^{e}\in{\mathbb{R}}^{d-|e|} since by the assumption D𝒌fLwp(d)D^{\boldsymbol{k}}f\in L^{p}_{w}({\mathbb{R}}^{d}) for every 𝒌𝒓{\boldsymbol{k}}\leq{\boldsymbol{r}}.     

Assume that there exists a sequence of quadratures (Q2k)k0\left(Q_{2^{k}}\right)_{k\in{\mathbb{N}}_{0}} with

Q2kf:=s=12kλk,sf(xk,s),{xk,1,,xk,2k},Q_{2^{k}}f:=\sum_{s=1}^{2^{k}}\lambda_{k,s}f(x_{k,s}),\ \ \{x_{k,1},\ldots,x_{k,2^{k}}\}\subset{\mathbb{R}}, (3.2)

such that

|f(x)w(x)dxQ2kf|C2akfW1,wr(),k0,fW1,wr(),\bigg{|}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}f(x)w(x){\rm d}x-Q_{2^{k}}f\bigg{|}\leq C2^{-ak}\|f\|_{W^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}})},\ \ \ k\in{\mathbb{N}}_{0},\ \ f\in W^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}}), (3.3)

for some number a>0a>0 and constant C>0C>0.

Based on a sequence (Q2k)k0\left(Q_{2^{k}}\right)_{k\in{\mathbb{N}}_{0}} of the form (3.2) satisfying (3.3), we construct quadratures on d{\mathbb{R}}^{d} by using the well-known Smolyak algorithm. We define for k0k\in{\mathbb{N}}_{0}, the one-dimensional operators

ΔkQ:=Q2kQ2k1,k>0,Δ0Q:=Q1,\Delta_{k}^{Q}:=Q_{2^{k}}-Q_{2^{k-1}},\ k>0,\ \ \Delta_{0}^{Q}:=Q_{1},

and

EkQf:=f(x)w(x)dxQ2kf.E_{k}^{Q}f:=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}f(x)w(x){\rm d}x-Q_{2^{k}}f.

For 𝒌d{\boldsymbol{k}}\in{\mathbb{N}}^{d}, the dd-dimensional operators Q2𝒌Q_{2^{\boldsymbol{k}}}, Δ𝒌Q\Delta_{\boldsymbol{k}}^{Q} and E𝒌QE_{\boldsymbol{k}}^{Q} are defined as the tensor product of one-dimensional operators:

Q2𝒌:=i=1dQ2ki,Δ𝒌Q:=i=1dΔkiQ,E𝒌Q:=i=1dEkiQ,Q_{2^{\boldsymbol{k}}}:=\bigotimes_{i=1}^{d}Q_{2^{k_{i}}},\ \ \Delta_{\boldsymbol{k}}^{Q}:=\bigotimes_{i=1}^{d}\Delta_{k_{i}}^{Q},\ \ E_{\boldsymbol{k}}^{Q}:=\bigotimes_{i=1}^{d}E_{k_{i}}^{Q}, (3.4)

where 2𝒌:=(2k1,,2kd)2^{\boldsymbol{k}}:=(2^{k_{1}},\cdots,2^{k_{d}}) and the univariate operators Q2kjQ_{2^{k_{j}}}, ΔkjQ\Delta_{k_{j}}^{Q} and EkjQE_{k_{j}}^{Q} are successively applied to the univariate functions i<jQ2ki(f)\bigotimes_{i<j}Q_{2^{k_{i}}}(f), i<jΔkiQ(f)\bigotimes_{i<j}\Delta_{k_{i}}^{Q}(f) and i<jEkiQ\bigotimes_{i<j}E_{k_{i}}^{Q}, respectively, by considering them as functions of variable xjx_{j} with the other variables held fixed. The operators Q2𝒌Q_{2^{\boldsymbol{k}}}, Δ𝒌Q\Delta_{\boldsymbol{k}}^{Q} and E𝒌QE_{\boldsymbol{k}}^{Q} are well-defined for continuous functions on d{\mathbb{R}}^{d}, in particular for ones from W1,wr(d)W^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}}^{d}).

Notice that if ff is a continuous function on d{\mathbb{R}}^{d}, then Q2𝒌fQ_{2^{\boldsymbol{k}}}f is a quadrature on d{\mathbb{R}}^{d} which is given by

Q2𝒌f=𝒔=𝟏2𝒌λ𝒌,𝒔f(𝒙𝒌,𝒔),{𝒙𝒌,𝒔}𝟏𝒔2𝒌d,Q_{2^{\boldsymbol{k}}}f=\sum_{{\boldsymbol{s}}={\boldsymbol{1}}}^{2^{\boldsymbol{k}}}\lambda_{{\boldsymbol{k}},{\boldsymbol{s}}}f({\boldsymbol{x}}_{{\boldsymbol{k}},{\boldsymbol{s}}}),\ \ \{{\boldsymbol{x}}_{{\boldsymbol{k}},{\boldsymbol{s}}}\}_{{\boldsymbol{1}}\leq{\boldsymbol{s}}\leq 2^{\boldsymbol{k}}}\subset{\mathbb{R}}^{d}, (3.5)

where

𝒙𝒌,𝒔:=(xk1,s1,,xkd,sd),λ𝒌,𝒔:=i=1dλki,si,{\boldsymbol{x}}_{{\boldsymbol{k}},{\boldsymbol{s}}}:=\left(x_{k_{1},s_{1}},...,x_{k_{d},s_{d}}\right),\ \ \ \lambda_{{\boldsymbol{k}},{\boldsymbol{s}}}:=\prod_{i=1}^{d}\lambda_{k_{i},s_{i}},

and the summation 𝒔=𝟏2𝒌\sum_{{\boldsymbol{s}}={\boldsymbol{1}}}^{2^{\boldsymbol{k}}} means that the sum is taken over all 𝒔{\boldsymbol{s}} such that 𝟏𝒔2𝒌{\boldsymbol{1}}\leq{\boldsymbol{s}}\leq 2^{\boldsymbol{k}}. Hence we derive that

Δ𝒌Qf=e{1,,d}(1)d|e|Q2𝒌(e)f=e{1,,d}(1)d|e|𝒔=𝟏2𝒌(e)λ𝒌(e),𝒔f(𝒙𝒌(e),𝒔),\Delta_{\boldsymbol{k}}^{Q}f=\sum_{e\subset\left\{1,...,d\right\}}(-1)^{d-|e|}Q_{2^{{\boldsymbol{k}}(e)}}f=\sum_{e\subset\left\{1,...,d\right\}}(-1)^{d-|e|}\sum_{{\boldsymbol{s}}={\boldsymbol{1}}}^{2^{{\boldsymbol{k}}(e)}}\lambda_{{\boldsymbol{k}}(e),{\boldsymbol{s}}}f({\boldsymbol{x}}_{{\boldsymbol{k}}(e),{\boldsymbol{s}}}), (3.6)

where 𝒌(e)0d{\boldsymbol{k}}(e)\in{\mathbb{N}}^{d}_{0} is defined by k(e)i=kik(e)_{i}=k_{i}, iei\in e, and k(e)i=max(ki1,0)k(e)_{i}=\max(k_{i}-1,0), iei\not\in e. We also have

E𝒌Qf=e{1,,d}(1)|e|d|e|Q2𝒌ef(,𝒙e¯)w(𝒙¯e)d𝒙¯e,E_{\boldsymbol{k}}^{Q}f=\sum_{e\subset\left\{1,...,d\right\}}(-1)^{|e|}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{d-|e|}}Q_{2^{{\boldsymbol{k}}^{e}}}f(\cdot,\bar{{\boldsymbol{x}}^{e}})w(\bar{{\boldsymbol{x}}}^{e}){\rm d}\bar{{\boldsymbol{x}}}^{e}, (3.7)

where w(𝒙¯e):=jew(xj)w(\bar{{\boldsymbol{x}}}^{e}):=\prod_{j\not\in e}w(x_{j}).

Notice that as mappings from C(d)C({\mathbb{R}}^{d}) to {\mathbb{R}}, the operators Q2𝒌Q_{2^{\boldsymbol{k}}}, Δ𝒌Q\Delta_{\boldsymbol{k}}^{Q} and E𝒌QE_{\boldsymbol{k}}^{Q} possess commutative and associative properties with respect to applying the component operators Q2kjQ_{2^{k_{j}}}, ΔkjQ\Delta_{k_{j}}^{Q} and EkjQE_{k_{j}}^{Q} in the following sense. We have for any e{1,,d}e\subset\left\{1,...,d\right\},

Q2𝒌f=Q2𝒌e(Q2𝒌¯ef),Δ𝒌Qf=Δ𝒌eQ(Δ𝒌¯eQf),E𝒌Qf=E𝒌eQ(E𝒌¯eQf),Q_{2^{\boldsymbol{k}}}f=Q_{2^{{\boldsymbol{k}}^{e}}}\left(Q_{2^{\bar{{\boldsymbol{k}}}^{e}}}f\right),\ \ \Delta_{\boldsymbol{k}}^{Q}f=\Delta_{{\boldsymbol{k}}^{e}}^{Q}\left(\Delta_{\bar{{\boldsymbol{k}}}^{e}}^{Q}f\right),\ \ E_{\boldsymbol{k}}^{Q}f=E_{{\boldsymbol{k}}^{e}}^{Q}\left(E_{\bar{{\boldsymbol{k}}}^{e}}^{Q}f\right),

and for any reordered sequence {i(1),,i(d)}\left\{i(1),...,i(d)\right\} of {1,,d}\left\{1,...,d\right\},

Q2𝒌=j=1dQ2ki(j),Δ𝒌Q=j=1dΔki(j)Q,E𝒌Q=j=1dEki(j)Q.Q_{2^{\boldsymbol{k}}}=\bigotimes_{j=1}^{d}Q_{2^{k_{i(j)}}},\ \ \Delta_{\boldsymbol{k}}^{Q}=\bigotimes_{j=1}^{d}\Delta_{k_{i(j)}}^{Q},\ \ E_{\boldsymbol{k}}^{Q}=\bigotimes_{j=1}^{d}E_{k_{i(j)}}^{Q}. (3.8)

These properties directly follow from (3.5)–(3.7).

Lemma 3.3

Under the assumption (3.2)–(3.3), we have

|E𝒌Qf|C2a|𝒌|1fW1,wr(d),𝒌0d,fW1,wr(d).\big{|}E_{\boldsymbol{k}}^{Q}f\big{|}\leq C2^{-a|{\boldsymbol{k}}|_{1}}\|f\|_{W^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}}^{d})},\ \ {\boldsymbol{k}}\in{\mathbb{N}}^{d}_{0},\ \ f\in W^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}}^{d}).

Proof. The case d=1d=1 of the lemma is as in (3.3) by the assumption. For simplicity we prove the lemma for the case d=2d=2. The general case can be proven in the same way by induction on dd. We make use of the temporary notation:

fW1,wr(),2(x1):=f(x1,)W1,wr().\left\|{f}\right\|_{W^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}}),2}(x_{1}):=\left\|{f(x_{1},\cdot)}\right\|_{W^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}})}.

From Lemmata 3.1 and 3.2 it follows that f(,x2)W1,wr()f(\cdot,x_{2})\in W^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}}) for every x2x_{2}\in{\mathbb{R}}. Notice that Ek2QfE_{k_{2}}^{Q}f is a function in the variable x1x_{1} only. Hence, by (3.3) we obtain that

|E(k1,k2)Qf|\displaystyle\big{|}E_{(k_{1},k_{2})}^{Q}f\big{|} =|Ek1Q(Ek2Qf)|C2ak1Ek2QfW1,wr()\displaystyle=\big{|}E_{k_{1}}^{Q}(E_{k_{2}}^{Q}f)\big{|}\leq C2^{-ak_{1}}\|E_{k_{2}}^{Q}f\|_{W^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}})}
C2ak12ak2fW1,wr(),2()W1,wr()=C2a|𝒌|1fW1,wr(2).\displaystyle\leq C2^{-ak_{1}}\|2^{-ak_{2}}\|f\|_{W^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}}),2}(\cdot)\|_{W^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}})}=C2^{-a|{\boldsymbol{k}}|_{1}}\|f\|_{W^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}}^{2})}.

    

We say that 𝒌{\boldsymbol{k}}\to\infty, 𝒌0d{\boldsymbol{k}}\in{\mathbb{N}}^{d}_{0}, if and only if kik_{i}\to\infty for every i=1,,di=1,...,d.

Lemma 3.4

Under the assumption (3.2)–(3.3), we have that for every fW1,wr(d)f\in W^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}}^{d}),

df(𝒙)w(𝒙)d𝒙=𝒌0dΔ𝒌Qf\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{d}}f({\boldsymbol{x}})w({\boldsymbol{x}}){\rm d}{\boldsymbol{x}}=\sum_{{\boldsymbol{k}}\in{\mathbb{N}}^{d}_{0}}\Delta_{\boldsymbol{k}}^{Q}f (3.9)

with absolute convergence of the series, and

|Δ𝒌Qf|C2a|𝒌|1fW1,wr(d),𝒌0d.\big{|}\Delta_{\boldsymbol{k}}^{Q}f\big{|}\leq C2^{-a|{\boldsymbol{k}}|_{1}}\|f\|_{W^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}}^{d})},\ \ {\boldsymbol{k}}\in{\mathbb{N}}^{d}_{0}. (3.10)

Proof. The operator Δ𝒌Q\Delta_{\boldsymbol{k}}^{Q} can be represented in the form

Δ𝒌Q=e{1,,d}(1)|e|E𝒌(e)Q.\Delta_{\boldsymbol{k}}^{Q}=\sum_{e\subset\left\{1,...,d\right\}}(-1)^{|e|}E_{{\boldsymbol{k}}(e)}^{Q}.

Therefore, by using Lemma 3.3 we derive that for every fW1,wr(d)f\in W^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}}^{d}) and 𝒌0d{\boldsymbol{k}}\in{\mathbb{N}}^{d}_{0},

|Δ𝒌Qf|\displaystyle\big{|}\Delta_{\boldsymbol{k}}^{Q}f\big{|} e{1,,d}|E𝒌(e)Qf|\displaystyle\leq\sum_{e\subset\left\{1,...,d\right\}}\big{|}E_{{\boldsymbol{k}}(e)}^{Q}f\big{|}
e{1,,d}C2a|𝒌(e)|1fW1,wr(d)C2a|𝒌|1fW1,wr(d)\displaystyle\leq\sum_{e\subset\left\{1,...,d\right\}}C2^{-a|{\boldsymbol{k}}(e)|_{1}}\|f\|_{W^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}}^{d})}\leq C2^{-a|{\boldsymbol{k}}|_{1}}\|f\|_{W^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}}^{d})}

which proves (3.10) and hence the absolute convergence of the series in (3.9) follows. Notice that

df(𝒙)w(𝒙)d𝒙Q2𝒌f=e{1,,d},e(1)|e|E𝒌eQf,\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{d}}f({\boldsymbol{x}})w({\boldsymbol{x}}){\rm d}{\boldsymbol{x}}-Q_{2^{\boldsymbol{k}}}f=\sum_{e\subset\left\{1,...,d\right\},\ e\not=\varnothing}(-1)^{|e|}E_{{\boldsymbol{k}}^{e}}^{Q}f,

where recall 𝒌e0d{\boldsymbol{k}}^{e}\in{\mathbb{N}}^{d}_{0} is defined by kie=kik^{e}_{i}=k_{i}, iei\in e, and kie=0k^{e}_{i}=0, iei\not\in e. By using Lemma 3.3 we derive for 𝒌0d{\boldsymbol{k}}\in{\mathbb{N}}^{d}_{0} and fW1,wr(d)f\in W^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}}^{d}),

|df(𝒙)w(𝒙)d𝒙Q2𝒌f|\displaystyle\bigg{|}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{d}}f({\boldsymbol{x}})w({\boldsymbol{x}}){\rm d}{\boldsymbol{x}}-Q_{2^{\boldsymbol{k}}}f\bigg{|} e{1,,d},e|E𝒌eQf|\displaystyle\leq\sum_{e\subset\left\{1,...,d\right\},\ e\not=\varnothing}\big{|}E_{{\boldsymbol{k}}^{e}}^{Q}f\big{|}
Cmaxe{1,,d},emax1id2a|kie|fW1,wr(d)\displaystyle\leq C\max_{e\subset\left\{1,...,d\right\},\ e\not=\varnothing}\ \max_{1\leq i\leq d}2^{-a|k^{e}_{i}|}\|f\|_{W^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}}^{d})}
Cmax1id2a|ki|fW1,wr(d),\displaystyle\leq C\max_{1\leq i\leq d}2^{-a|k_{i}|}\|f\|_{W^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}}^{d})},

which is going to 0 when 𝒌{\boldsymbol{k}}\to\infty. This together with the obvious equality

Q2𝒌=𝒔𝒌Δ𝒔QQ_{2^{\boldsymbol{k}}}=\sum_{{\boldsymbol{s}}\leq{\boldsymbol{k}}}\Delta_{{\boldsymbol{s}}}^{Q}

proves (3.9).     

We now define an algorithm for quadrature on sparse grids adopted from the alogorithm for sampling recovery initiated by Smolyak (for detail see [2, Sections 4.2 and 5.3]). For ξ>0\xi>0, we define the operator

Qξ:=|𝒌|1ξΔ𝒌Q.Q_{\xi}:=\sum_{|{\boldsymbol{k}}|_{1}\leq\xi}\Delta_{{\boldsymbol{k}}}^{Q}.

From (3.6) we can see that QξQ_{\xi} is a quadrature on d{\mathbb{R}}^{d} of the form (1.6):

Qξf=|𝒌|1ξe{1,,d}(1)d|e|𝒔=𝟏2𝒌(e)λ𝒌(e),𝒔f(𝒙𝒌(e),𝒔)=(𝒌,e,𝒔)G(ξ)λ𝒌,e,𝒔f(𝒙𝒌,e,𝒔),Q_{\xi}f=\sum_{|{\boldsymbol{k}}|_{1}\leq\xi}\ \sum_{e\subset\left\{1,...,d\right\}}(-1)^{d-|e|}\ \sum_{{\boldsymbol{s}}={\boldsymbol{1}}}^{2^{{\boldsymbol{k}}(e)}}\lambda_{{\boldsymbol{k}}(e),{\boldsymbol{s}}}f({\boldsymbol{x}}_{{\boldsymbol{k}}(e),{\boldsymbol{s}}})=\sum_{({\boldsymbol{k}},e,{\boldsymbol{s}})\in G(\xi)}\lambda_{{\boldsymbol{k}},e,{\boldsymbol{s}}}f({\boldsymbol{x}}_{{\boldsymbol{k}},e,{\boldsymbol{s}}}), (3.11)

where

𝒙𝒌,e,𝒔:=𝒙𝒌(e),𝒔,λ𝒌,e,𝒔:=(1)d|e|λ𝒌(e),𝒔{\boldsymbol{x}}_{{\boldsymbol{k}},e,{\boldsymbol{s}}}:={\boldsymbol{x}}_{{\boldsymbol{k}}(e),{\boldsymbol{s}}},\quad\lambda_{{\boldsymbol{k}},e,{\boldsymbol{s}}}:=(-1)^{d-|e|}\lambda_{{\boldsymbol{k}}(e),{\boldsymbol{s}}}

and

G(ξ):={(𝒌,e,𝒔):|𝒌|1ξ,e{1,,d}, 1𝒔𝒌(e)}G(\xi):=\left\{({\boldsymbol{k}},e,{\boldsymbol{s}}):\ |{\boldsymbol{k}}|_{1}\leq\xi,\,e\subset\left\{1,...,d\right\},\,{\boldsymbol{1}}\leq{\boldsymbol{s}}\leq{\boldsymbol{k}}(e)\right\}

is a finite set. The set of integration nodes in this quadrature

H(ξ):={𝒙𝒌,e,𝒔}(𝒌,e,𝒔)G(ξ)H(\xi):=\left\{{\boldsymbol{x}}_{{\boldsymbol{k}},e,{\boldsymbol{s}}}\right\}_{({\boldsymbol{k}},e,{\boldsymbol{s}})\in G(\xi)}

is a step hyperbolic cross in the function domain d{\mathbb{R}}^{d}. The number of integration nodes in the quadrature QξQ_{\xi} is

|G(ξ)|=|𝒌|1ξe{1,,d}2|𝒌(e)|1|G(\xi)|=\sum_{|{\boldsymbol{k}}|_{1}\leq\xi}\ \sum_{e\subset\left\{1,...,d\right\}}2^{|{\boldsymbol{k}}(e)|_{1}}

which can be estimated as

|G(ξ)||𝒌|1ξ2|𝒌|1 2ξξd1,ξ1.|G(\xi)|\asymp\sum_{|{\boldsymbol{k}}|_{1}\leq\xi}2^{|{\boldsymbol{k}}|_{1}}\ \asymp\ 2^{\xi}\xi^{d-1},\ \ \xi\geq 1. (3.12)

As commented in Introduction, this quadrature plays a crucial role in the proof of the upper bound in the main results of the present paper (1.8).

Lemma 3.5

Under the assumption (3.2)–(3.3), we have that

|df(𝒙)w(𝒙)d𝒙Qξf|C2aξξd1fW1,wr(d),ξ1,fW1,wr(d).\bigg{|}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{d}}f({\boldsymbol{x}})w({\boldsymbol{x}}){\rm d}{\boldsymbol{x}}-Q_{\xi}f\bigg{|}\leq C2^{-a\xi}\xi^{d-1}\|f\|_{W^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}}^{d})},\ \ \xi\geq 1,\ \ f\in W^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}}^{d}). (3.13)

Proof. From Lemma 3.4 we derive that for ξ1\xi\geq 1 and fW1,wr(d)f\in W^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}}^{d}),

|df(𝒙)w(𝒙)d𝒙Qξf|\displaystyle\bigg{|}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{d}}f({\boldsymbol{x}})w({\boldsymbol{x}}){\rm d}{\boldsymbol{x}}-Q_{\xi}f\bigg{|} |𝒌|1>ξ|Δ𝒌Qf|C|𝒌|1>ξ2a|𝒌|1fW1,wr(d)\displaystyle\leq\sum_{|{\boldsymbol{k}}|_{1}>\xi}\big{|}\Delta_{\boldsymbol{k}}^{Q}f\big{|}\leq C\sum_{|{\boldsymbol{k}}|_{1}>\xi}2^{-a|{\boldsymbol{k}}|_{1}}\|f\|_{W^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}}^{d})}
CfW1,wr(d)|𝒌|1>ξ2a|𝒌|1C2aξξd1fW1,wr(d).\displaystyle\leq C\|f\|_{W^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}}^{d})}\sum_{|{\boldsymbol{k}}|_{1}>\xi}2^{-a|{\boldsymbol{k}}|_{1}}\leq C2^{-a\xi}\xi^{d-1}\|f\|_{W^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}}^{d})}.

    

Remark 3.6

From Theorem 2.2 we can see that the truncated Gaussian quadratures Q2j(m)TGQ^{\rm{TG}}_{2j(m)} form a sequence (Q2k)k0\left(Q_{2^{k}}\right)_{k\in{\mathbb{N}}_{0}} of the form (3.2) satisfying (3.3) with a=rλa=r_{\lambda}.

Remark 3.7

The technique for proving the upper bound (3.13) is analogous to a general technique for establishing upper bounds of the error of unweighted sampling recovery by Smolyak algorithms of functions having mixed smoothness on a bounded domain (see, e.g., [2, Section 5.3] and [13, Section 6.9] for detail).

Theorem 3.8

We have that

nrλ(logn)rλ(d1)Intn(𝑾1,wr(d))nrλ(logn)(rλ+1)(d1).n^{-r_{\lambda}}(\log n)^{r_{\lambda}(d-1)}\ll{\rm Int}_{n}({\boldsymbol{W}}^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}}^{d}))\ll n^{-r_{\lambda}}(\log n)^{(r_{\lambda}+1)(d-1)}. (3.14)

Proof. Let us first prove the upper bound in (4.2). We will construct a quadrature of the form (3.11) which realizes it. In order to do this, we take the truncated Gaussian quadrature Q2j(m)TGfQ^{\rm{TG}}_{2j(m)}f defined in (2.4). For every k0k\in{\mathbb{N}}_{0}, let mkm_{k} be the largest number such that 2j(mk)2k2j(m_{k})\leq 2^{k}. Then we have 2j(mk)2k2j(m_{k})\asymp 2^{k}. For the sequence of quadratures (Q2k)k0\left(Q_{2^{k}}\right)_{k\in{\mathbb{N}}_{0}} with

Q2k:=Q2j(mk)TG𝒬2k,Q_{2^{k}}:=Q^{\rm{TG}}_{2j(m_{k})}\in{\mathcal{Q}}_{2^{k}},

from Theorem 2.2 it follows that

|f(x)w(x)dxQ2kf|C2rλkfW1,wr(),k0,fW1,wr(),\bigg{|}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}f(x)w(x){\rm d}x-Q_{2^{k}}f\bigg{|}\leq C2^{-r_{\lambda}k}\|f\|_{W^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}})},\ \ \ k\in{\mathbb{N}}_{0},\ \ f\in W^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}}),

This means that the assumption (3.2)–(3.3) holds for a=rλa=r_{\lambda}. To prove the upper bound in (4.2) we approximate the integral

df(𝒙)w(𝒙)d𝒙\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{d}}f({\boldsymbol{x}})w({\boldsymbol{x}}){\rm d}{\boldsymbol{x}}

by the quadrature QξQ_{\xi} which is formed from the sequence (Q2k)k0\left(Q_{2^{k}}\right)_{k\in{\mathbb{N}}_{0}}. For every nn\in{\mathbb{N}}, let ξn\xi_{n} be the largest number such that |G(ξn)|n|G(\xi_{n})|\leq n. Then the corresponding operator QξnQ_{\xi_{n}} defines a quadrature belonging to 𝒬n{\mathcal{Q}}_{n}. From (3.12) it follows

2ξnξnd1|G(ξn)|n.\ 2^{\xi_{n}}\xi_{n}^{d-1}\asymp|G(\xi_{n})|\asymp n.

Hence we deduce the asymptotic equivalences

2ξnn1(logn)d1,ξnlogn,\ 2^{-\xi_{n}}\asymp n^{-1}(\log n)^{d-1},\ \ \xi_{n}\asymp\log n,

which together with Lemma 3.5 yield that

Intn(𝑾1,wr(d))\displaystyle{\rm Int}_{n}({\boldsymbol{W}}^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}}^{d})) supf𝑾1,wr(d)|df(𝒙)w(𝒙)d𝒙Qξnf|\displaystyle\leq\sup_{f\in{\boldsymbol{W}}^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}}^{d})}\bigg{|}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{d}}f({\boldsymbol{x}})w({\boldsymbol{x}}){\rm d}{\boldsymbol{x}}-Q_{\xi_{n}}f\bigg{|}
C2rλξnξnd1nrλ(logn)(rλ+1)(d1).\displaystyle\leq C2^{-r_{\lambda}\xi_{n}}\xi_{n}^{d-1}\asymp n^{-r_{\lambda}}(\log n)^{(r_{\lambda}+1)(d-1)}.

The upper bound in (4.2) is proven.

We now prove the lower bound in (4.2) by using the inequality (2.1) in Lemma 2.1. For M1M\geq 1, we define the set

Γd(M):={𝒔d:i=1dsi2M,siM1/d,i=1,,d}.\Gamma_{d}(M):=\left\{{\boldsymbol{s}}\in{\mathbb{N}}^{d}:\,\prod_{i=1}^{d}s_{i}\leq 2M,\ s_{i}\geq M^{1/d},\ i=1,...,d\right\}.

Then we have

|Γd(M)|M(logM)d1,M>1.|\Gamma_{d}(M)|\asymp M(\log M)^{d-1},\ \ M>1. (3.15)

Indeed, we have the inclusion

Γd(M)Γd(M):={𝒔d:i=1dsi2M}\Gamma_{d}(M)\subset\Gamma^{\prime}_{d}(M):=\left\{{\boldsymbol{s}}\in{\mathbb{N}}^{d}:\,\prod_{i=1}^{d}s_{i}\leq 2M\right\}

and

|Γd(M)|M(logM)d1.|\Gamma^{\prime}_{d}(M)|\asymp M(\log M)^{d-1}.

Hence, |Γd(M)|M(logM)d1.|\Gamma_{d}(M)|\ll M(\log M)^{d-1}. We prove the converse inequality |Γd(M)|M(logM)d1|\Gamma_{d}(M)|\gg M(\log M)^{d-1} by induction on the dimension dd. It is obvious for d=1d=1. Assuming that this inequality is true for d1d-1, we check it for dd, (d2)(d\geq 2). Fix a positive number τ\tau with 1<τ<d1<\tau<d. We have by induction assumption,

|Γd(M)|\displaystyle|\Gamma_{d}(M)| =M1/dsd2M|Γd1(2Msd1)|M1/dsd2M(2Msd1)(log2Msd1)d2\displaystyle=\sum_{M^{1/d}\leq s_{d}\leq 2M}|\Gamma_{d-1}(2Ms_{d}^{-1})|\gg\sum_{M^{1/d}\leq s_{d}\leq 2M}\left(2Ms_{d}^{-1}\right)\left(\log 2Ms_{d}^{-1}\right)^{d-2}
MM1/dsd2Mτ/dsd1(log2Msd1)d2\displaystyle\gg M\sum_{M^{1/d}\leq s_{d}\leq 2M^{\tau/d}}s_{d}^{-1}\left(\log 2Ms_{d}^{-1}\right)^{d-2}
MM1/dsd2Mτ/dsd1(log2M1τ/d)d2\displaystyle\geq M\sum_{M^{1/d}\leq s_{d}\leq 2M^{\tau/d}}s_{d}^{-1}\left(\log 2M^{1-\tau/d}\right)^{d-2}
M(logM)d2M1/dsd2Mτ/dsd1M(logM)d1.\displaystyle\gg M\left(\log M\right)^{d-2}\sum_{M^{1/d}\leq s_{d}\leq 2M^{\tau/d}}s_{d}^{-1}\,\gg\,M\left(\log M\right)^{d-1}.

The asymptotic equivalence (3.15) is proven.

For a given nn\in{\mathbb{N}}, let {𝝃1,,𝝃n}d\left\{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_{1},...,{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_{n}\right\}\subset{\mathbb{R}}^{d} be arbitrary nn points. Denote by MnM_{n} the smallest number such that |Γd(Mn)|n+1|\Gamma_{d}(M_{n})|\geq n+1. We define the dd-parallelepiped K𝒔K_{\boldsymbol{s}} for 𝒔0d{\boldsymbol{s}}\in{\mathbb{N}}^{d}_{0} of size

δ:=Mn1/λ1d\delta:=M_{n}^{\frac{1/\lambda-1}{d}}

by

K𝒔:=i=1dKsi,Ksi:=(δsi,δsi1).K_{\boldsymbol{s}}:=\prod_{i=1}^{d}K_{s_{i}},\ \ K_{s_{i}}:=(\delta s_{i},\delta s_{i-1}).

Since |Γd(Mn)|>n|\Gamma_{d}(M_{n})|>n, there exists a multi-index 𝒔Γd(Mn){\boldsymbol{s}}\in\Gamma_{d}(M_{n}) such that K𝒔K_{\boldsymbol{s}} does not contain any point from {𝝃1,,𝝃n}\left\{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_{1},...,{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_{n}\right\}.

As in the proof of Theorem 2.2, we take a nonnegative function φC0([0,1])\varphi\in C^{\infty}_{0}([0,1]), φ0\varphi\not=0, and put

b0:=01φ(y)dy>0,bs:=01|φ(s)(y)|dy,s=1,,r.b_{0}:=\int_{0}^{1}\varphi(y){\rm d}y>0,\quad b_{s}:=\int_{0}^{1}|\varphi^{(s)}(y)|{\rm d}y,\ s=1,...,r. (3.16)

For i=1,,di=1,...,d, we define the univariate functions gig_{i} in variable xix_{i} by

gi(xi):={φ(δ1(xiδsi1)),xiKsi,0,otherwise.g_{i}(x_{i}):=\begin{cases}\varphi(\delta^{-1}(x_{i}-\delta s_{i-1})),&\ \ x_{i}\in K_{s_{i}},\\ 0,&\ \ \text{otherwise}.\end{cases} (3.17)

Then the mulitivariate functions gg and hh on d{\mathbb{R}}^{d} are defined by

g(𝒙):=i=1dgi(xi),g({\boldsymbol{x}}):=\prod_{i=1}^{d}g_{i}(x_{i}),

and

h(𝒙):=(gw1)(𝒙)=i=1dgi(xi)w1(xi)=:i=1dhi(xi).h({\boldsymbol{x}}):=(gw^{-1})({\boldsymbol{x}})=\prod_{i=1}^{d}g_{i}(x_{i})w^{-1}(x_{i})=:\prod_{i=1}^{d}h_{i}(x_{i}). (3.18)

Let us estimate the norm hW1,wr(d)\left\|{h}\right\|_{W^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}}^{d})}. For every 𝒌0d{\boldsymbol{k}}\in{\mathbb{N}}^{d}_{0} with 0|𝒌|r0\leq|{\boldsymbol{k}}|_{\infty}\leq r, we prove the inequality

d|(D𝒌h)w|(𝒙)d𝒙CMn(11/λ)(r1).\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{d}}\big{|}(D^{{\boldsymbol{k}}}h)w\big{|}({\boldsymbol{x}}){\rm d}{\boldsymbol{x}}\leq CM_{n}^{(1-1/\lambda)(r-1)}. (3.19)

We have

D𝒌h=i=1dhi(ki).D^{\boldsymbol{k}}h=\prod_{i=1}^{d}h_{i}^{(k_{i})}. (3.20)

Similarly to (2.10)–(2.13) we derive that for every i=1,,di=1,...,d,

hi(ki)(xi)w(xi)=νi=0ki(kiνi)gi(kiνi)(xi)(sign(xi))νiηi=1νicνi,ηi(λ,a)|xi|λνi,ηi,h_{i}^{(k_{i})}(x_{i})w(x_{i})=\sum_{\nu_{i}=0}^{k_{i}}\binom{k_{i}}{\nu_{i}}g_{i}^{(k_{i}-\nu_{i})}(x_{i})(\operatorname{sign}(x_{i}))^{\nu_{i}}\sum_{\eta_{i}=1}^{\nu_{i}}c_{\nu_{i},\eta_{i}}(\lambda,a)|x_{i}|^{\lambda_{\nu_{i},\eta_{i}}},

where

λνi,νi=νi(λ1)>λνi,νi1>>λνi,1=λνi,\lambda_{\nu_{i},\nu_{i}}=\nu_{i}(\lambda-1)>\lambda_{\nu_{i},\nu_{i}-1}>\cdots>\lambda_{\nu_{i},1}=\lambda-\nu_{i},

and cνi,ηi(λ,a)c_{\nu_{i},\eta_{i}}(\lambda,a) are polynomials in the variables λ\lambda and aa of degree at most νi\nu_{i} with respect to each variable. This together with (3.16)–(3.17) and the inequalities siMn1ds_{i}\geq M_{n}^{\frac{1}{d}} and λνi,νi=νi(λ1)0\lambda_{\nu_{i},\nu_{i}}=\nu_{i}(\lambda-1)\geq 0 yields that

|hi(ki)(xi)w(xi)|dxi\displaystyle\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\big{|}h_{i}^{(k_{i})}(x_{i})w(x_{i})\big{|}{\rm d}x_{i} Cmax0νikimax1ηiνiKsi|xi|λνi,ηi|g(kiνi)(xi)|dxi\displaystyle\leq C\max_{0\leq\nu_{i}\leq k_{i}}\ \max_{1\leq\eta_{i}\leq\nu_{i}}\int_{K_{s_{i}}}|x_{i}|^{\lambda_{\nu_{i},\eta_{i}}}\big{|}g^{(k_{i}-\nu_{i})}(x_{i})\big{|}{\rm d}x_{i} (3.21)
Cmax0νiki(δsi)λνi,νiKsi|g(kiνi)(xi)|dxi\displaystyle\leq C\max_{0\leq\nu_{i}\leq k_{i}}(\delta s_{i})^{\lambda_{\nu_{i},\nu_{i}}}\int_{K_{s_{i}}}\big{|}g^{(k_{i}-\nu_{i})}(x_{i})\big{|}{\rm d}x_{i}
Cmax0νiki(δsi)νi(λ1)δki+νi+1bkiνi\displaystyle\leq C\max_{0\leq\nu_{i}\leq k_{i}}(\delta s_{i})^{\nu_{i}(\lambda-1)}\delta^{-k_{i}+\nu_{i}+1}b_{k_{i}-\nu_{i}}
=Cδki+1max0νiki(δλsiλ1)νi.\displaystyle=C\delta^{-k_{i}+1}\max_{0\leq\nu_{i}\leq k_{i}}\left(\delta^{\lambda}s_{i}^{\lambda-1}\right)^{\nu_{i}}.

Since siMn1ds_{i}\geq M_{n}^{\frac{1}{d}} and δ:=Mn1/λ1d\delta:=M_{n}^{\frac{1/\lambda-1}{d}}, we have that δλsiλ11\delta^{\lambda}s_{i}^{\lambda-1}\geq 1, and consequently,

max0νiki(δλsiλ1)νi=(δλsiλ1)ki.\max_{0\leq\nu_{i}\leq k_{i}}\left(\delta^{\lambda}s_{i}^{\lambda-1}\right)^{\nu_{i}}=\left(\delta^{\lambda}s_{i}^{\lambda-1}\right)^{k_{i}}.

This equality, the estimates (3.21) and the inequalities 0kir0\leq k_{i}\leq r and δsi1\delta s_{i}\geq 1 yield that

|hi(ki)(xi)w(xi)|dxi\displaystyle\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\big{|}h_{i}^{(k_{i})}(x_{i})w(x_{i})\big{|}{\rm d}x_{i} Cδki+1(δλsiλ1)ki=Cδ(δsi)ki(λ1)\displaystyle\leq C\delta^{-k_{i}+1}\left(\delta^{\lambda}s_{i}^{\lambda-1}\right)^{k_{i}}=C\delta\left(\delta s_{i}\right)^{k_{i}(\lambda-1)}
Cδ(δsi)r(λ1)=Cδr(λ1)+1sir(λ1)\displaystyle\leq C\delta\left(\delta s_{i}\right)^{r(\lambda-1)}=C\delta^{r(\lambda-1)+1}s_{i}^{r(\lambda-1)}

Hence, by (3.20) we deduce

d|(D𝒌h)w|(𝒙)d𝒙\displaystyle\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{d}}|(D^{\boldsymbol{k}}h)w|({\boldsymbol{x}}){\rm d}{\boldsymbol{x}} =i=1d|h(ki)(xi)w(xi)|dxi\displaystyle=\prod_{i=1}^{d}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\big{|}h^{(k_{i})}(x_{i})w(x_{i})\big{|}{\rm d}x_{i}
Ci=1dδr(λ1)+1sir(λ1)Cδd(r(λ1)+1)(i=1dsi)r(λ1).\displaystyle\leq C\prod_{i=1}^{d}\delta^{r(\lambda-1)+1}s_{i}^{r(\lambda-1)}\leq C\delta^{d(r(\lambda-1)+1)}\left(\prod_{i=1}^{d}s_{i}\right)^{r(\lambda-1)}.

Since i=1dsi2Mn\prod_{i=1}^{d}s_{i}\leq 2M_{n}, δ:=Mn1/λ1d\delta:=M_{n}^{\frac{1/\lambda-1}{d}} and λ>1\lambda>1, we can continue the estimation as

d|(D𝒌h)w|(𝒙)d𝒙CMn(r(λ1)+1)(1/λ1)Mnr(λ1)=CMn(11/λ)(r1),\displaystyle\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{d}}|(D^{\boldsymbol{k}}h)w|({\boldsymbol{x}}){\rm d}{\boldsymbol{x}}\leq CM_{n}^{(r(\lambda-1)+1)(1/\lambda-1)}M_{n}^{r(\lambda-1)}=CM_{n}^{(1-1/\lambda)(r-1)},

which completes the proof of the inequality (3.19). This inequality means that hW1,wr(d)h\in W^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}}^{d}) and

hW1,wr(d)CMn(11/λ)(r1).\left\|{h}\right\|_{W^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}}^{d})}\leq CM_{n}^{(1-1/\lambda)(r-1)}.

If we define

h¯:=C1Mn(11/λ)(r1)h,\bar{h}:=C^{-1}M_{n}^{-(1-1/\lambda)(r-1)}h,

then h¯\bar{h} is nonnegative, h¯𝑾1,wr()\bar{h}\in{\boldsymbol{W}}^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}}), suph¯K𝒔\sup\bar{h}\subset K_{\boldsymbol{s}} and by (3.16)–(3.18),

d(h¯w)(𝒙)d𝒙\displaystyle\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{d}}(\bar{h}w)({\boldsymbol{x}}){\rm d}{\boldsymbol{x}} =C1Mn(11/λ)(r1)d(hw)(𝒙)d𝒙=i=1dKsigi(xi)dxi\displaystyle=C^{-1}M_{n}^{-(1-1/\lambda)(r-1)}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{d}}(hw)({\boldsymbol{x}}){\rm d}{\boldsymbol{x}}=\prod_{i=1}^{d}\int_{K_{s_{i}}}g_{i}(x_{i}){\rm d}x_{i}
=C1Mn(11/λ)(r1)(b0δ)d=CMnrλ.\displaystyle=C^{-1}M_{n}^{-(1-1/\lambda)(r-1)}\left(b_{0}\delta\right)^{d}=C^{\prime}M_{n}^{-r_{\lambda}}.

From the definition of MnM_{n} and (3.15) it follows that

Mn(logMn)d1|Γ(Mn)|n,M_{n}(\log M_{n})^{d-1}\asymp|\Gamma(M_{n})|\asymp n,

which implies that Mn1n1(logn)d1M_{n}^{-1}\asymp n^{-1}(\log n)^{d-1}. This allows to receive the estimate

d(h¯w)(𝒙)d𝒙=CMnrλnrλ(logn)rλ(d1).\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{d}}(\bar{h}w)({\boldsymbol{x}}){\rm d}{\boldsymbol{x}}=C^{\prime}M_{n}^{-r_{\lambda}}\gg n^{-r_{\lambda}}(\log n)^{r_{\lambda}(d-1)}. (3.22)

Since the interval K𝒔K_{\boldsymbol{s}} does not contain any point from the set {𝝃1,,𝝃n}\left\{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_{1},...,{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_{n}\right\} which has been arbitrarily choosen, we have

h¯(𝝃k)=0,k=1,,n.\bar{h}({\boldsymbol{\xi}}_{k})=0,\ \ k=1,...,n.

Hence, by Lemma 2.1 and (3.22) we have that

Intn(𝑾1,wr(d))dh¯(𝒙)w(𝒙)d𝒙nrλ(logn)rλ(d1).{\rm Int}_{n}({\boldsymbol{W}}^{r}_{1,w}({\mathbb{R}}^{d}))\geq\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{d}}\bar{h}({\boldsymbol{x}})w({\boldsymbol{x}}){\rm d}{\boldsymbol{x}}\gg n^{-r_{\lambda}}(\log n)^{r_{\lambda}(d-1)}.

The lower bound in (4.2) is proven.     

Remark 3.9

Let us analyse some properties of the quadratures QξQ_{\xi} and their integration nodes H(ξ)H(\xi) which give the upper bound in (4.2).

1. The set of integration nodes H(ξ)H(\xi) in the quadratures QξQ_{\xi} which are formed from the non-equidistant zeros of the orthonornal polynomials pm(w)p_{m}(w), is a step hyperbolic cross on the function domain d{\mathbb{R}}^{d}. This is a contrast to the classical theory of approximation of multivariate periodic functions having mixed smoothness for which the classical step hyperbolic crosses of integer points are on the frequency domain d{\mathbb{Z}}^{d} (see, e.g., [2, Section 2.3] for detail). The terminology ’step hyperbolic cross’ of intergration nodes is borrowed from there. In Figure 1, in particular, the step hyperbolic cross in the right picture is designed for the Hermite weight w(𝒙)=exp(x12x22)w({\boldsymbol{x}})=\exp(-x_{1}^{2}-x_{2}^{2}) (d=2d=2). The set H(ξ)H(\xi) also completely differs from the classical Smolyak grids of fractional dyadic points on the function domain [1,1]d[-1,1]^{d} (see Figure 2 for d=2d=2) which are used in sparse-grid sampling recovery and numerical integration for functions having a mixed smoothness (see, e.g., [2, Section 5.3] for detail).

2. The set H(ξ)H(\xi) is very sparsely distributed inside the dd-cube

K(ξ):={𝒙d:|xi|C2ξ/λ,i=1,,d},K(\xi):=\left\{{\boldsymbol{x}}\in{\mathbb{R}}^{d}:\,|x_{i}|\leq C2^{\xi/\lambda},\ i=1,...,d\right\},

for some constant C>0C>0. Its diameter which is the length of its symmetry axes is 2C2ξ/λ2C2^{\xi/\lambda}, i.e., the size of K(ξ)K(\xi). The number of integration nodes in H(ξ)H(\xi) is |G(ξ)|2ξξd1|G(\xi)|\asymp 2^{\xi}\xi^{d-1}. For the integration nodes H(ξ)={𝒙𝒌,e,𝒔}(𝒌,e,𝒔)G(ξ)H(\xi)=\left\{{\boldsymbol{x}}_{{\boldsymbol{k}},e,{\boldsymbol{s}}}\right\}_{({\boldsymbol{k}},e,{\boldsymbol{s}})\in G(\xi)}, we have that

min(𝒌,e,𝒔),(𝒌,e,𝒔)G(ξ)(𝒌,e,𝒔)(𝒌,e,𝒔)min1id|(x𝒌,e,𝒔)i(x𝒌,e,𝒔)i| 2(11/λ)ξ0,whenξ.\min_{\begin{subarray}{c}({\boldsymbol{k}},e,{\boldsymbol{s}}),({\boldsymbol{k}}^{\prime},e^{\prime},{\boldsymbol{s}}^{\prime})\in G(\xi)\\ ({\boldsymbol{k}},e,{\boldsymbol{s}})\not=({\boldsymbol{k}}^{\prime},e^{\prime},{\boldsymbol{s}}^{\prime})\end{subarray}}\ \min_{1\leq i\leq d}\left|\left(x_{{\boldsymbol{k}},e,{\boldsymbol{s}}}\right)_{i}-\left(x_{{\boldsymbol{k}}^{\prime},e^{\prime},{\boldsymbol{s}}^{\prime}}\right)_{i}\right|\ \asymp\ 2^{-(1-1/\lambda)\xi}\ \to 0,\ \text{when}\ \xi\to\infty.

On the other hand, the diameter of H(ξ)H(\xi) is going to \infty when ξ\xi\to\infty.

Refer to caption Refer to caption
A classical step hyperbolic cross A Hermite step hyperbolic cross
Figure 1: Step hyperbolic crosses (d=2d=2)
Refer to caption
Figure 2: A Smolyak grid (d=2d=2)

4 Extension to Markov-Sonin weights

In this section, we extend the results of the previous sections to Markov-Sonin weights. A univariate Markov-Sonin weight is a function of the form

wβ(x):=|x|βexp(a|x|2+b),β>0,a>0,b,w_{\beta}(x):=|x|^{\beta}\exp(-a|x|^{2}+b),\ \ \beta>0,\ \ a>0,\ \ b\in{\mathbb{R}},

(here β\beta is indicated in the notation to distinguish Markov-Sonin weights wβw_{\beta} and Freud-type weight ww). A dd-dimensional Markov-Sonin weight is defined as

wβ(𝒙):=i=1dwβ(xi).w_{\beta}({\boldsymbol{x}}):=\prod_{i=1}^{d}w_{\beta}(x_{i}).

Markov-Sonin weights are not of the form (1.2) and have a singularity at 0. We will keep all the notations and definitions in Sections 13 with replacing ww by wβw_{\beta}, pointing some modifications.

Denote ̊d:=({0})d\mathring{{\mathbb{R}}}^{d}:=\left({\mathbb{R}}\setminus\left\{0\right\}\right)^{d} and Ω̊:=Ω̊d\mathring{\Omega}:=\Omega\cap\mathring{{\mathbb{R}}}^{d}. Besides the spaces Lwβp(Ω)L_{w_{\beta}}^{p}(\Omega) and Wp,wβr(Ω)W^{r}_{p,w_{\beta}}(\Omega) we consider also the spaces Lwβp(Ω̊)L_{w_{\beta}}^{p}\big{(}\mathring{\Omega}\big{)} and Wp,wβr(Ω̊)W^{r}_{p,w_{\beta}}\big{(}\mathring{\Omega}\big{)} which are defined in a similar manner. For the space Wp,wβr(Ω̊)W^{r}_{p,w_{\beta}}\big{(}\mathring{\Omega}\big{)}, we require one of the following restrictions on rr and β\beta to be satisfied:

  • (i)

    β>r1\beta>r-1;

  • (ii)

    0<β<r10<\beta<r-1 and β\beta is not an integer, for fWp,wβr(Ω̊)f\in W^{r}_{p,w_{\beta}}\big{(}\mathring{\Omega}\big{)}, the derivative D𝒌fD^{\boldsymbol{k}}f can be extended to a continuous function on Ω\Omega for all 𝒌0d{\boldsymbol{k}}\in{\mathbb{N}}^{d}_{0} such that |𝒌|r1β|{\boldsymbol{k}}|_{\infty}\leq r-1-\lceil\beta\rceil.

Let (pm(wβ))m(p_{m}(w_{\beta}))_{m\in{\mathbb{N}}} be the sequence of orthonormal polynomials with respest to the weight wβw_{\beta}. Denote again by xm,kx_{m,k}, 1km/21\leq k\leq\lfloor m/2\rfloor the positive zeros of pm(wβ)p_{m}(w_{\beta}), and by xm,k=xm,kx_{m,-k}=-x_{m,k} the negative ones (if mm is odd, then xm,0=0x_{m,0}=0 is also a zero of pm(wβ)p_{m}(w_{\beta})). If mm is even, we add xm,0:=0x_{m,0}:=0. These nodes are located as

m+Cm1/6<xm,m/2<<xm,1<xm,0<xm,1<<xm,m/2mCm1/6,-\sqrt{m}+Cm^{-1/6}<x_{m,-\lfloor m/2\rfloor}<\cdots<x_{m,-1}<x_{m,0}<x_{m,1}<\cdots<x_{m,\lfloor m/2\rfloor}\leq\sqrt{m}-Cm^{-1/6},

with a positive constant CC independent of mm (the Mhaskar-Rakhmanov-Saff number is am(wβ)=ma_{m}(w_{\beta})=\sqrt{m}).

In the case (i), the truncated Gaussian quadrature is defined by

Q2j(m)TGf:=1|k|j(m)λm,k(wβ)f(xm,k),Q^{\rm{TG}}_{2j(m)}f:=\sum_{1\leq|k|\leq j(m)}\lambda_{m,k}(w_{\beta})f(x_{m,k}),

and in the case (ii) by

Q2j(m)TGf:=0|k|j(m)λm,k(wβ)f(xm,k),Q^{\rm{TG}}_{2j(m)}f:=\sum_{0\leq|k|\leq j(m)}\lambda_{m,k}(w_{\beta})f(x_{m,k}),

where λm,k(wβ)\lambda_{m,k}(w_{\beta}) are the corresponding Cotes numbers.

In the same ways, by using related results in [10] we can prove the following counterparts of Theorems 2.2 and 3.8 for the unit ball 𝑾1,wβr(̊d){\boldsymbol{W}}^{r}_{1,w_{\beta}}\big{(}\mathring{{\mathbb{R}}}^{d}\big{)} of the Markov-Sonin weighted Sobolev space W1,wβr(̊d)W^{r}_{1,w_{\beta}}\big{(}\mathring{{\mathbb{R}}}^{d}\big{)} of mixed smoothness rr\in{\mathbb{N}}.

Theorem 4.1

For any nn\in{\mathbb{N}}, let mnm_{n} be the largest integer such that 2j(mn)n2j(m_{n})\leq n. Then the quadratures Q2j(mn)TG𝒬nQ^{\rm{TG}}_{2j(m_{n})}\in{\mathcal{Q}}_{n}, n,n\in{\mathbb{N}}, are asymptotically optimal for 𝐖1,wβr(̊){\boldsymbol{W}}^{r}_{1,w_{\beta}}\big{(}\mathring{{\mathbb{R}}}\big{)} and

supf𝑾1,wβr(̊)|f(x)w(x)dxQ2j(mn)TGf|Intn(𝑾1,wβr(̊))nr/2.\sup_{f\in{\boldsymbol{W}}^{r}_{1,w_{\beta}}\big{(}\mathring{{\mathbb{R}}}\big{)}}\bigg{|}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}f(x)w(x){\rm d}x-Q^{\rm{TG}}_{2j(m_{n})}f\bigg{|}\asymp{\rm Int}_{n}\big{(}{\boldsymbol{W}}^{r}_{1,w_{\beta}}\big{(}\mathring{{\mathbb{R}}}\big{)}\big{)}\asymp n^{-r/2}.
Theorem 4.2

We have that

nr/2(logn)(d1)r/2Intn𝑾1,wβr(̊d))nr/2(logn)(d1)(r/2+1).n^{-r/2}(\log n)^{(d-1)r/2}\ll{\rm Int}_{n}{\boldsymbol{W}}^{r}_{1,w_{\beta}}\big{(}\mathring{{\mathbb{R}}}^{d}\big{)})\ll n^{-r/2}(\log n)^{(d-1)(r/2+1)}.

Acknowledgments: This research is funded by Vietnam Ministry of Education and Training under Grant No. B2023-CTT-08. A part of this work was done when the author was working at the Vietnam Institute for Advanced Study in Mathematics (VIASM). He would like to thank the VIASM for providing a fruitful research environment and working condition. The author specially thanks Dr. Nguyen Van Kien for drawing Figures 1 and 2.

References

  • [1] D. Dũng and V. K. Nguyen. Optimal numerical integration and approximation of functions on d\mathbb{R}^{d} equipped with Gaussian measure. arXiv:2207.01155 [math.NA], 2022.
  • [2] D. Dũng, V. N. Temlyakov, and T. Ullrich. Hyperbolic Cross Approximation. Advanced Courses in Mathematics - CRM Barcelona, Birkhäuser/Springer, 2018.
  • [3] B. Della Vecchia and G. Mastroianni. Gaussian rules on unbounded intervals. J. Complexity, 19:247–258, 2003.
  • [4] J. Dick, C. Irrgeher, G. Leobacher, and F. Pillichshammer. On the optimal order of integration in Hermite spaces with finite smoothness. SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 56:684–707, 2018.
  • [5] J. Dick, F. Y. Kuo, and I. H. Sloan. High-dimensional integration: the quasi-Monte Carlo way. Acta Numer., 22:133–288, 2013.
  • [6] C. Irrgeher, P. Kritzer, G. Leobacher, and F. Pillichshammer. Integration in Hermite spaces of analytic functions. J. Complexity, 31:308–404, 2015.
  • [7] C. Irrgeher and G. Leobacher. High-dimensional integration on the d\mathbb{R}^{d}, weighted Hermite spaces, and orthogonal transforms. J. Complexity, 31:174–205, 2015.
  • [8] P. Junghanns, G. Mastroianni, and I. Notarangelo. Weighted Polynomial Approximation and Numerical Methods for Integral Equations. Birkhäuser, 2021.
  • [9] D. S. Lubinsky. A survey of weighted polynomial approximation with exponential weights. Surveys in Approximation Theory, 3:1–105, 2007.
  • [10] G. Mastroianni and D. Occorsio. Markov-Sonin Gaussian rule for singular functions. J. Comput. Appl. Math., 169(1):197–212, 2004.
  • [11] H. N. Mhaskar. Introduction to the Theory of Weighted Polynomial Approximation. World Scientific, Singapore, 1996.
  • [12] V. N. Temlyakov. Multivariate Approximation. Cambridge University Press, 2018.
  • [13] R. Tripathy and I. Bilionis. Deep UQ: Learning deep neural network surrogate models for high dimensional uncertainty quantification. J. Comput. Phys., 375:565–588, 2018.