we consider in this review article a series of works  @xcite , completed in collaboration with some colleagues of ours , that all share the following common denominator .
the task to perform is , possibly repeatedly , to approximate numerically the solution to a partial differential equation that has some random character . in most of our works ,
the equation has the simplest possible form : it is scalar - valued , elliptic , linear , non degenerate , in divergence form . typically , and with self - explanatory notations
, it reads as @xmath0 on a domain  @xmath1 , and for a certain right hand side @xmath2 .
the random character of the problem can be encoded in the coefficient  @xmath3 , and/or in the right - hand side  @xmath2 , and/or in the domain  @xmath1 itself .
needless to say , there exist a number of successful approaches to explicitly treat randomness in such partial differential equations .
recent years have witnessed an explosion of the number of methods invented in this extremely lively topic , in particular motivated by the field of _ uncertainty quantification_. stochastic finite elements , spectral methods , sparse tensor products methods , reduced basis techniques , quantization , all methods based one way or another on karhunen - loeve , polynomial chaos , or other types of similar or not economical decompositions of the random functions present in the equation , both as parameters and unknown functions , have been increasingly studied and considerably improved lately .
some accessible general references in the field are the textbooks  @xcite .
review articles on each of the many categories of approaches , such as  @xcite , are also available .
the _ rationale _ behind all these methods is the reduction of the dimension of the problem , considered as a problem in a high - dimensional space consisting of the ambient physical space where the original problem is posed _ augmented _ by the space of approximation for the random dependency .
a simplification of the random dependency follows , and the problem becomes amenable to efficient computational techniques .
we ourselves have used , in  @xcite , and reviewed , in  @xcite , some of these methods ( specifically , reduced basis type methods ) in the context of equations with random parameters .    in the present review article
, we would like to concentrate on a somewhat alternate strategy : _ not attempt to simplify the dependency upon randomness , but embrace the difficulty arising from it_. of course , this may only be achieved in some specific situations , sufficiently general to be of broad interest , but certainly not covering the immense spectrum of applications in the engineering and life sciences , and perhaps not with the same generic character as the above mentioned general purpose methods .
to some extent , the cases we consider must be slightly simpler than , and not as general as , the cases targeted by the above methods . our ambition and our achievements are more modest .
on the other hand , it turns out that the cases we consider arise from a context that brings an additional level of complexity : they originate from multiscale modeling . in that respect , the mix between the presence of randomness , the multiscale feature , and the wish to compute accurately and efficiently lead to an essentially unsolved difficulty ( despite the many efforts of outstanding contributors ) . in multiscale
computational science , a number of techniques exist , and are improved constantly .
but , most of the times , and despite some overly optimistic claims , they do not marry so well with randomness when it comes to practical computations .
conversely , the extremely efficient toolbox available for random problems has essentially no intersection with multiscale science .
well beyond the somewhat limited purpose of this review article , our intention is thus to attract the attention of the community to the state of the art : _ efficiently computing when randomness and many scales are simultaneously present is still an essentially open , considerably challenging , issue_.    [ [ the - two - situations - considered - similarities - and - differences . ] ] the two situations considered : similarities and differences .
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    we will consider below two prototypical situations .
as we mentioned , we encountered both situations in our research efforts devoted to multiscale science , and more precisely in our endeavor to study and improve computational approaches in materials science : ( i ) the approximation of the homogenized tensor in the context of stochastic numerical homogenization , and ( ii ) the multiscale finite element computation of the solution to an ( harmless ) equation posed on a randomly perforated domain .    in both situations
, randomness originates from geometry .
but , in either situation , geometry is encoded differently in the equation . in ( i ) , it is encoded in the heterogeneities of the coefficient .
in contrast , in ( ii ) it is encoded in the computational domain itself .
the similarity of the two problematics is evident . by penalization
, the second problem may even be viewed as a particular case of the first problem . however , the techniques we employ are different in nature , and have a different purpose .
the former problem ( approximation of the homogenized tensor ) consists in the repeated resolution of an elliptic equation ( the celebrated `` corrector equation '' ) on an as large as possible bounded domain , truncation of the whole space @xmath4 , typically for @xmath5 , or @xmath6 , in practice .
the equation is of the above type   and will be made explicit below , see  .
the purpose of that repeated solution procedure is to compute an expectation ( thus , in practice an empirical mean ) from the solutions obtained for various realizations of the local environment ( mathematically encoded in the coefficient  @xmath3 of  ) .
the reader may think of different microstructures of the material , different inclusions in the medium , etc .
the task of computing an average , that is a single , deterministic output , sounds simple .
in particular , the very process of averaging , performed here in the context of a stationary ergodic problem ( see the details below ) , is essentially of the same nature as the law of large numbers .
this suggests that the random character of the problem progressively vanishes when the number of realizations considered increases .
however , the practical monte carlo approach ( generate random environments and average out an outcome based on the computed solutions ) is plagued by variance issues .
the rate of convergence of the approximation , in terms of the size of the truncated computational domain asymptotically covering the whole ambient space , is universal .
it is dictated by the central limit theorem .
the prefactor appearing in the error estimate is related to the variance of the problem .
efficient computational approaches consist in designing tools to reduce that variance , thus the statistical error in the approximation .
that error largely dominates the bias ( the deterministic part of the error ) , and thus is the critical quantity that governs the overall quality of the numerical approach .
our series of works addresses various techniques to reduce the variance : antithetic variables , control variate , selection approach , the latter being somewhat in the spirit of stratified sampling .
they are imported from several different contexts and are adjusted to the specific context of numerical homogenization .    the latter problem ( multiscale finite element computations on randomly perforated domains ) differs from the former problem in several respects .
as mentioned above , the randomness of the geometry is now encoded not in the coefficients of the equations ( which are constant , for simplicity ) , but in the domain where the equation is posed .
we deal with perforations of that domain that are randomly located .
note however that , as briefly mentioned above , the perforations of the domain can be , in the numerical discretization , treated by penalization , in which case the two situations we consider become closer to one another .
another , more substantial , difference is that this second example is a representative case of modern multiscale techniques .
in contrast with classical techniques which ( i ) aim at computing an equivalent `` homogenized '' medium , and ( ii ) achieve this in the asymptotic limit of vanishing length scales of the oscillations originally present ( this is the case of our former situation ) , modern techniques attack the multiscale problem ( i ) directly and ( ii ) at the actual length scales .
homogenization theory is then seen as a guideline to construct suitable basis functions for the discretization which , in a second stage , are used to expand the numerical solution . now , in the first stage of construction of these basis functions ( the _ ad hoc _ finite elements ) , the geometry of the computational domain matters .
well before being able to average solutions and/or outputs based on solutions , the issue arises to be able to compute efficiently and accurately each and every single solution , in a robust way that does not require regenerating a set of basis functions for each realization of the random environment .
this will be the issue we investigate , and solve using adequate ( crouzeix - raviart type ) boundary conditions for the multiscale finite element basis set and an adequate enrichment ( using bubble functions ) of that basis set .
we wish to emphasize the following fact .
not only the two problems we consider are relevant beyond the context of multiscale computing , and the methods we put in action can be useful elsewhere , but the second problem considered ( robustness of a numerical approach with respect to some wild modifications of the geometry ) is not specific to random modeling and covers the generality of all _ disordered _ geometries , random or deterministic .
not every non periodic problem is indeed random .
techniques literally based upon perfectness of the disorder ( such as the approaches we briefly mentioned at the beginning of this introduction , and also the variance reduction techniques we use ) can be inefficient in the presence of only imperfect , partial disorder . it is indeed true that the random setting often comes with assumptions such as stationarity , etc , that make randomness tractable at the price of somehow _
`` rigidifying the disorder '' _ , if we allow ourselves this abuse of language .
thus the interest of considering other techniques than techniques probabilistic in nature .
other works of ours ( see  @xcite for a review ) proceed further in that direction .    before we get to the heart of the matter , let us expose the problems in slightly more details , and announce the plan of our review .
[ [ an - elliptic - problem - with - random - coefficients . ] ] an elliptic problem with random coefficients .
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    the first problem we consider ( in section  [ sec : variance ] below ) arises in the numerical approximation of oscillatory / heterogeneous solutions of pdes in the context of classical homogenization .
the specific setting is that of random ergodic homogenization .
the theoretical basis is briefly summarized in subsection  [ ssec : recall ] , both in the deterministic ( periodic ) context and in the random context .
the reader willing to familiarize him or herself with that celebrated theory is referred to the classical textbooks  @xcite , and also to our introductory , computationally oriented lecture notes  @xcite .
the central problem to solve is the corrector problem , which is of the type   and more precisely reads as an elliptic equation with a random parameter  @xmath7 @xmath8 = 0\ ] ] ( where @xmath9 is a fixed vector ) set on the _ whole _ space @xmath4 .
the precise mathematical formulation is the problem   below . from the solution @xmath10 , an expectation is to be evaluated . in practice
, the equation is set on a large , truncated domain , subset of @xmath4 .
several realizations of @xmath7 are considered , and an empirical mean is employed to approximate the expectation built from the set of  @xmath10 .
this is the essence of the monte carlo approach in this particular context .
details are given below .
making this monte carlo approach efficient requires to reduce the variance .
this is the purpose of our series of works  @xcite , which is overviewed in subsection  [ ssec : variance - reduction ] .
well known variance reduction techniques , adapted to the specific context of homogenization , are described and tested .
notice that our research on such topics has already been partially reviewed in  @xcite where the reader may find more detailed elements of context and some additional comments .
in particular , one will also find in  @xcite a review of some of our works  @xcite dealing with problems that are , in a sense made precise there , only `` weakly random '' .
such problems are small random perturbations of periodic problems , and can be approximated by dedicated methods .
these `` weakly random '' problems and methods have a great interest in their own right .
they are not addressed in the present review .
our target is `` fully random '' problems .
some of these methods will however be briefly mentioned below , for different purposes , namely either constructing auxiliary , surrogate models ( in section  [ sssec : controlvariate ] ) , or deriving selection rules for the draws ( in section  [ sssec : sqs ] ) .
both tools are useful for the reduction of variance in `` fully random '' problems
.    in essence , all variance reduction methods aim at eliminating part of the noise intrinsically present in the draws of the realizations of the random variables at play .
noise can be eliminated in a variety of ways .
one may try and bias the draws , thereby , in again an informal language , `` twisting the arbitrary arm '' of randomness .
this should be made in a very subtle way .
too small a bias in these draws has no effect on the variance .
too large a bias may indeed succeed in reducing the variance but might affect the average and lead to an incorrect numerical result .
alternately , one may first keep the noise as is , leaving the draws unaffected , but try to cancel the noise out in a second stage , subtracting ( in some sense to be made precise ) another simulation to the original one .
the variance reduction techniques we make use of , which we did not invent but borrowed from other contexts and adapted to ours , proceed in either of the above directions .
notice however that the book of possible variance reduction methods is thick .
we have certainly not yet followed all possible tracks .
the first variance reduction technique we employ is relatively elementary .
it is the classical , general purpose technique of _ antithetic variables _ , presented in subsection  [ sssec : antithetic ] .
the efficiency of that technique is substantial , but is also , not unexpectedly , limited in particular because the technique does not exploit much the specifics of the problem considered .
we present in subsection  [ sssec : controlvariate ] the technique of _ control variate _ , which requires a better knowledge of the problem .
a problem simpler to simulate and close to the original problem , in a sense that is made precise below , has to be considered and concurrently solved .
the technique uses that knowledge to get a much better reduction of the variance .
specifically , the auxiliary problem used as control is built upon an approximation method that we developed for the `` weakly random '' problems we were alluding to above . in some sense , this problem is a reduction of the original problem . in subsection  [ sssec :
sqs ] , we expose yet another approach , specifically imported from solid state physics , namely that of _ special quasi - random structures_. it consists in selecting , in the spirit of another well - known technique , _ stratified sampling _ , some configurations of the random environment that are more suitable than generic configurations to compute the empirical averages , so as to again reduce the variance .
similarly to the previous approach of control variate , a reduced model is also useful in the approach .
[ [ an - elliptic - problem - on - a - randomly - perforated - domain . ] ] an elliptic problem on a randomly perforated domain .
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    our second framework concerns a pde set on a perforated domain .
randomness manifests itself in the problem via the randomness of the location of the perforations ( and , possibly , their size and shape ) .
again , we consider the simplest possible equation : scalar - valued , elliptic , non degenerate , linear and in divergence form .
more precisely , we consider a bounded domain  @xmath11 and a set @xmath12 of perforations within this domain .
the perforations are supposedly small and in extremely large a number .
the parameter  @xmath13 encodes the typical small distance between the perforations .
we denote by  @xmath14 the perforated domain ( see figure  [ fig : perforation ] in section  [ sec : msfem ] ) .
we then consider the following problem : find @xmath15 , solution to @xmath16 where @xmath17 is a given function , assumed sufficiently regular on @xmath1 .
it is important to note that the homogeneous dirichlet boundary condition on @xmath18 ( and hence on the boundary @xmath19 of the perforations ) is a crucial feature of the problem we consider .
the consideration of this particular academic problem stems from our interest in various physically relevant problems , for instance in fluid mechanics , atmospheric modeling , electrostatic devices , etc .
equation   can also be seen as a step toward the resolution of advection - diffusion equations ( see our ongoing work  @xcite for that particular category of equations ) , that of the stokes problem ( see e.g.  @xcite ) , or that of the navier - stokes problem , all on perforated domains . in fluid dynamics applications , homogeneous dirichlet boundary conditions on the perforations
are typical .
we introduce and study a dedicated multiscale finite element method ( msfem ) . the variant of msfem we consider uses _ crouzeix - raviart type _
finite elements  @xcite .
we have introduced this approach in  @xcite on a multiscale elliptic problem ( exactly of the form  ) with a highly oscillatory coefficient ( the coefficient  @xmath3 in  ) , and then extended it in  @xcite to the case of problem  . in the presence of perforations , we indeed have to improve the previously introduced approach by the addition of _ bubble functions _ to the finite element basis set .
both ingredients , crouzeix - raviart type finite elements on the one hand , and addition of bubble functions on the other hand , allow for robustness of the approach , a critical issue when the geometry of the computational domain is random .
it is well known that , for the construction of multiscale finite elements , boundary conditions set on the edges ( or facets in 3d ) of mesh elements for the definition of the basis functions play a critical role for the eventual accuracy and efficiency of the approach .
using crouzeix - raviart type elements ( see  @xcite for their original introduction in the context of classical meaning non - multiscale finite elements ) gives a definite flexibility .
in short , the continuity of the finite element basis set functions across the edges of the mesh is enforced only in a weak sense by requiring that the average of the jump vanishes on each edge .
the nonconforming approximation obtained in this manner proves to be very effective .
the above issue regarding boundary conditions on the mesh elements is all the more crucial when dealing with perforated computational domains , and may be of paramount importance for _ randomly _ perforated computational domains .
the approach is meant to be as insensitive as possible to the possible intersections between element edges and perforations .
the perforations can then be very heterogeneously distributed .
ad hoc _ construction of a mesh that as much as possible avoids intersecting the perforations is indeed prohibitively difficult .
our approach does _ not _ require a mesh of this type .
the second ingredient of our approach is the addition of bubble functions to the finite element space . as illustrated using a simple one - dimensional analysis ( see  @xcite ) , and demonstrated with the extensive set of numerical tests performed in  @xcite , some of which will be reproduced here , bubble functions definitely bring an added value for the overall accuracy of the approach .    in the vast literature devoted to similar types of problems and techniques ,
we refer the reader unfamiliar with the general context to  @xcite for some background on finite element methods in general , to the review article  @xcite and the book  @xcite ( and references therein ) for the general background on msfem , and the works  @xcite specifically addressing problems on perforated domains , either from a theoretical or a numerical standpoint .
our contribution is reviewed in section  [ sec : msfem ] .
that section begins with some generalities about our msfem approach , contained in subsection  [ ssec : presentation2d ] .
in particular , we briefly mention an error estimate that we have established in the case of periodic perforations .
we are unfortunately unable to extend it to the case of random perforations .
it is however useful to illustrate the nice properties of the approach .
subsection  [ ssec : numerical - tests ] is then devoted to some numerical tests that show the announced robustness of the approach in the presence of random perforations .
all the numerical tests we report below have been performed using the finite elements software freefem++  @xcite .
we first recall some basic ingredients of elliptic homogenization theory in the periodic setting .
we consider , in a regular domain @xmath20 in @xmath4 , the problem @xmath21 = f
\quad \text{in $ { \cal d}$ } ,   \\ \noalign{\vskip 5pt } u^{\varepsilon}=0 \quad \text{on $ \partial { \cal d}$ } ,   \end{array } \right.\ ] ] where the matrix @xmath22 is symmetric and @xmath23-periodic .
we manipulate for simplicity _ symmetric _ matrices , but our discussion carries over to non symmetric matrices up to slight modifications .    the corrector problem associated to ( [ eq : pb0-per ] ) reads , for @xmath9 fixed in @xmath4 , @xmath24 it has a unique solution up to the addition of a constant .
then , the homogenized coefficients read @xmath25_{ij } = \int_q e_i^t a_{\rm per}(y ) \left(e_j + \nabla w_{e_j}(y ) \right)dy$ ] , where @xmath26 is the unit cube and @xmath27 is the canonical basis of @xmath4 .
the main result of periodic homogenization theory is that , as @xmath13 goes to zero , the solution @xmath28 to ( [ eq : pb0-per ] ) converges to @xmath29 solution to @xmath30 = f \quad \text{in $ { \cal d}$ } ,   \\ \noalign{\vskip 5pt } u^\star=0 \quad \text{on $ \partial { \cal d}$}. \end{array}\right.\ ] ] the convergence holds in @xmath31 , and weakly in @xmath32 .
the correctors @xmath33 , @xmath34 , may then also be used to `` correct '' @xmath29 in order to identify the behavior of @xmath28 in the strong topology @xmath32 .
practically , at the price of only computing @xmath35 periodic problems ( [ eq : cor - per - intro ] ) , the solution to problem ( [ eq : pb0-per ] ) can be efficiently approached for @xmath13 small .
the random setting is , for the simple equation  , a straightforward extension of the periodic setting . skipping all technicalities related to the definition of the probabilistic setting , which we assume discrete stationary and ergodic ( we refer e.g. to  @xcite for all details )
, we now fix @xmath36 a square matrix of size @xmath35 , which is assumed stationary in the sense that @xmath37 ( where  @xmath38 is an ergodic group action ) and which is assumed to enjoy the classical assumptions of uniform ellipticity and boundedness .
then we consider the boundary value problem @xmath39 standard results of stochastic homogenization  @xcite apply and allow to find the homogenized limit of problem ( [ eq : pb0-stoc ] ) .
the solution @xmath40 to ( [ eq : pb0-stoc ] ) converges to the solution to ( [ eq : pb0-star ] ) where the homogenized matrix is now defined as @xmath41_{ij }   =   { \mathbb{e}}\left(\int_q e_i^t a(y,\cdot ) \
, \left ( e_j+\nabla w_{e_j}(y,\cdot)\right ) \,dy\right),\ ] ] where @xmath26 is the unit cube and where , for any @xmath42 , @xmath43 is the solution ( unique up to the addition of a random constant ) to @xmath44 = 0 \quad \hbox{\rm a.s . on $ { \mathbb{r}}^d$ } ,   \\ \\
\nabla w_p \quad \mbox{is stationary in the sense of ( \ref{eq : stationnarite - disc } ) } ,   \\ \\ { \displaystyle}{\mathbb{e}}\left(\int_q \nabla w_p(y,\cdot)\,dy\right ) = 0 .
\end{array } \right.\ ] ] a striking difference between the stochastic setting and the periodic setting can be observed comparing ( [ eq : cor - per - intro ] ) and ( [ eq : correcteur - random ] ) . in the periodic case ,
the corrector problem is posed on a bounded domain ( namely , the periodic cell  @xmath26 ) , since the corrector @xmath43 is periodic . in sharp contrast , the corrector problem ( [ eq : correcteur - random ] ) of the random case is posed on the whole space @xmath4 . in the numerical practice ,
truncations of that problem have to be considered , typically on large domains  @xmath45 ( say , @xmath46 ) and using periodic boundary conditions : @xmath47 = 0 , \\ \\
w_p^n(\cdot,\omega ) \mbox { is $ q_n$-periodic}. \end{array } \right.\ ] ] the random matrix @xmath48 defined by @xmath49_{ij }   =   \frac{1}{|q_n| } \int_{q_n } e_i^t a(y,\omega ) \
, \left ( e_j+\nabla w_{e_j}^n(y,\omega)\right ) \,dy\ ] ] converges ( almost surely ) to @xmath50 when @xmath51 ( see e.g.  @xcite ) .
important theoretical questions about the quality and the rate of the convergence in terms of the truncation size arise ( see , in particular , the pioneering works by a.  bourgeat and a.  piatnitski  @xcite and a recent series of works by a.  gloria , f.  otto and their collaborators  @xcite ) .
the error @xmath52 \big ) + \big ( { \mathbb{e}}\left [ a_n^\star \right ] - a_n^\star(\omega ) \big)\ ] ] is the sum of a systematic error and of a statistical error ( the first and second terms in the above right - hand side , respectively ) .
it is observed , and theoretically demonstrated in some cases , that the statistical error decays with a slower rate with respect to @xmath53 than the systematic error . for large values of @xmath53 ,
the statistical error is therefore dominating the systematic error . in
what follows , we focus on reducing the statistical error , and describe approaches to more efficiently compute @xmath54 $ ] , for a given truncated domain @xmath45 .
the direct approach for numerical random homogenization consists in using empirical means approximating the expectation @xmath55 of the homogenized coefficient computed on a truncated domain of size  @xmath53 .
variance issues are central .
[ [ description - of - the - approach . ] ] description of the approach .
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    the variance reduction technique known as the technique of _ antithetic variables _ has been adapted to the homogenization context in  @xcite .
it consists in concurrently considering two sets of configurations for the random material instead of only one set .
the two sets of configurations are deduced one from the other ( see figure  [ fig_b12 ] for a simple example ) . fix @xmath56 and consider @xmath57 i.i.d .
copies @xmath58 of @xmath59 .
construct next @xmath57 i.i.d .
_ antithetic _ random fields @xmath60 , @xmath61 , from the @xmath58 .
the map @xmath62 transforms the random field @xmath63 into another , so - called _ antithetic _ , field @xmath64 .
the transformation is performed in such a way that , for each @xmath65 , @xmath64 has the same law as @xmath63 , namely the law of the matrix  @xmath66 .
somewhat vaguely stated , if @xmath66 was obtained in a coin tossing game ( using a fair coin ) , then @xmath64 would be _ head _ each time @xmath63 is _ tail _ and vice versa . then , for each @xmath61 , we solve two corrector problems of the type  .
one is associated to the original @xmath63 , the other one is associated to the antithetic field @xmath64 . using its solution @xmath67
, we define the _ antithetic homogenized matrix _
@xmath68 , the elements of which read , for @xmath69 , @xmath70_{ij } =   \frac{1}{|q_n| } \int_{q_n } e_i^t b^m(y,\omega ) \ \left(e_j + \nabla v_{e_j}^{n ,
m}(y,\omega ) \right ) \ , dy.\ ] ] next we set , for any @xmath61 , @xmath71 since @xmath63 and @xmath64 are identically distributed , so are @xmath72 and @xmath73 .
thus , @xmath74 is unbiased ( that is , @xmath75 ) .
in addition , it satisfies @xmath76 almost surely , because @xmath64 is ergodic .
the hope ( which is indeed confirmed by theory in simple cases and by numerical observation in all the tests we performed ) is that the new approximation  @xmath74 has a smaller variance than  @xmath72 .
it is indeed the case under appropriate assumptions .     together with its antithetic field @xmath77 for the famous random checkerboard ( reproduced from  @xcite ) .
[ fig_b12],width=336 ]    [ [ foundation - of - the - approach . ] ] foundation of the approach .
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    some theoretical elements that give a foundation to our approach of variance reduction are collected in  @xcite .
of course , as always in this context , the one - dimensional setting , being explicit , may be entirely analyzed .
two particular higher dimensional cases were also analyzed .
the first one is a `` genuinely '' random setting , the second one is a `` weakly random '' case . in all such cases , under appropriate assumptions ,
the approach is shown to qualitatively reduce the variance .
a quantitative assessment of the reduction is however out of reach .
only numerical tests can provide some information .
[ [ numerical - tests . ] ] numerical tests .
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    the tests performed concern three different `` input '' random fields @xmath36 in  , some i.i.d . , some correlated , with various correlation lengths .
we have investigated variance reduction on a typical diagonal  @xmath78_{11}$ ] , or off - diagonal  @xmath78_{12}$ ] entry of the approximate homogenized matrix  @xmath79 , as well as on the eigenvalues of the matrix , and the eigenvalues of the associated differential operator  @xmath80 $ ] ( supplied with homogeneous dirichlet boundary conditions on  @xmath81 ) . we show a typical result on figure  [ fig_b12_result ] , for a two - dimensional test case where @xmath82 is given by @xmath83 where @xmath84 , @xmath85 is the identity matrix , and @xmath86 is an i.i.d sequence of random variables such that @xmath87 , with @xmath88 and @xmath89 .
we observe on figure  [ fig_b12_result ] that the confidence interval obtained with our approach is smaller than that obtained with the standard monte carlo ( mc ) approach .
the gain in variance ( at equal computational cost ) is essentially insensitive to the size of the computational domain .
it is here between 6 and 10 . at fixed computational cost ,
the approach improves the accuracy by a factor @xmath90 .
equivalently , for a given accuracy , the computational cost is reduced by a factor @xmath91 .
( with confidence interval ) with respect to @xmath92 ( in red , the classical mc strategy , in green the antithetic variable strategy , for an equal computational cost ; reproduced from  @xcite ) .
[ fig_b12_result],width=336 ]    the approach has been extended in  @xcite to nonlinear convex stochastic homogenization problems .
the highly oscillatory problem , the euler - lagrange equation of which replaces  , is then given by @xmath93 for some appropriate @xmath94 .
we assume that @xmath95 is strictly convex with respect to its third argument , and that , for any @xmath96 , the random field @xmath97 is stationary in the sense of  .
we also assume that @xmath95 satisfies a standard growth condition ( see  @xcite for details ) .
the associated homogenized problem , the euler - lagrange equation of which replaces  , is @xmath98 where , for any @xmath99 , the homogenized energy density @xmath100 is given by @xmath101 where @xmath102 as in the linear case for the corrector problems   and  , we approximate in practice @xmath103 by @xmath104 $ ] for some large @xmath53 , the latter quantity being itself approximated by an empirical mean .
we show in  @xcite that the exact same antithetic variable technique we used in the linear case can be used to compute @xmath104 $ ] ( for any @xmath53 and any @xmath99 ) more efficiently .    to summarize , our numerical results show that the technique may be applied to a large variety of situations and has proved efficient whatever the output considered .
variance is systematically reduced .
we have observed , however , that the rate of reduction is not spectacular .
this has motivated the consideration of other approaches .
the _ control variate approach _ is a variance reduction technique known to be potentially much more efficient than the antithetic variable technique .
it however asks to have beforehand a better information on the random variables simulated . in the context of homogenization
, the work  @xcite presents a first possible investigation of the efficiency of this technique .
as briefly mentioned in the introduction , the approach aims at `` subtracting '' part of the noise , using an auxiliary problem close to the original problem .
we describe how we derive such an auxiliary problem in the next paragraph .
next , we make the setting specific , and present the variance reduction approach .
[ [ a - useful - weakly - random - setting . ] ] a useful `` weakly random '' setting .
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    one perturbative approach among many other possible ones , described in full details in  @xcite , and addressing the random material as a small perturbation of a periodic material , consists in considering a coefficient of the form @xmath105 where , with evident notation , @xmath22 is a periodic matrix modeling the unperturbed material , and @xmath106 is a periodic matrix modeling the perturbation .
consider then the case @xmath107 where the @xmath108 are , say , independent identically distributed scalar - valued random variables .
one particularly interesting case ( see  @xcite for other cases ) is when the common law of the @xmath108 is assumed to be a bernoulli law of parameter  @xmath109 ( see figure  [ fig : arnaud - bernoumat ] ) .
we now _ formally _ explain how we derive an expansion of the problem in `` powers '' of @xmath109 .
the approach has been recently proven to be rigorous in  @xcite .
5truemm    the basic observation consists in noticing that , in the corrector problem @xmath110 = 0,\ ] ] the only source of randomness comes from the coefficient @xmath111 .
therefore , in principle , if one knows the law of this coefficient , one knows the law of the corrector function @xmath112 and therefore may compute the homogenized coefficient  @xmath113 , the latter being a ( quite intricate but well defined ) function of this law . when the law of @xmath114 is an expansion in terms of a small coefficient , so is the law of @xmath43 .
consequently @xmath113 can be obtained as an expansion .
heuristically , on the cube  @xmath115^d$ ] and at order 1 in @xmath109 , the probability to get the perfect periodic material ( entirely modeled by the matrix  @xmath22 ) is @xmath116 , while the probability to obtain the unperturbed material on all cells except one ( where the material has matrix @xmath117 ) is @xmath118 .
all other configurations , with more than two cells perturbed , yield contributions of orders higher than or equal to @xmath119 .
this gives the intuition ( confirmed by the mathematical proof ) that the first order correction indeed comes from the difference between the material perfectly periodic except on one cell and the perfect material itself .
the homogenized matrix reads as @xmath120 where @xmath121 is the homogenized matrix for the unperturbed periodic material and @xmath122,\ ] ] where @xmath123 is the @xmath26-periodic corrector for @xmath22 ( solution to  ) , and @xmath124 solves @xmath125 = 0 \quad \text{in $ q_n$ } , \quad \text{$w_i^n$ is $ q_n$-periodic}.\ ] ]    the approach has been extensively tested .
it is observed that , using the perturbative approach , the large @xmath53 limit for cubes of size @xmath53 is already very well approached for small values of @xmath53 .
the computational efficiency of the approach is clear : solving the two periodic problems with coefficients @xmath22 and @xmath126 for a limited size @xmath53 is much less expensive than solving the original , random corrector problem for a much larger size @xmath53 .
when the second order term is needed ( and we will actually use it below ) , configurations with two defects have to be computed .
they all can be seen as a family of pdes , parameterized by the geometrical location of the defects .
reduced basis techniques have been shown to be useful and allow for a definite speed - up in the computation , see  @xcite .
[ [ variance - reduction - in - the - fully - random - setting . ] ] variance reduction in the `` fully random '' setting .
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    when the parameter  @xmath109 of the bernoulli law is _ not _ taken small in the definition  - of the coefficient inserted in the equation  , and thus the corrector problem  , the expansion technique we have just described is not correct , and actually we observe experimentally that it is inaccurate .
it can however serve for the construction of a control variate , useful to reduce the variance .
we recall that the field @xmath127 writes as in  . determining the field @xmath82 , given by  , on the truncated domain  @xmath45
amounts to drawing @xmath128 in each cell @xmath129 in  @xmath45 .
this allows to compute the associated ( approximate ) homogenized coefficient @xmath48 from the solution to the corrector problem   ( with @xmath130 ) , see  . in parallel to this task , we _ reconstruct _ from the specific realization of the set of @xmath131 a field that is used as a control variate .
more precisely , we set @xmath132 \right).\ ] ] in this formula , @xmath133 where @xmath134 is the deterministic coefficient corresponding to the case of _ one _ defect located at position  @xmath135 in @xmath45 ( it is actually independent of  @xmath135 thanks to the periodic boundary conditions in  ) .
the parameter  @xmath136 is a deterministic parameter , a traditional ingredient of control variate techniques , which is optimized in terms of the estimated variances of the objects at play .
it is crucial to note that the expectation of  @xmath137 is analytically computable . since by construction @xmath138 ,
the technique then consists in approximating the former ( thus the latter ) by an empirical mean . the theoretical study and
the numerical tests in  @xcite show that the variance of @xmath139 is smaller than that of @xmath48 , and hence that the quality of the approximation is improved .    as an illustration
, we use a similar case as in subsection  [ sssec : antithetic ] , which reads as   with @xmath140 . applying the above strategy
provides the results on the left part of figure  [ cv_result ] , where the variance is reduced by a factor close to 6 , that is , comparable to the technique of antithetic variables .
one may next improve on the previous results using a _
second order _ expansion with respect to @xmath109 and including in the control variate the deterministic coefficients corresponding to the case of both one and two defects .
additional parameters playing the role of @xmath136 above are needed , in order to ensure a substantial variance reduction ( see the details in  @xcite ) .
the variance reduction of such a case , of the order of 40 , is represented on the right part of figure  [ cv_result ] .     together with its confidence interval ( computed using @xmath141 i.i.d .
realizations ) . left : we use the classical mc approach ( in blue ) and the control variate approach based on   ( in black ) .
right : we use the classical mc approach ( in blue ) and the second - order control variate approach ( in red ) ( reproduced from  @xcite ) .
[ cv_result],title="fig:",width=278 ]   together with its confidence interval ( computed using @xmath141 i.i.d .
realizations ) . left : we use the classical mc approach ( in blue ) and the control variate approach based on   ( in black ) .
right : we use the classical mc approach ( in blue ) and the second - order control variate approach ( in red ) ( reproduced from  @xcite ) .
[ cv_result],title="fig:",width=278 ]      the variance reduction approach we now overview has been originally introduced by other authors for a slightly different purpose in atomistic solid - state science  @xcite .
it carries the name sqs , abbreviation of _ special quasirandom structures_. the idea there is to sample random atomistic systems by selecting systems of finite size that exhibit all the suitable statistical properties usually only obtained in the asymptotic , bulk limit . for instance , one imposes on each and every finite size sample considered to have the correct volume fraction ( proportion ) of species ( atoms , molecules , ions , etc ) , and/or the correct correlations present in the infinite limit .
to some extent , the approach is actually a particular instance of a general approach , known in many different contexts , and popularized in political sciences because it is at the foundation of many techniques used for opinion polls : _
stratified sampling_. the approach has been adapted to the homogenization context in  @xcite to which we refer the reader for a more detailed presentation .    [
[ mathematical - setting . ] ] mathematical setting .
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    before explicitly formulating the selection mechanism employed in the method , let us motivate it .
consider a formal expansion of the coefficient @xmath66 present in   and   in terms of a small parameter ( even though , as we did in the previous section , we will soon forget about the smallness assumption ) .
assume @xmath66 reads as @xmath142 for some presumably small scalar coefficient @xmath109 , where we assume that @xmath143 and @xmath144 have nice properties .
since @xmath109 is small , @xmath114 is intuitively a perturbation of the matrix - valued field @xmath143 .
at least formally ( and all this has been mathematically justified in our works ) , we may expand all quantities of homogenization theory in powers of the small parameter  @xmath109 .
in particular , the approximations  @xmath145 and @xmath146 of , respectively , the corrector  @xmath147 and the homogenized matrix  @xmath148 on the truncated domain @xmath45 , can be expanded in powers of @xmath109 : @xmath149 inserting the expansion   in the truncated corrector problem  , one easily obtains a hierarchy of equations , the first three of which reading as @xmath150 & \quad \text{in } q_n , & \quad \text{$u^n_1 $ is $ q_n$-periodic } , \\
\noalign{\vskip 3pt } - \hbox{\rm div}\,c_0 \nabla u^n_2 = \hbox{\rm div}\,\left [ \chi c_1 \nabla u^n_1 \right ] & \quad \text{in } q_n , & \quad \text{$u^n_2 $ is $ q_n$-periodic}. \end{array } \right . \ ] ] we next deduce from   and   that   holds , with @xmath151    we may now introduce the conditions that we use to select particular configurations of the environment within @xmath45 . for finite fixed @xmath53
, we say that a configuration @xmath152 satisfies the sqs conditions of order up to @xmath135 if , for any @xmath153 , the coefficient @xmath154 in the expansion   exactly matches the corresponding coefficient  @xmath155 of the analogous expansion of the exact homogenized matrix coefficient @xmath148 .
more explicitly , we speak about the sqs condition of    * order 0 if @xmath156 , that is to say , for any @xmath99 , @xmath157.\ ] ] * order 1 if @xmath158 , that is to say , for any @xmath99 , @xmath159.\end{gathered}\ ] ] * order 2 if @xmath160 , that is to say , for any @xmath99 , @xmath161.\end{gathered}\ ] ]    it is easily observed that , using such particular configurations that satisfy the sqs conditions of order up to @xmath135 , we have , in the perturbative setting considered here , @xmath162 . taking the expectation over such configurations
therefore formally provides a more accurate approximation of @xmath148 .
of course , the purpose is to apply the approach _ beyond _ the perturbative setting . it can be expected ( and it is indeed observed ) that selecting the configurations using these conditions may reduce the variance .    to make the computation of the right - hand sides of the above conditions practical ( since in theory
they can only be determined using an asymptotic limit , and are therefore as challenging to compute in practice as @xmath50 itself ) , we restrict the generality of our setting .
we assume that , in  , @xmath163 is a deterministic , _ constant _ matrix , @xmath164 is a deterministic , @xmath23-periodic matrix , and that @xmath165 , where @xmath166 are identically distributed , not necessarily independent , bounded random variables . for simplicity
, we also assume here that @xmath167 = 0 $ ] , and refer to  @xcite for more general cases . after a tedious but not complicated calculation , we obtain that the two conditions   rewrite as @xmath168 i_k^\infty,\end{aligned}\ ] ] respectively , where @xmath169 and @xmath170 . in these expressions , @xmath171 and @xmath172
solve @xmath173 = \hbox{\rm div}\,\left [ \mathbf{1}_q c_1p\right ] $ ] in @xmath4 , and @xmath174 = \hbox{\rm div}\,\left [ \mathbf{1}_{q } c_1p \right ] $ ] in @xmath45 with periodic boundary conditions , respectively .
the conditions   are called the sqs  1 and sqs  2 conditions .
on the other hand , in the particular setting chosen , condition   ( sqs  0 , in some sense ) is easily seen to be systematically satisfied when @xmath53 is an integer and the truncated approximation of   that is chosen is the periodic approximation .    [ [ selection - monte - carlo - sampling . ] ] selection monte carlo sampling .
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    the classical monte carlo sampling consists in successively generating a random configuration  @xmath175 , solving the truncated corrector problem   for that configuration , and computing the empirical mean  @xmath176 as an approximation for  @xmath50 .    in our selection monte carlo sampling
, we systematically test whether the generated configuration satisfies the required sqs conditions , up to a certain tolerance , and reject it if it does not , _ before _ solving the corrector problem   for that configuration and letting it contribute to the empirical mean .    in full generality ,
the cost of monte carlo approaches is usually dominated by the cost of draws , and therefore selection algorithms are targeted to reject as few draws as possible . in sharp contrast ( and this is a very important point which we can not emphasize enough ) , in the present context where boundary value problems are to be solved repeatedly , the cost of draws for the configuration is negligible compared to the cost of the solution procedure for such boundary value problems .
likewise , evaluating the quantities present in   is inexpensive .
therefore , the purpose of the selection mechanism is to limit the number of boundary value problems to be solved , even though this comes at the ( tiny ) price of rejecting many configurations .
we also note that , as for any selection procedure , our selection may introduce a bias ( i.e. a modification of the systematic error in  ) . in practice , we have observed that the gain in variance dominates the bias possibly introduced by the selection approach , and that the approach provides a better approximation of @xmath50 than the standard monte carlo approach .
we have studied the approach theoretically in  @xcite .
we have shown that the estimator provided ( at least in the simplest variant of our approach ) converges to the homogenized coefficient @xmath50 when the truncated domain progressively extends to the whole space .
the efficiency of the approach is also theoretically demonstrated for some particular and simple situations ( such as , again , the one - dimensional setting ) .
a comprehensive experimental study of the approach has been completed .
we include here a typical illustration of the efficiency of the approach .
we again use a similar case as in section  [ sssec : antithetic ] . considering only configurations that exactly satisfy  , we obtain the results shown on the left part of figure  [ fig : sqs_un ] .
it is also possible , among the configurations that exactly satisfy  , to select configurations that satisfy as best as possible the condition  . in practice , we generate 2000 configurations that exactly satisfy   and select among them the 100 configurations for which the difference between the left and the right - hand sides of   is the smallest .
we then obtain the results shown on the right part of figure  [ fig : sqs_un ] .     together with its confidence interval ( computed using @xmath141 i.i.d .
realizations ) as a function of @xmath53 . left : we use the classical mc approach ( in black ) and the sqs approach based on   ( in red ) .
right : we use the classical mc approach ( in black ) and the sqs approach based on   and   ( in blue ) ( reproduced from  @xcite ) .
[ fig : sqs_un],title="fig:",width=278 ]   together with its confidence interval ( computed using @xmath141 i.i.d . realizations ) as a function of @xmath53 . left : we use the classical mc approach ( in black ) and the sqs approach based on   ( in red ) .
right : we use the classical mc approach ( in black ) and the sqs approach based on   and   ( in blue ) ( reproduced from  @xcite ) .
[ fig : sqs_un],title="fig:",width=278 ]    in the case considered here ( for which the contrast in the field @xmath66 is equal to 3 ) , the variance is reduced by a factor 20 when using configurations that exactly satisfy  , and by a factor 300 if   is enforced as well . to compare this variance reduction approach with the two previous ones
, it is however needed to consider a case for which the contrast in @xmath66 is similar . in that case , the variance is reduced by a factor of 9 when using configurations that exactly satisfy  , and by a factor of 60 if   is enforced as well .    in all the test cases we have considered ( see  @xcite for details ) ,
we have observed that the systematic error is kept approximately constant by the approach ( it might even be reduced ) , while the variance is reduced by several orders of magnitude .
such an efficiency is achieved at almost no additional cost with respect to the classical monte carlo algorithm .
we consider the problem   in two dimensions , both for the analysis and for the numerical tests .
we however emphasize that , of course , the approach can be applied to the three dimensional context and that , most likely , the theoretical analysis we review here can also be extended to the three dimensional case .
interestingly , our analysis in  @xcite on a similar problem was performed in both the two and three dimensional settings .
we also assume , for simplicity , that the domain @xmath1 is a polygonal domain .
we define a mesh @xmath177 on @xmath1 , i.e. a decomposition of @xmath1 into polygons each of diameter at most @xmath178 , and denote by @xmath179 the set of all the internal edges of @xmath177 .
note that we mesh @xmath1 and not the perforated domain @xmath180 .
this allows us to use coarse elements ( independently of the fine scale present in the geometry of @xmath180 ) , and leaves us with a lot of flexibility . the mesh does not have to be consistent with the perforations @xmath12 .
some nodes may be in @xmath12 , and likewise some edges may intersect @xmath12 .
see figure  [ fig : perforation ] for a representation of the perforated domain @xmath180 .
contains ( possibly random ) perforations @xmath12 .
the perforated domain is @xmath14 .
the boundary of @xmath180 is the union of @xmath181 ( the part of the boundary of the perforations that is included in @xmath182 ) and of @xmath183 . [
fig : perforation ] ]      to construct our msfem approach , we introduce the space @xmath184 = 0 \text { for all } e\in \mathcal{e}_h , \quad u=0 \text { in $ b_{\varepsilon}$ and on $ \partial { \mathcal d}$ } \end{array } \right\}\ ] ] where  @xmath185 $ ] denotes the jump of  @xmath186 across an edge , and the subspace @xmath187 of @xmath188 .
we define the crouzeix - raviart msfem space @xmath189 as the orthogonal complement of @xmath190 in @xmath188 , where by orthogonality we mean orthogonality for the scalar product @xmath191 .
it is easy to see that we may write @xmath192 where the functions @xmath193 and @xmath194 are respectively defined as follows .
first , for any mesh element @xmath62 that is not a subset of the perforations @xmath12 ( i.e. @xmath195 ) , we define @xmath196 as the solution to @xmath197 with , for each edge @xmath198 of @xmath62 which is an internal edge of @xmath177 , @xmath199 and @xmath200 on @xmath198 for some constant @xmath201 . for any edge @xmath198 of @xmath62 which belongs to @xmath202 , we set @xmath203 on @xmath198 .
second , for any internal edge @xmath204 that is not a subset of the perforations @xmath12 , we denote by @xmath205 and @xmath206 the two triangles sharing this edge , set @xmath207 , and consider @xmath208 solution to @xmath209 with , for each edge @xmath210 which is an internal edge of @xmath177 , @xmath211 and @xmath212 on @xmath213 for some constant @xmath214 and @xmath215 and @xmath216 on @xmath204 for some constant @xmath217 ( with an a priori different constant on the two sides of @xmath204 ) . for any edge @xmath218 , we set @xmath219 on @xmath213 .
although this is not the focus of the present review , which specifically addresses approaches in the presence of randomness , we briefly mention for completeness that the approach we have just introduced enjoys suitable theoretical properties , at least in the periodic setting .
one major reason why we mention this theoretical analysis is that , although there exist many works in the literature dealing with error estimates for msfem type approaches , none of them seems to apply ( to the best of our knowledge ) to problems set on perforated domains . in the periodic
setting ( and unfortunately we do not know how to extend our analysis to the random setting ) , we have established in  @xcite ( in dimension  2 , under technical conditions that are made precise in  @xcite , and using in particular arguments already present in  @xcite ) the following error estimate : @xmath226 for some universal constant  @xmath227 independent from @xmath178 , @xmath13 and @xmath2 , but depending on the geometry of the mesh and other parameters of the problem .
the norm used in the left - hand side of   is the energy norm associated with the form @xmath228 , namely @xmath229 for any @xmath230 .
some important comments are in order .
first of all , the size @xmath13 of the right - hand side of   owes to the fact that , as it is well known theoretically ( see  @xcite ) , the size of the exact solution  @xmath186 ( and thus that of the corresponding approximation  @xmath231 ) is  @xmath13 in @xmath232 norm .
taking this scaling factor into account , the actual rate of convergence for the numerical approach we design is therefore given by @xmath233 .
second of all , if the bubble functions @xmath193 are not included in the discretization space , the estimate   is replaced by @xmath234 and the relative error does not converge to 0 in the limit when @xmath235 and next @xmath236 , which is the relevant limit for our numerical experiments .
this variant without bubbles is considered in our numerical tests for the sake of comparison .
the proof of   is based upon a series of somewhat classical ingredients .
we write @xmath237 where the function @xmath238 is defined as @xmath239 \ \phi_e(x),\ ] ] where the functions @xmath193 and @xmath194 are defined by   and   respectively and @xmath240 is defined as the @xmath241-orthogonal projection of @xmath2 on the space of piecewise constant functions .
the most delicate contribution in the error to estimate is the first one in  .
given the standard finite element interpolation result @xmath242 and the fact that @xmath238 satisfies @xmath243 we expect @xmath244 to be close to the exact solution @xmath186 .
we establish that @xmath245 \cdot \nabla \phi + \sum_{t\in \mathcal{t}_h } \int_{{\mathcal d}_{\varepsilon}\cap t }   \left[-\delta ( { \varepsilon}^2 w(\cdot/{\varepsilon } ) f - v_h ) \right ] \phi \\ + { \varepsilon}^2 \sum_{e \in \mathcal{e}_h } \int_{e \cap { \mathcal d}_{\varepsilon } }   [ [ u - v_h ] ] \
n \cdot \nabla ( w(\cdot/{\varepsilon } ) f ) , \label{eq : decompo_error}\end{gathered}\ ] ] where @xmath246 and @xmath247 denotes the periodic corrector associated to the periodic homogenization problem , that is the periodic solution to the problem @xmath248 in @xmath249 , @xmath250 in the perforation @xmath251 ( where @xmath252 is the unit cell ) .
we refer to  @xcite for more background on homogenization theory .
* the first term is small because of a classical homogenization result ( see again  @xcite ) that states that @xmath253 is indeed an accurate approximation of @xmath186 , * the second term is small because , at the leading order term in @xmath13 , the first factor in the integrand is equal to @xmath254 which is small due to  , * the third term is estimated as an integral involving highly oscillatory periodic functions .
we now solve   for some particular settings , comparing our approach with other existing msfem type methods .
our primary focus is the possible intersections of the perforations with the edges of mesh elements .
we address this question in section  [ ssec : num - rob ] , and check there the robustness of our approach with respect to the ( temporarily deterministic , but still variable ) location of the perforations : the fact that the mesh intersects , or does not intersect , the perforations has a very little influence on the ( good ) accuracy of our approach , in contrast to other approaches .
our numerical tests culminate with a couple of test - cases that show the excellent performance of our approach in the presence of randomness .    for the sake of completeness ,
we begin our numerical tests with a comparison ( for a given set of fixed perforations ) with existing numerical msfem type approaches , in both cases when we enrich or not the variational space with bubble functions ( in the case of our crouzeix - raviart msfem approach , the functions @xmath193 defined by  ) .
this is the purpose of subsection  [ ssec : num - comp ] .
we mesh @xmath1 and not the perforated domain @xmath180 .
some nodes may thus be in the perforations @xmath12 , some edges may intersect @xmath12 , etc .
we then face difficulties when using the msfem variant with linear boundary conditions ( a variant that we compare here with our approach ) to directly solve  . indeed , properly defining the msfem basis functions e.g. when edges intersect @xmath12 would not be straightforward .
similar difficulties arise for the oversampling variant .
for this reason , we do not consider  , but the penalized version of that problem as mentioned above .
in contrast , note that the crouzeix - raviart variant we introduce here can be used either on   or on its penalized version .
we solve   on the domain @xmath255 , with the right - hand side  @xmath256 , and we take @xmath12 the set of discs of radius @xmath257 periodically located on the regular grid of period @xmath258 .
the reference solution is computed on a mesh of size @xmath259 .      * the standard q1 finite element method on the coarse mesh of size @xmath178 .
of course , we do not expect that method to perform well for this multiscale problem and we only consider it as a `` normalization '' . * the msfem with linear boundary conditions .
although this method is now a bit outdated , it is still considered as the primary msfem approach , upon which all the other variants are built . * the msfem with oscillatory boundary conditions .
this variant is restricted to the two - dimensional setting .
it uses boundary conditions provided by the solution to the oscillatory ordinary differential equation obtained by taking the trace of the original equation on the edge considered .
the approach performs fairly well on a number of cases , although it may also fail .
* the variant of msfem using oversampling .
this variant is often considered as the `` gold standard '' , although it includes a parameter ( the oversampling ratio ) , the value of which should be carefully chosen .
when this parameter is taken large , the method becomes ( possibly prohibitively ) expensive .
in addition , we consider for each of those approaches , and for our specific crouzeix - raviart type approach , two variants : one with , and the other without a specific enrichment of the basis set elements using bubble functions .
for all approaches but the crouzeix - raviart type approach that we propose , the bubble @xmath260 on the quadrangle @xmath26 is defined as the solution to @xmath261 for our crouzeix - raviart approach , we recall that the bubble @xmath260 is defined by  .    for a given mesh size @xmath178 , the cost for computing the basis functions ( offline stage ) varies from one msfem variant to the other .
however , for a fixed @xmath178 , all methods without ( respectively , with ) bubble functions essentially share the same cost to solve the macroscopic problem on @xmath1 ( online stage ) .
more precisely , for a given cartesian mesh , and when using variants including the bubble functions , there are 1.5 times more degrees of freedom in our crouzeix - raviart approach than in the three alternative msfem approaches mentioned above . since a logarithmic scaling is used for the x - axis in the figures below , this extra cost does not change the qualitative conclusions we draw below .
the numerical results we have obtained in the regime where the meshsize @xmath178 is of the order of , or larger than , the parameter @xmath13 are presented on  figure  [ fig : errors ] .
for all values of the meshsize  @xmath178 , and for both the @xmath241 and the broken @xmath232 norms , a definite superiority of our approach over all other approaches is observed , and the interest of adding bubble functions to the basis set is , for each approach , also evident .
a side remark is the following . on figure  [ fig : errors ] , we observe that , when using bubble functions , the error decreases as @xmath178 increases .
this might seem counterintuitive at first sight .
note however that , when @xmath178 increases , the cost of computing each basis function increases , as we need to solve a local problem ( discretized on a mesh of size @xmath262 controlled by the value of @xmath13 ) on a larger coarse element .
in contrast to traditional fem , increasing @xmath178 does not correspond to reducing the overall computational cost .
for msfem approaches , increasing @xmath178 actually corresponds to decreasing the online cost but increasing the offline cost .
the regime of interest is that of moderate values of @xmath178 , for which the offline stage cost is acceptable .
we only show the right part of figure  [ fig : errors ] ( corresponding to large values of @xmath178 , leading to a prohibitively expensive offline stage ) for the sake of completeness
.    , left , and @xmath232-broken , right ) errors with various approaches in the regimes @xmath263 and @xmath264 : fem  the standard q1 finite elements , no os  msfem with linear boundary conditions , osc  msfem with oscillatory boundary conditions , os  msfem with oversampling ( where the size of the quadrangles used to compute the basis functions is @xmath265 ) , cr  the crouzeix - raviart type msfem approach we propose .
results for all these methods are represented by solid lines .
the dashed lines correspond to the variants of these methods where we enrich the finite element spaces using bubble functions ( reproduced from  @xcite ) .
[ fig : errors],title="fig : " ] , left , and @xmath232-broken , right ) errors with various approaches in the regimes @xmath263 and @xmath264 : fem  the standard q1 finite elements , no os  msfem with linear boundary conditions , osc  msfem with oscillatory boundary conditions , os  msfem with oversampling ( where the size of the quadrangles used to compute the basis functions is @xmath265 ) , cr  the crouzeix - raviart type msfem approach we propose .
results for all these methods are represented by solid lines .
the dashed lines correspond to the variants of these methods where we enrich the finite element spaces using bubble functions ( reproduced from  @xcite ) .
[ fig : errors],title="fig : " ]      in this section , we perform a series of tests with the specific purpose of testing the robustness of the approach with respect to intersections of the mesh and the perforations .
given the flexibility of crouzeix - raviart type finite elements in terms of boundary conditions , we expect our approach to be particularly effective ( and therefore considerably superior to other approaches ) when some edges of the mesh happen to intersect perforations of the domain . the more frequent such intersections , the more important the difference .
we solve   on the domain @xmath255 , with a constant right - hand side  @xmath266 , and we take @xmath12 the set of discs of radius @xmath267 periodically located on the regular grid of period @xmath268 .
we compute the reference solution , and consider 3 variants of msfem : the linear version , the oversampling version and the crouzeix - raviart version .
the last three approaches are implemented in the variant that includes bubble functions in the basis set and applied with a mesh of size @xmath269 .
we perform two sets of numerical experiments .
they are identical except for what concerns the relative position of the mesh with respect to the perforations .
the difference between the two sets of tests is that , from one set of tests to the other one , the perforations are shifted by @xmath270 in the directions @xmath271 and @xmath272 . in our test  1 , no edge intersects any perforation , while , on our test  2 , many edges actually intersect perforations ( see figure  [ fig : decalage - test1 ] ) .
to some extent , the situation of test 1 is the best case scenario ( where as few edges as possible intersect the perforations ) and the other situation is the worst case scenario .
the numerical solutions are shown on figure  [ fig : decalage - test1 ] .
the numerical errors , computed both in @xmath241 and @xmath232-broken norms , are correspondingly displayed on tables  [ table : test1 ] and  [ table : test2 ] , respectively .
more than the actual values obtained for each case , this is the trend of difference between table  [ table : test1 ] and table  [ table : test2 ] that is the practically important feature .
a comparison between the two tables indeed show that , qualitatively and in either of the norms used for measuring the error , the linear version and the oversampling version of msfem are both much more sensitive to edges intersecting perforations than the crouzeix - raviart version of msfem .
in particular , the gain of our approach with respect to the linear version of msfem is much higher in our test 2 ( which is , from the geometrical viewpoint , the worst case scenario ) than in test 1 .
this confirms the intuition of a better flexibility of our approach .
this also allows for expecting a much better behavior of that approach for non - periodic multiscale perforated problems for which it is extremely difficult , practically , to avoid repeated intersections of perforations with mesh edges .
this is confirmed by the numerical experiments we perform in the next paragraph .
we have tested several examples of randomly distributed perforations , two of them being shown on figure  [ fig : ex - non - per ] . for each of them , the domain @xmath273 is meshed using quadrangles of size @xmath178 , with @xmath274 .
the reference solution is again computed on a mesh of size @xmath259 .     according to the uniform distribution .
left : the perforations are 100 rectangles , the width and height of which are uniformly distributed between 0.02 and 0.05 .
right : the perforations are 60 rectangles , the width ( resp .
the height ) of which is uniformly distributed between 0.02 and 0.04 ( resp .
0.02 and 0.4 ) ( reproduced from  @xcite ) .
[ fig : ex - non - per],title="fig : " ]   according to the uniform distribution . left : the perforations are 100 rectangles ,
the width and height of which are uniformly distributed between 0.02 and 0.05 .
right : the perforations are 60 rectangles , the width ( resp .
the height ) of which is uniformly distributed between 0.02 and 0.04 ( resp .
0.02 and 0.4 ) ( reproduced from  @xcite ) .
[ fig : ex - non - per],title="fig : " ]    errors are shown on figure  [ fig : errors - non - per3 ] ( resp .
figure  [ fig : errors - non - per5 ] ) for the test - case shown on the left ( resp .
right ) part of figure  [ fig : ex - non - per ] .
our approach provides results at least as accurate as , and often more accurate than the msfem approach with oversampling on quadrangles of size @xmath265 .    , left , and @xmath232-broken , right ) errors with the same approaches as on figure  [ fig : errors ] for the test - case shown on the left part of figure  [ fig : ex - non - per ] ( reproduced from  @xcite ) .
[ fig : errors - non - per3],title="fig : " ] , left , and @xmath232-broken , right ) errors with the same approaches as on figure  [ fig : errors ] for the test - case shown on the left part of figure  [ fig : ex - non - per ] ( reproduced from  @xcite ) .
[ fig : errors - non - per3],title="fig : " ]    , left , and @xmath232-broken , right ) errors with the same approaches as on figure  [ fig : errors ] for the test - case shown on the right part of figure  [ fig : ex - non - per ] ( reproduced from  @xcite ) .
[ fig : errors - non - per5],title="fig : " ] , left , and @xmath232-broken , right ) errors with the same approaches as on figure  [ fig : errors ] for the test - case shown on the right part of figure  [ fig : ex - non - per ] ( reproduced from  @xcite ) .
[ fig : errors - non - per5],title="fig : " ]    * acknowledgements : * the work of the two authors is partially supported by eoard under grant fa8655 - 13 - 1 - 3061 and by onr under grant n00014 - 15 - 1 - 2777 .
the authors would like to thank their many friends and collaborators on the issues presented here , in particular x. blanc ( paris 7 ) , p .-
l .  lions ( collge de france ) , a.  lozinski ( besanon ) and w.  minvielle .      ,
_ introduction to numerical stochastic homogenization and the related computational challenges : some recent developments _ , in _ multiscale modeling and analysis for materials simulation _ , w. bao and q. du eds . ,
lecture notes series , institute for mathematical sciences ( national university of singapore ) , vol .
22 , 2011 , pp .  197 - 272 .          , _ mixed multiscale methods for heterogeneous elliptic problems _ , in _ numerical analysis of multiscale problems _ , i.g .
graham , t.y .
hou , o. lakkis and r. scheichl eds . ,
lecture notes in computational science and engineering , vol .
83 , springer , 2011 , pp .
243 - 283 .      ,
_ variance reduction in stochastic homogenization : the technique of antithetic variables _ , in _ numerical analysis of multiscale computations _ , b.  engquist , o.  runborg and r.  tsai eds . ,
lecture notes in computational science and engineering , vol .
82 , springer , 2012 , pp .  47 - 70 .    , _ variance reduction in stochastic homogenization using antithetic variables _ , markov processes and related fields 18 ( 2012 ) 31 - 66 ( preliminary version available at http://cermics.enpc.fr/@xmath275legoll/hdr/fl24.pdf ) .              , _ a reduced basis approach for variational problems with stochastic parameters : application to heat conduction with variable robin coefficient _ , comput . methods appl .
mech . eng .
198(41 - 44 ) ( 2009 ) 3187 - 3206 .        , _
approximation numrique dune classe de problmes en homognisation stochastique [ numerical approximation of a class of problems in stochastic homogenization ] _ , c. r. acad .
srie i 348 ( 2010 ) 99 - 103 .                          , _ some numerical approaches for `` weakly '' random homogenization _ , springer lecture notes in computational science and engineering , g. kreiss et al .
( eds . ) , numerical mathematics and advanced applications 2009 , pp .  29 - 45 .        , _ msfem  la crouzeix - raviart for highly oscillatory elliptic problems _ , in * partial differential equations : theory , control and approximation , in honor of the scientific heritage of jacques - louis lions * , ph.g .
ciarlet , t. li and y.  maday eds . ,
springer , 2014 , pp .  265 - 294 .                          , _ nonconforming multiscale finite element method for stokes flows in heterogeneous media .
part i : methodologies and numerical experiments _ , siam multiscale modeling & simulation 13(4 ) ( 2015 ) 1146 - 1172 .