Processing math: 56%
Research article

SVD-Krylov based techniques for structure-preserving reduced order modelling of second-order systems

  • Correction on: Mathematical Modelling and Control 1: 134-135
  • Received: 21 March 2021 Accepted: 16 June 2021 Published: 22 June 2021
  • We introduce an efficient structure-preserving model-order reduction technique for the large-scale second-order linear dynamical systems by imposing two-sided projection matrices. The projectors are formed based on the features of the singular value decomposition (SVD) and Krylov-based model-order reduction methods. The left projector is constructed by utilizing the concept of the observability Gramian of the systems and the right one is made by following the notion of the interpolation-based technique iterative rational Krylov algorithm (IRKA). It is well-known that the proficient model-order reduction technique IRKA cannot ensure system stability, and the Gramian based methods are computationally expensive. Another issue is preserving the second-order structure in the reduced-order model. The structure-preserving model-order reduction provides a more exact approximation to the original model with maintaining some significant physical properties. In terms of these perspectives, the proposed method can perform better by preserving the second-order structure and stability of the system with minimized H2-norm. Several model examples are presented that illustrated the capability and accuracy of the introducing technique.

    Citation: Md. Motlubar Rahman, Mahtab Uddin, M. Monir Uddin, L. S. Andallah. SVD-Krylov based techniques for structure-preserving reduced order modelling of second-order systems[J]. Mathematical Modelling and Control, 2021, 1(2): 79-89. doi: 10.3934/mmc.2021006

    Related Papers:

    [1] Qian Lin, Yan Zhu . Unicyclic graphs with extremal exponential Randić index. Mathematical Modelling and Control, 2021, 1(3): 164-171. doi: 10.3934/mmc.2021015
    [2] Zhen Lin . On the sum of powers of the Aα-eigenvalues of graphs. Mathematical Modelling and Control, 2022, 2(2): 55-64. doi: 10.3934/mmc.2022007
    [3] Iman Malmir . Novel closed-loop controllers for fractional nonlinear quadratic systems. Mathematical Modelling and Control, 2023, 3(4): 345-354. doi: 10.3934/mmc.2023028
    [4] Zhibo Cheng, Pedro J. Torres . Periodic solutions of the Lp-Minkowski problem with indefinite weight. Mathematical Modelling and Control, 2022, 2(1): 7-12. doi: 10.3934/mmc.2022002
    [5] Mrutyunjaya Sahoo, Dhabaleswar Mohapatra, S. Chakraverty . Wave solution for time fractional geophysical KdV equation in uncertain environment. Mathematical Modelling and Control, 2025, 5(1): 61-72. doi: 10.3934/mmc.2025005
    [6] Vladimir Stojanovic . Fault-tolerant control of a hydraulic servo actuator via adaptive dynamic programming. Mathematical Modelling and Control, 2023, 3(3): 181-191. doi: 10.3934/mmc.2023016
    [7] Jiaquan Huang, Zhen Jia, Peng Zuo . Improved collaborative filtering personalized recommendation algorithm based on k-means clustering and weighted similarity on the reduced item space. Mathematical Modelling and Control, 2023, 3(1): 39-49. doi: 10.3934/mmc.2023004
    [8] Qian Wang, Xue Han . Comparing the number of ideals in quadratic number fields. Mathematical Modelling and Control, 2022, 2(4): 268-271. doi: 10.3934/mmc.2022025
    [9] Yongming Li, Shou Ma, Kunting Yu, Xingli Guo . Vehicle kinematic and dynamic modeling for three-axles heavy duty vehicle. Mathematical Modelling and Control, 2022, 2(4): 176-184. doi: 10.3934/mmc.2022018
    [10] Yanchao He, Yuzhen Bai . Finite-time stability and applications of positive switched linear delayed impulsive systems. Mathematical Modelling and Control, 2024, 4(2): 178-194. doi: 10.3934/mmc.2024016
  • We introduce an efficient structure-preserving model-order reduction technique for the large-scale second-order linear dynamical systems by imposing two-sided projection matrices. The projectors are formed based on the features of the singular value decomposition (SVD) and Krylov-based model-order reduction methods. The left projector is constructed by utilizing the concept of the observability Gramian of the systems and the right one is made by following the notion of the interpolation-based technique iterative rational Krylov algorithm (IRKA). It is well-known that the proficient model-order reduction technique IRKA cannot ensure system stability, and the Gramian based methods are computationally expensive. Another issue is preserving the second-order structure in the reduced-order model. The structure-preserving model-order reduction provides a more exact approximation to the original model with maintaining some significant physical properties. In terms of these perspectives, the proposed method can perform better by preserving the second-order structure and stability of the system with minimized H2-norm. Several model examples are presented that illustrated the capability and accuracy of the introducing technique.



    Let C denote the complex plane and Cn the n-dimensional complex Euclidean space with an inner product defined as z,w=nj=1zj¯wj. Let B(a,r)={zCn:|za|<r} be the open ball of Cn. In particular, the open unit ball is defined as B=B(0,1).

    Let H(B) denote the set of all holomorphic functions on B and S(B) the set of all holomorphic self-mappings of B. For given φS(B) and uH(B), the weighted composition operator on or between some subspaces of H(B) is defined by

    Wu,φf(z)=u(z)f(φ(z)).

    If u1, then Wu,φ is reduced to the composition operator usually denoted by Cφ. If φ(z)=z, then Wu,φ is reduced to the multiplication operator usually denoted by Mu. Since Wu,φ=MuCφ, Wu,φ can be regarded as the product of Mu and Cφ.

    If n=1, B becomes the open unit disk in C usually denoted by D. Let Dm be the mth differentiation operator on H(D), that is,

    Dmf(z)=f(m)(z),

    where f(0)=f. D1 denotes the classical differentiation operator denoted by D. As expected, there has been some considerable interest in investigating products of differentiation and other related operators. For example, the most common products DCφ and CφD were extensively studied in [1,10,11,12,13,23,25,26], and the products

    MuCφD,CφMuD,MuDCφ,CφDMu,DMuCφ,DCφMu (1.1)

    were also extensively studied in [14,18,22,27]. Following the study of the operators in (1.1), people naturally extend to study the operators (see [5,6,30])

    MuCφDm,CφMuDm,MuDmCφ,CφDmMu,DmMuCφ,DmCφMu.

    Other examples of products involving differentiation operators can be found in [7,8,19,32] and the related references.

    As studying on the unit disk becomes more mature, people begin to become interested in exploring related properties on the unit ball. One method for extending the differentiation operator to Cn is the radial derivative operator

    f(z)=nj=1zjfzj(z).

    Naturally, replacing D by in (1.1), we obtain the following operators

    MuCφ,CφMu,MuCφ,CφMu,MuCφ,CφMu. (1.2)

    Recently, these operators have been studied in [31]. Other operators involving radial derivative operators have been studied in [21,33,34].

    Interestingly, the radial derivative operator can be defined iteratively, namely, mf can be defined as mf=(m1f). Similarly, using the radial derivative operator can yield the related operators

    MuCφm,CφMum,MumCφ,CφmMu,mMuCφ,mCφMu. (1.3)

    Clearly, the operators in (1.3) are more complex than those in (1.2). Since CφMum=MuφCφm, the operator MuCφm can be regarded as the simplest one in (1.3) which was first studied and denoted as mu,φ in [24]. Recently, it has been studied again because people need to obtain more properties about spaces to characterize its properties (see [29]).

    To reconsider the operator CφmMu, people find the fact

    CφmMu=mi=0Cimi(miu)φ,φ. (1.4)

    Motivated by (1.4), people directly studied the sum operator (see [2,28])

    Smu,φ=mi=0MuiCφi,

    where uiH(B), i=¯0,m, and φS(B). Particularly, if we set u0um10 and um=u, then Smu,φ=MuCφm; if we set u0um10 and um=uφ, then Smu,φ=CφMum. In [28], Stević et al. studied the operators Smu,φ from Hardy spaces to weighted-type spaces on the unit ball and obtained the following results.

    Theorem A. Let mN, ujH(B), j=¯0,m, φS(B), and μ a weight function on B. Then, the operator Smu,φ:HpHμ is bounded and

    supzBμ(z)|uj(φ(z))||φ(z)|<+,j=¯1,m, (1.5)

    if and only if

    I0=supzBμ(z)|u0(z)|(1|φ(z)|2)np<+

    and

    Ij=supzBμ(z)|uj(z)||φ(z)|(1|φ(z)|2)np+j<+,j=¯1,m.

    Theorem B. Let mN, ujH(B), j=¯0,m, φS(B), and μ a weight function on B. Then, the operator Smu,φ:HpHμ is compact if and only if it is bounded,

    lim|φ(z)|1μ(z)|u0(z)|(1|φ(z)|2)np=0

    and

    lim|φ(z)|1μ(z)|uj(z)||φ(z)|(1|φ(z)|2)np+j=0,j=¯1,m.

    It must be mentioned that we find that the necessity of Theorem A requires (1.5) to hold. Inspired by [2,28], here we use a new method and technique without (1.5) to study the sum operator Smu,φ from logarithmic Bergman-type space to weighted-type space on the unit ball. To this end, we need to introduce the well-known Bell polynomial (see [3])

    Bm,k(x1,x2,,xmk+1)=m!mk1i=1ji!mk1i=1(xii!)ji,

    where all non-negative integer sequences j1, j2,,jmk+1 satisfy

    mk+1i=1ji=kandmk+1i=1iji=m.

    In particular, when k=0, one can get B0,0=1 and Bm,0=0 for any mN. When k=1, one can get Bi,1=xi. When m=k=i, Bi,i=xi1 holds.

    In this section, we need to introduce logarithmic Bergman-type space and weighted-type space. Here, a bounded positive continuous function on B is called a weight. For a weight μ, the weighted-type space Hμ consists of all fH(B) such that

    fHμ=supzBμ(z)|f(z)|<+.

    With the norm Hμ, Hμ becomes a Banach space. In particular, if μ(z)=(1|z|2)σ(σ>0), the space Hμ is called classical weighted-type space usually denoted by Hσ. If μ1, then space Hμ becomes the bounded holomorphic function space usually denoted by H.

    Next, we need to present the logarithmic Bergman-type space on B (see [4] for the unit disk case). Let dv be the standardized Lebesgue measure on B. The logarithmic Bergman-type space Apwγ,δ consists of all fH(B) such that

    fpApwγ,δ=B|f(z)|pwγ,δ(z)dv(z)<+,

    where 1<γ<+, δ0, 0<p<+ and wγ,δ(z) is defined by

    wγ,δ(z)=(log1|z|)γ[log(11log|z|)]δ.

    When p1, Apwγ,δ is a Banach space. While 0<p<1, it is a Fréchet space with the translation invariant metric ρ(f,g)=fgpApωγ,δ.

    Let φS(B), 0r<1, 0γ<, δ0, and aB{φ(0)}. The generalized counting functions are defined as

    Nφ,γ,δ(r,a)=zj(a)φ1(a)wγ,δ(zj(a)r)

    where |zj(a)|<r, counting multiplicities, and

    Nφ,γ,δ(a)=Nφ,γ,δ(1,a)=zj(a)φ1(a)wγ,δ(zj(a)).

    If φS(D), then the function Nφ,γ,δ has the integral expression: For 1γ<+ and δ0, there is a positive function F(t) satisfying

    Nφ,γ,δ(r,u)=r0F(t)Nφ,1(t,u)dt,r(0,1),uφ(0).

    When φS(D) and δ=0, the generalized counting functions become the common counting functions. Namely,

    Nφ,γ(r,a)=zφ1(a),|z|<r(logr|z|)γ,

    and

    Nφ,γ(a)=Nφ,γ(1,a)=zφ1(a)(log1|z|)γ.

    In [17], Shapiro used the function Nφ,γ(1,a) to characterize the compact composition operators on the weighted Bergman space.

    Let X and Y be two topological spaces induced by the translation invariant metrics dX and dY, respectively. A linear operator T:XY is called bounded if there is a positive number K such that

    dY(Tf,0)KdX(f,0)

    for all fX. The operator T:XY is called compact if it maps bounded sets into relatively compact sets.

    In this paper, j=¯k,l is used to represent j=k,...,l, where k,lN0 and kl. Positive numbers are denoted by C, and they may vary in different situations. The notation ab (resp. ab) means that there is a positive number C such that aCb (resp. aCb). When ab and ba, we write ab.

    In this section, we obtain some properties on the logarithmic Bergman-type space. First, we have the following point-evaluation estimate for the functions in the space.

    Theorem 3.1. Let 1<γ<+, δ0, 0<p<+ and 0<r<1. Then, there exists a positive number C=C(γ,δ,p,r) independent of zK={zB:|z|>r} and fApwγ,δ such that

    |f(z)|C(1|z|2)γ+n+1p[log(11log|z|)]δpfApwγ,δ. (3.1)

    Proof. Let zB. By applying the subharmonicity of the function |f|p to Euclidean ball B(z,r) and using Lemma 1.23 in [35], we have

    |f(z)|p1v(B(z,r))B(z,r)|f(w)|pdv(w)C1,r(1|z|2)n+1B(z,r)|f(w)|pdv(w). (3.2)

    Since r<|z|<1 and 1|w|21|z|2, we have

    log1|w|1|w|1|z|log1|z| (3.3)

    and

    log(1log1|w|)log(1log1|z|). (3.4)

    From (3.3) and (3.4), it follows that there is a positive constant C2,r such that wγ,δ(z)C2,rwγ,δ(w) for all wB(z,r). From this and (3.2), we have

    |f(z)|pC1,rC2,r(1|z|2)n+1wγ,δ(z)B(z,r)|f(w)|pwγ,δ(w)dv(w)C1,rC2,r(1|z|2)n+1wγ,δ(z)fpApwγ,δ. (3.5)

    From (3.5) and the fact log1|z|1|z|1|z|2, the following inequality is right with a fixed constant C3,r

    |f(z)|pC1,rC2,rC3,r(1|z|2)n+1+γ[log(11log|z|)]δfpApwγ,δ.

    Let C=C1,rC2,rC3,rp. Then the proof is end.

    Theorem 3.2. Let mN, 1<γ<+, δ0, 0<p<+ and 0<r<1. Then, there exists a positive constant Cm=C(γ,δ,p,r,m) independent of zK and fApwγ,δ such that

    |mf(z)zi1zi2zim|Cm(1|z|2)γ+n+1p+m[log(11log|z|)]δpfApwγ,δ. (3.6)

    Proof. First, we prove the case of m=1. By the definition of the gradient and the Cauchy's inequality, we get

    |f(z)zi||f(z)|˜C1supwB(z,q(1|z|))|f(w)|1|z|, (3.7)

    where i=¯1,n. By using the relations

    1|z|1|z|22(1|z|),
    (1q)(1|z|)1|w|(q+1)(1|z|),

    and

    log(11log|z|)log(11log|w|),

    we obtain the following formula

    |f(w)|˘C1(1|z|2)γ+n+1p[log(11log|z|)]δpfApwγ,δ

    for any wB(z,q(1|z|)). Then,

    supwB(z,q(1|z|))|f(w)|˘C1(1|z|2)γ+n+1p[log(11log|z|)]δpfApwγ,δ.

    From (3.1) and (3.2), it follows that

    |f(z)zi|ˆC1(1|z|2)γ+n+1p+1[log(11log|z|)]δpfApwγ,δ. (3.8)

    Hence, the proof is completed for the case of m=1.

    We will use the mathematical induction to complete the proof. Assume that (3.6) holds for m<a. For convenience, let g(z)=a1f(z)zi1zi2zia1. By applying (3.7) to the function g, we obtain

    |g(z)zi|˜C1supwB(z,q(1|z|))|g(w)|1|z|. (3.9)

    According to the assumption, the function g satisfies

    |g(z)|ˆCa1(1|z|2)γ+n+1p+a1[log(11log|z|)]δpfApwγ,δ.

    By using (3.8), the following formula is also obtained

    |g(z)zi|ˆCa(1|z|2)γ+n+1p+a[log(11log|z|)]δpfApwγ,δ.

    This shows that (3.6) holds for m=a. The proof is end.

    As an application of Theorems 3.1 and 3.2, we give the estimate in z=0 for the functions in Apωγ,δ.

    Corollary 3.1. Let 1<γ<+, δ0, 0<p<+, and 0<r<2/3. Then, for all fApwγ,δ, it follows that

    |f(0)|C(1r2)γ+n+1p[log(11logr)]δpfApwγ,δ, (3.10)

    and

    |mf(0)zl1zlm|Cm(1r2)γ+n+1p+m[log(11logr)]δpfApwγ,δ, (3.11)

    where constants C and Cm are defined in Theorems 3.1 and 3.2, respectively.

    Proof. For fApwγ,δ, from Theorem 3.1 and the maximum module theorem, we have

    |f(0)|max|z|=r|f(z)|C(1r2)γ+n+1p[log(11logr)]δpfApwγ,δ,

    which implies that (3.10) holds. By using the similar method, we also have that (3.11) holds.

    Next, we give an equivalent norm in Apwγ,δ, which extends Lemma 3.2 in [4] to B.

    Theorem 3.3. Let r0[0,1). Then, for every fApwγ,δ, it follows that

    fpApwγ,δBr0B|f(z)|pwγ,δ(z)dv(z). (3.12)

    Proof. If r0=0, then it is obvious. So, we assume that r0(0,1). Integration in polar coordinates, we have

    fpApwγ,δ=2n10wγ,δ(r)r2n1drS|f(rζ)|pdσ(ζ).

    Put

    A(r)=wγ,δ(r)r2n1andM(r,f)=S|f(rζ)|pdσ(ζ).

    Then it is represented that

    fpApwγ,δr00+1r0M(r,f)A(r)dr. (3.13)

    Since M(r,f) is increasing, A(r) is positive and continuous in r on (0,1) and

    limr0A(r)=limx+xγ[log(1+1x)]δe(2n1)x=limx+xγδe(2n1)x=0,

    that is, there is a constant ε>0(ε<r0) such that A(r)<A(ε) for r(0,ε). Then we have

    r00M(r,f)A(r)dr2r01r0maxεrr0A(r)1+r02r0M(r,f)dr2r01r0maxεrr0A(r)minr0r1+r02A(r)1+r02r0M(r,f)A(r)dr1r0M(r,f)A(r)dr. (3.14)

    From (3.13) and (3.14), we obtain the inequality

    fpApwγ,δ1r0M(r,f)A(r)dr.

    The inequality reverse to this is obvious. The asymptotic relationship (3.12) follows, as desired.

    The following integral estimate is an extension of Lemma 3.4 in [4]. The proof is similar, but we still present it for completeness.

    Lemma 3.1. Let 1<γ<+, δ0, β>γδ and 0<r<1. Then, for each fixed wB with |w|>r,

    Bωγ,δ(z)|1z,w|n+β+1dv(z)1(1|w|)βγ[log(11log|w|)]δ.

    Proof. Fix |w| with |w|>r0 (0<r0<1). It is easy to see that

    log1r1rforr0r<1. (3.15)

    By applying Theorem 3.3 with

    fw(z)=1(1z,w)n+β+1

    and using (3.15), the formula of integration in polar coordinates gives

    B1|1z,w|n+β+1ωγ,δ(z)dv(z)1r0M(r,fw)(1r)γ[log(11logr)]δr2n1dr. (3.16)

    By Proposition 1.4.10 in [15], we have

    M(r,fw)1(1r2|w|2)β+1. (3.17)

    From (3.16) and (3.17), we have

    B1|1z,w|β+2nωγ,δ(z)dv(z)1r01(1r2|w|2)β+1(1r)γ[log(11logr)]δr2n1dr1r01(1r|w|)β+1(1r)γ[log(11logr)]δr2n1dr|w|r01(1r|w|)β+1(1r)γ[log(11logr)]δr2n1dr+1|w|1(1r|w|)β+1(1r)γ[log(11logr)]δr2n1dr=I1+I2.

    Since [\log(1-\frac{1}{\log r})]^{\delta} is decreasing in r on [|w|, 1] , we have

    \begin{align} I_{2} = &\int_{|w|}^{1}\frac{1}{(1-r|w|)^{\beta+1}} (1-r)^{\gamma}\left[\log\left(1-\frac{1} {\log r}\right)\right]^{\delta}r^{2n-1}dr \\ \lesssim&\frac{1}{(1-|w|)^{\beta+1}}\left[\log\left(1-\frac{1} {\log |w|}\right)\right]^{\delta}\int_{|w|}^{1}(1-r)^{\gamma}dr \\ \asymp&\frac{1}{(1-|w|)^{\beta-\gamma}}\left[\log\left(1-\frac{1} {\log |w|}\right)\right]^{\delta}. \end{align} (3.18)

    On the other hand, we obtain

    \begin{align*} I_{1} = &\int_{r_{0}}^{|w|}\frac{1}{(1-r|w|)^{\beta+1}} (1-r)^{\gamma}\left[\log\left(1-\frac{1} {\log r}\right)\right]^{\delta}r^{2n-1}dr \nonumber\\ \lesssim&\int_{r_{0}}^{|w|} (1-r)^{\gamma-\beta-1}\left(\log\frac{2}{1-r}\right)^{\delta}dr. \end{align*}

    If \delta = 0 and \beta > \gamma , then we have

    \begin{align*} I_{1}(0)\lesssim(1-|w|)^{\gamma-\beta}. \end{align*}

    If \delta\neq0 , then integration by parts gives

    \begin{align*} I_{1}(\delta) = &-\frac{1}{\gamma-\beta} (1-|w|)^{\gamma-\beta}\left(\log\frac{2}{1-|w|}\right)^{\delta}\\ &+\frac{1}{\gamma-\beta}(1-r_{0})^{\gamma-\beta} \left(\log\frac{2}{1-r_{0}}\right)^{\delta} +\frac{\delta}{\gamma-\beta}I_{1}(\delta-1). \end{align*}

    Since \delta < 0 , \gamma-\beta < 0 and

    \begin{align*} \left(\log\frac{2}{1-r}\right)^{\delta-1}\leq\left(\log\frac{2} {1-r}\right)^{\delta} \quad \text{for}\; \; r_{0} < r < |w| < 1, \end{align*}

    we have

    \begin{align*} I_{1}(\delta)\leq-\frac{1}{\gamma-\beta} (1-|w|)^{\gamma-\beta}\left(\log\frac{2}{1-|w|}\right)^{\delta} +\frac{\delta}{\gamma-\beta}I_{1}(\delta) \end{align*}

    and from this follows

    \begin{align*} I_{1}(\delta)\lesssim(1-|w|)^{\gamma-\beta}\left(\log\frac{2} {1-|w|}\right)^{\delta}\asymp(1-|w|)^{\gamma-\beta}\left[\log\left(1-\frac{1} {\log |w|}\right)\right]^{\delta} \end{align*}

    provided \gamma-\beta-\delta < 0 . The proof is finished.

    The following gives an important test function in A_{w_{\gamma, \delta}}^{p} .

    Theorem 3.4. Let -1 < \gamma < +\infty , \delta\leq0 , 0 < p < +\infty and 0 < r < 1 . Then, for each t\geq0 and w\in\mathbb{B} with |w| > r , the following function is in A_{w_{\gamma, \delta}}^{p}

    \begin{align*} f_{w,t}(z) = \left[\log\left(1-\frac{1}{\log|w|}\right)\right]^{-\frac{\delta}{p}} \frac{(1-|w|^{2})^{-\frac{\delta}{p}+t+1}}{(1-\langle z,w\rangle)^{\frac{\gamma-\delta+n+1}{p}+t+1}}. \end{align*}

    Moreover,

    \begin{align*} \sup_{\{w\in\mathbb{B}:|w| > r\}}\|f_{w,t}\|_{A_{w_{\gamma,\delta}}^{p}}\lesssim 1. \end{align*}

    Proof. By Lemma 3.1 and a direct calculation, we have

    \begin{align*} \|f_{w,t}\|_{A_{w_{\gamma,\delta}}^{p}}^{p} & = \int_{\mathbb{B}}\bigg|\left[\log\left(1-\frac{1} {\log|w|}\right)\right]^{-\frac{\delta}{p}} \frac{(1-|w|^{2})^{-\frac{\delta}{p}+t+1}} {(1-\langle z,w\rangle)^{\frac{\gamma-\delta+n+1}{p}+t+1}}\bigg|^{p} w_{\gamma,\delta}(z)dA(z)\\ & = (1-|w|^{2})^{p(t+1)-\delta}\left[\log\left(1-\frac{1} {\log|w|}\right)\right]^{-\delta} \\ &\quad\times\int_{\mathbb{B}}\frac{1}{|1-\langle z,w\rangle|^{\gamma-\delta+p(t+1)+n+1}}w_{\gamma,\delta}(z)dA(z) \\ &\lesssim1. \end{align*}

    The proof is finished.

    In this section, for simplicity, we define

    \begin{align*} B_{i,j}(\varphi(z)) = B_{i,j}(\varphi(z),\varphi(z),\ldots,\varphi(z)). \end{align*}

    In order to characterize the compactness of the operator \mathfrak{S}^m_{\vec{u}, {\varphi}}:A_{w_{\gamma, \delta}}^{p}\to H_{\mu}^{\infty} , we need the following lemma. It can be proved similar to that in [16], so we omit here.

    Lemma 4.1. Let -1 < \gamma < +\infty , \delta\leq0 , 0 < p < +\infty , m\in\mathbb{N} , u_j\in H(\mathbb{B}) , j = \overline{0, m} , and \varphi\in S(\mathbb{B}) . Then, the bounded operator \mathfrak{S}^m_{\vec{u}, {\varphi}}:A_{w_{\gamma, \delta}}^{p}\to H_{\mu}^{\infty} is compact if and only if for every bounded sequence \{f_{k}\}_{k\in\mathbb{N}} in A_{w_{\gamma, \delta}}^{p} such that f_{k}\rightarrow 0 uniformly on any compact subset of \mathbb{B} as k\to\infty , it follows that

    \begin{align*} \lim_{k\rightarrow \infty}\|\mathfrak{S}^m_{\vec{u},{\varphi}} f_{k}\|_{H_{\mu}^{\infty}} = 0. \end{align*}

    The following result was obtained in [24].

    Lemma 4.2. Let s\geq 0 , w\in{\mathbb{B}} and

    \begin{align*} g_{w,s}(z) = \frac{1}{(1-\langle z,w\rangle)^{s}}, \quad z\in\mathbb{B}. \end{align*}

    Then,

    \begin{align*} \Re^{k}g_{w,s}(z) = s\frac{P_k(\langle z,w\rangle)}{(1-\langle z,w\rangle)^{s+k}}, \end{align*}

    where P_k(w) = s^{k-1}w^k+p_{k-1}^{(k)}(s)w^{k-1}+...+p_2^{(k)}(s)w^2+w , and p^{(k)}_j(s) , j = \overline{2, k-1} , are nonnegative polynomials for s .

    We also need the following result obtained in [20].

    Lemma 4.3. Let s > 0 , w\in{\mathbb{B}} and

    \begin{align*} g_{w,s}(z) = \frac{1}{(1-\langle z,w\rangle)^{s}}, \quad z\in\mathbb{B}. \end{align*}

    Then,

    \begin{align*} \Re^{k}g_{w,s}(z) = \sum_{t = 1}^{k}a_{t}^{(k)}\Big(\prod_{j = 0}^{t-1}(s+j)\Big) \frac{\langle z,w\rangle^{t}}{(1-\langle z,w\rangle)^{s+t}}, \end{align*}

    where the sequences (a_{t}^{(k)})_{t\in \overline{1, k}} , k\in\mathbb{N} , are defined by the relations

    \begin{align*} a_{k}^{(k)} = a_{1}^{(k)} = 1 \end{align*}

    for k\in\mathbb{N} and

    \begin{align*} a_{t}^{(k)} = ta_{t}^{(k-1)}+a_{t-1}^{(k-1)} \end{align*}

    for 2\leq t\leq k-1, k\geq3 .

    The final lemma of this section was obtained in [24].

    Lemma 4.4. If a > 0 , then

    \begin{align*} D_{n}(a) = \left|\begin{array}{cccc} 1 & 1 & \cdots & 1 \\ a & a+1 & \cdots & a+n-1 \\ a(a+1) & (a+1)(a+2) & \cdots & (a+n-1)(a+n) \\ \vdots & \vdots & \cdots & \vdots \\ \prod\limits_{k = 0}^{n-2}(a+k) & \prod\limits_{k = 0}^{n-2}(a+k+1) & \cdots & \prod\limits_{k = 0}^{n-2}(a+k+n-1) \end{array}\right| = \prod_{k = 1}^{n-1} k !. \end{align*}

    Theorem 4.1. Let -1 < \gamma < +\infty , \delta\leq0 , 0 < p < +\infty , m\in\mathbb{N} , u_j\in H(\mathbb{B}) , j = \overline{0, m} , and \varphi\in S(\mathbb{B}) . Then, the operator \mathfrak{S}^m_{\vec{u}, {\varphi}}:A^p_{w_{\gamma, \delta}}\to H_\mu^\infty is bounded if and only if

    \begin{align} M_{0}: = \sup_{z\in\mathbb{B}} \frac{\mu(z)|u_{0}(z)|}{(1-|\varphi(z)|^{2})^{\frac{\gamma +n+1}{p}}} \Big[\log\Big(1-\frac{1}{\log|\varphi(z)|}\Big)\Big]^{-\frac{\delta}{p}} < +\infty \end{align} (4.1)

    and

    \begin{align} M_{j}: = \sup_{z\in\mathbb{B}}\frac{\mu(z)|\sum_{i = j}^{m}u_{i}(z)B_{i,j} (\varphi(z))|}{(1-|\varphi(z)|^2)^{\frac{\gamma +n+1}{p}+j}}\Big[\log\Big(1-\frac{1}{\log|\varphi(z)|}\Big)\Big]^{-\frac{\delta}{p}} < +\infty \end{align} (4.2)

    for j = \overline{1, m} .

    Moreover, if the operator \mathfrak{S}^m_{\vec{u}, {\varphi}}:A^p_{w_{\gamma, \delta}}\rightarrow H_\mu^\infty is bounded, then

    \begin{align} \|\mathfrak{S}^m_{\vec{u},{\varphi}}\|_{A^p_{w_{\gamma,\delta}}\rightarrow H_\mu^\infty} \asymp\sum_{j = 0}^{m}M_{j}. \end{align} (4.3)

    Proof. Suppose that (4.1) and (4.2) hold. From Theorem 3.1, Theorem 3.2, and some easy calculations, it follows that

    \begin{align} &\mu(z)\Big| \sum_{i = 0}^{m}u_{i}(z)\Re^{i}f(\varphi(z))\Big|\leq\mu(z)\sum_{i = 0}^{m}\big|u_{i}(z)\big|\big|\Re^{i} f(\varphi(z))\big|\\ & = \mu(z)|u_{0}(z)||f(\varphi(z))| \\ &\quad+\mu(z)\Big|\sum_{i = 1}^{m}\sum_{j = 1}^{i}\Big(u_{i}(z)\sum_{l_{1} = 1}^{n} \cdots\sum_{l_{j} = 1}^{n}\Big(\frac{\partial^{j} f}{\partial z_{l_{1}}\partial z_{l_{2}}\cdots\partial z_{l_{j}}}(\varphi(z)) \sum_{k_{1},\ldots,k_{j}}C_{k_{1},\ldots,k_{j}}^{(i)} \prod_{t = 1}^{j}\varphi_{l_{t}}(z)\Big) \Big)\Big|\\ & = \mu(z)|u_{0}(z)f(\varphi(z))| \\ &\quad+\mu(z)\Big|\sum_{j = 1}^{m}\sum_{i = j}^{m}\Big(u_{i}(z)\sum_{l_{1} = 1}^{n} \cdots\sum_{l_{j} = 1}^{n}\Big(\frac{\partial^{j} f}{\partial z_{l_{1}}\partial z_{l_{2}}\cdots\partial z_{l_{j}}}(\varphi(z)) \sum_{k_{1},\ldots,k_{j}}C_{k_{1},\ldots,k_{j}}^{(i)} \prod_{t = 1}^{j}\varphi_{l_{t}}(z)\Big) \Big)\Big|\\ &\lesssim\frac{\mu(z)|u_{0}(z)|}{(1-|\varphi(z)|^{2})^{\frac{\gamma +n+1}{p}}} \Big[\log\Big(1-\frac{1}{\log|\varphi(z)|}\Big)\Big]^{-\frac{\delta}{p}} \|f\|_{A^p_{w_{\gamma ,\delta}}}\\ &\quad+\sum_{j = 1}^{m}\frac{\mu(z)|\sum_{i = j}^{m}u_{i}(z)B_{i,j}(\varphi(z))|} {(1-|\varphi(z)|^2)^{\frac{\gamma+n+1}{p}+j}}\Big[\log\Big(1-\frac{1} {\log|\varphi(z)|}\Big)\Big]^{-\frac{\delta}{p}}\|f\|_{A^p_{w_{\gamma,\delta}}} \\ & = M_0\|f\|_{A^p_{w_{\gamma ,\delta}}}+\sum_{j = 1}^{m}{M_j\|f\|_{A^p_{w_{\gamma,\delta}}}}. \end{align} (4.4)

    By taking the supremum in inequality (4.4) over the unit ball in the space A^p_{w_{\gamma, \delta}} , and using (4.1) and (4.2), we obtain that the operator \mathfrak{S}^m_{\vec{u}, {\varphi}}:A^p_{w_{\gamma, \delta}}\to H_\mu^\infty is bounded. Moreover, we have

    \begin{align} \|\mathfrak{S}^m_{\vec{u},{\varphi}}\|_{A^p_{w_{\gamma ,\delta}}\rightarrow H_\mu^\infty} \leq C\sum_{j = 0}^{m}M_{j}, \end{align} (4.5)

    where C is a positive constant.

    Assume that the operator \mathfrak{S}^m_{\vec{u}, {\varphi}}:A^p_{w_{\gamma, \delta}}\rightarrow H_\mu^\infty is bounded. Then there exists a positive constant C such that

    \begin{align} \|\mathfrak{S}^m_{\vec{u},{\varphi}}f\|_{H_{\mu}^{\infty}}\leq C\|f\|_{A^p_{w_{\gamma,\delta}}} \end{align} (4.6)

    for any f\in{A^p_{w_{\gamma, \delta}}} . First, we can take f(z) = 1\in {A^p_{w_{\gamma, \delta}}} , then one has that

    \begin{align} \sup_{z\in\mathbb{B}}\mu(z)|u_{0}(z)| < +\infty. \end{align} (4.7)

    Similarly, take f_{k}(z) = z_{k}^{j}\in {A^p_{w_{\gamma, \delta}}} , k = \overline{1, n} and j = \overline{1, m} , by (4.7), then

    \begin{align} \mu(z)\Big|u_{0}(z)\varphi_{k}(z)^{j}+\sum_{i = j}^{m}\Big(u_{i}(z) B_{i,j}(\varphi_{k}(z)))\Big)\Big| < +\infty \end{align} (4.8)

    for any j\in\{1, 2, \ldots, m\} . Since \varphi(z)\in\mathbb{B} , we have |\varphi(z)|\leq1 . So, one can use the triangle inequality (4.7) and (4.8), the following inequality is true

    \begin{align} \sup_{z\in\mathbb{B}}\mu(z)\Big|\sum_{i = j}^{m}u_{i}(z)B_{i,j}(\varphi(z))\Big| < +\infty. \end{align} (4.9)

    Let w\in\mathbb{B} and d_{k} = \frac{\gamma +n+1}{p}+k . For any j\in\{1, 2, \ldots, m\} and constants c_{k} = c_{k}^{(j)} , k = \overline{0, m} , let

    \begin{align} h_{w}^{(j)}(z) = \sum_{k = 0}^{m}c_{k}^{(j)}f_{w,k}(z), \end{align} (4.10)

    where f_{w, k} is defined in Theorem 3.4. Then, by Theorem 3.4, we have

    \begin{align} L_{j} = \sup_{w\in\mathbb{B}}\|h_{w}^{(j)}\|_{A^p_{w_{\gamma,\delta}}} < +\infty. \end{align} (4.11)

    From (4.6), (4.11), and some easy calculations, it follows that

    \begin{align} &L_{j}\|\mathfrak{S}^m_{\vec{u},{\varphi}}\|_{{A^p_{w_{\gamma ,\delta}}}\to H_{\mu}^{\infty}} \geq\|\mathfrak{S}^m_{\vec{u},{\varphi}} h_{\varphi(w)}^{(j)}\|_{H_{\mu}^{\infty}} \\ & = \sup_{z\in\mathbb{B}}\mu(z)\Big|\sum_{i = 0}^{m}u_{0}(z)h_{\varphi(w)}^{(j)} (\varphi(z))\Big|\\ &\geq\mu(w)\Big|u_{0}(w)h_{\varphi(w)}^{(j)}(\varphi(w))+ \sum_{i = 1}^{m}\Big(u_{i}(w)\Re^{i} h_{\varphi(w)}^{(j)}(\varphi(w))\Big)\Big|\\ & = \mu(w)\Big|u_{0}(w)h_{\varphi(w)}^{(j)}(\varphi(w))+\sum_{i = 1}^{m}u_{i}(w) \sum_{k = 0}^{m}{c_k^{(j)}f_{\varphi(w),k}(\varphi(w))}\Big|\\ & = \mu(w)\Big|u_{0}(w)\frac{c_{0}+c_{1}+\cdots+c_{m}} {(1-|\varphi(z)|^{2})^{\frac{\gamma +n+1}{p}}} +\big\langle\sum_{i = 1}^{m}u_{i}(w)B_{i,1}(\varphi(w)),\varphi(w)\big\rangle \frac{(d_{0}c_{0}+\cdots+d_{m}c_{m})}{(1-|\varphi(w)|^{2})^{\frac{\gamma +n+1}{p}+1}}+\cdots \\ &\quad+\big\langle\sum_{i = j}^{m}u_{i}(w)B_{i,j}(\varphi(w)), \varphi(w)^{j}\big\rangle\frac{(d_{0}\cdots d_{j-1}c_{0}+\cdots+d_{m} \cdots d_{m+j-1}c_{m})}{(1-|\varphi(w)|^{2})^{\frac{\gamma +n+1}{p}+j}} +\cdots\\ &\quad+\big\langle u_{m}(w)B_{m,m}(\varphi(w)),\varphi(w)^{m}\big\rangle\frac{(d_{0}\cdots d_{m-1}c_{0}+\cdots+d_{m} \cdots d_{2m-1}c_{m})}{(1-|\varphi(w)|^{2})^{\frac{\gamma +n+1} {p}+m}}\Big|\Big[\log\Big(1-\frac{1}{\log|\varphi(w)|}\Big)\Big]^{-\frac{\delta}{p}}. \end{align} (4.12)

    Since d_{k} > 0 , k = \overline{0, m} , by Lemma 4.4, we have the following linear equations

    \begin{equation} \left( \begin{array}{cccc} 1 & 1 &\cdots & 1 \\ d_{0} & d_{1} &\cdots & d_{m} \\ \vdots &\vdots &\ddots &\vdots \\ \prod\limits_{k = 0}^{j-1}d_{k}& \prod\limits_{k = 0}^{j-1} d_{k+m}&\cdots & \prod\limits_{k = 0}^{j-1}d_{k+m} \\ \vdots &\vdots &\ddots &\vdots \\ \prod\limits_{k = 0}^{m-1}d_{k}& \prod\limits_{k = 0}^{m-1} d_{k+m}&\cdots & \prod\limits_{k = 0}^{m-1}d_{k+m} \end{array} \right) \left( \begin{array}{cccc} c_{0}\\ c_{1}\\ \vdots\\ \quad\\ c_{j}\\ \quad\\ \vdots\\ \quad\\ c_{m} \end{array} \right) = \left( \begin{array}{cccc} 0\\ 0\\ \vdots\\ \quad\\ 1\\ \quad\\ \vdots\\ \quad\\ 0 \end{array} \right). \end{equation} (4.13)

    From (4.12) and (4.13), we have

    \begin{align} L_{j}\|\mathfrak{S}^l_{\vec{u},{\varphi}}\|_{{A^p_{w_\gamma,\delta}}\rightarrow H_{\mu}^{\infty}} &\geq\sup_{|\varphi(z)| > 1/2}\frac{\mu(z)|\sum _{i = j}^{m}u_{i}(z)B_{i,j} (\varphi(z))||\varphi(z)|^{j}}{(1-|\varphi(z)|^2)^{\frac{\gamma +n+1}{p}+j}} \Big[\log\Big(1-\frac{1}{\log|\varphi(z)|}\Big)\Big]^{-\frac{\delta}{p}}\\ &\gtrsim\sup_{|\varphi(z)| > 1/2}\frac{\mu(z)|\sum _{i = j}^{m}u_{i}(z)B_{i,j} (\varphi(z))|}{(1-|\varphi(z)|^2)^{\frac{\gamma +n+1}{p}+j}} \Big[\log\Big(1-\frac{1}{\log|\varphi(z)|}\Big)\Big]^{-\frac{\delta}{p}}. \end{align} (4.14)

    On the other hand, from (4.9), we have

    \begin{align} &\sup_{|\varphi(z)|\leq1/2}\frac{\mu(z)|\sum _{i = j}^{m}u_{i}(z)B_{i,j} (\varphi(z))|}{(1-|\varphi(z)|^2)^{\frac{\gamma +n+1}{p}+j}} \Big[\log\Big(1-\frac{1}{\log|\varphi(z)|}\Big)\Big]^{-\frac{\delta}{p}}\\ &\leq\sup_{z\in\mathbb{B}}\Big(\frac{4}{3}\Big)^{\frac{\gamma +n+1}{p}+j} \Big[\log\Big(1-\frac{1}{\log\frac{1}{2}}\Big)\Big]^{-\frac{\delta}{p}} \mu(z)\Big|\sum_{i = j}^{m}u_{i}(z)B_{i,j}(\varphi(z))\Big| < +\infty. \end{align} (4.15)

    From (4.14) and (4.15), we get that (4.2) holds for j = \overline{1, m} .

    For constants c_{k} = c_{k}^{(0)} , k = \overline{0, m} , let

    \begin{align} h_{w}^{(0)}(z) = \sum_{k = 0}^{m}c_{k}^{(0)}f_{w,k}(z). \end{align} (4.16)

    By Theorem 3.4, we know that L_{0} = \sup_{w\in\mathbb{B}}\|h_{w}^{(0)}\|_{A^p_{w_{\gamma, \delta}}} < +\infty . From this, (4.12), (4.13) and Lemma 4.4, we get

    \begin{align*} L_{0}\|\mathfrak{S}^m_{\vec{u},{\varphi}}\|_{{A^p_{w_{\gamma,\delta}}}\rightarrow H_{\mu}^{\infty}} \geq \frac{\mu(z)|u_{0}(z)|}{(1-|\varphi(z)|^{2})^{\frac{\gamma +n+1}{p}}} \Big[\log\Big(1-\frac{1}{\log|\varphi(z)|}\Big)\Big]^{-\frac{\delta}{p}}. \end{align*}

    So, we have M_0 < +\infty . Moreover, we have

    \begin{align} \|\mathfrak{S}^m_{\vec{u},{\varphi}}\|_{A^p_{w_{\gamma,\delta}}\rightarrow H_\mu^\infty} \geq\sum_{j = 0}^{m}M_{j}. \end{align} (4.17)

    From (4.5) and (4.17), we obtain (4.3). The proof is completed.

    From Theorem 4.1 and (1.4), we obtain the following result.

    Corollary 4.1. Let m\in\mathbb{N} , u\in H(\mathbb{B}) , \varphi\in S(\mathbb{B}) and \mu is a weight function on \mathbb{B} . Then, the operator C_{{\varphi}}\Re^{m}M_{u}:A^p_{w_{\gamma, \delta}}\rightarrow H_\mu^\infty is bounded if and only if

    \begin{align*} I_{0}: = \sup_{z\in\mathbb{B}} \frac{\mu(z)|\Re^mu \circ {\varphi}(z)|}{(1-|\varphi(z)|^{2})^{\frac{\gamma +n+1}{p}}} \Big[\log\Big(1-\frac{1}{\log|\varphi(z)|}\Big)\Big]^{-\frac{\delta}{p}} < +\infty \end{align*}

    and

    \begin{align*} I_{j}: = \sup_{z\in\mathbb{B}}\frac{\mu(z)|\sum _{i = j}^{m}\Re^{m-i}u \circ {\varphi}(z)B_{i,j}(\varphi(z))|}{(1-|\varphi(z)|^2)^{\frac{\gamma +n+1}{p}+j}}\Big[\log\Big(1-\frac{1}{\log|\varphi(z)|}\Big)\Big]^{-\frac{\delta}{p}} < +\infty \end{align*}

    for j = \overline{1, m} .

    Moreover, if the operator C_{{\varphi}}\Re^{m}M_{u}:A^p_{w_{\gamma, \delta}}\rightarrow H_\mu^\infty is bounded, then

    \begin{align*} \|C_{{\varphi}}\Re^{m}M_{u}\|_{A^p_{w_{\gamma,\delta}}\rightarrow H_\mu^\infty} \asymp\sum_{j = 0}^{m}I_{j}. \end{align*}

    Theorem 4.2. Let -1 < \gamma < +\infty , \delta\leq0 , 0 < p < +\infty , m\in\mathbb{N} , u_j\in H(\mathbb{B}) , j = \overline{0, m} , and \varphi\in S(\mathbb{B}) . Then, the operator \mathfrak{S}^m_{\vec{u}, {\varphi}}:A^p_{w_{\gamma, \delta}}\to H_\mu^\infty is compact if and only if the operator \mathfrak{S}^m_{\vec{u}, {\varphi}}:A^p_{w_{\gamma, \delta}}\to H_\mu^\infty is bounded,

    \begin{align} \lim_{|\varphi(z)|\rightarrow1}\frac{\mu(z)|\sum _{i = j}^{m}(u_{i}(z)B_{i,j} (\varphi(z))|}{(1-|\varphi(z)|^2)^{\frac{\gamma +n+1}{p}+j}}\Big[\log\Big(1-\frac{1}{\log|\varphi(z)|}\Big)\Big]^{-\frac{\delta}{p} } = 0 \end{align} (4.18)

    for j = \overline{1, m} , and

    \begin{align} \lim_{|\varphi(z)|\rightarrow1}\frac{\mu(z)|u_{0}(z)| }{(1-|\varphi(z)|^2)^{\frac{\gamma+n+1}{p}}}\Big[\log\Big(1-\frac{1}{\log|\varphi(z)|}\Big)\Big]^{-\frac{\delta}{p}} = 0. \end{align} (4.19)

    Proof. Assume that the operator \mathfrak{S}^m_{\vec{u}, {\varphi}}:A^p_{w_{\gamma, \delta}}\rightarrow H_\mu^\infty is compact. It is obvious that the operator \mathfrak{S}^m_{\vec{u}, {\varphi}}:A^p_{w_{\gamma, \delta}}\rightarrow H_\mu^\infty is bounded.

    If \|\varphi\|_{\infty} < 1 , then it is clear that (4.18) and (4.19) are true. So, we suppose that \|\varphi\|_{\infty} = 1 . Let \{z_{k}\} be a sequence in \mathbb{B} such that

    \lim\limits_{k\rightarrow1}|\mu(z_k)|\to 1 \quad \mbox{and} \quad h_{k}^{(j)} = h_{\varphi(z_{k})}^{(j)},

    where h_{w}^{(j)} are defined in (4.10) for a fixed j\in\{1, 2, \ldots, l\} . Then, it follows that h_{k}^{(j)}\rightarrow 0 uniformly on any compact subset of \mathbb{B} as k\rightarrow \infty . Hence, by Lemma 4.1, we have

    \begin{align*} \lim_{k\to\infty}\|\mathfrak{S}^m_{\vec{u},{\varphi}} h_{k}\|_{H_{\mu}^{\infty}} = 0. \end{align*}

    Then, we can find sufficiently large k such that

    \begin{align} &\frac{\mu(z_{k})|\sum_{i = j}^{m}(u_{i}(z_{k})B_{i,j}(\varphi(z_{k})) |}{{(1-|\varphi(z_k)|^2)^{\frac{\gamma+n+1}{p}+j}}}\Big[\log\Big(1-\frac{1} {\log|\varphi (z_k)|}\Big)\Big]^{-\frac{\delta}{p}} \leq L_k\|\mathfrak{S}^m_{\vec{u},{\varphi}} h_{k}^{(j)}\|_{H_{\mu}^{\infty}}. \end{align} (4.20)

    If k\rightarrow \infty , then (4.20) is true.

    Now, we discuss the case of j = 0 . Let h_{k}^{(0)} = h_{\varphi(z_{k})}^{(0)} , where h_{w}^{(0)} is defined in (4.16). Then, we also have that \|h_{k}^{(0)}\|_{A^p_{w_{\gamma, \delta}}} < +\infty and h_{k}^{(0)}\rightarrow 0 uniformly on any compact subset of \mathbb{B} as k\rightarrow \infty . Hence, by Lemma 4.1, one has that

    \begin{align} \lim_{k\to\infty}\|\mathfrak{S}^m_{\vec{u},{\varphi}} h_{k}^{(0)}\|_{H_{\mu}^{\infty}(\mathbb{B})} = 0. \end{align} (4.21)

    Then, by (4.21), we know that (4.18) is true.

    Now, assume that \mathfrak{S}^m_{\vec{u}, {\varphi}}:A^p_{w_{\gamma, \delta}}\rightarrow H_\mu^\infty is bounded, (4.18) and (4.19) are true. One has that

    \begin{align} \mu(z)|u_{0}(z)|\leq C < +\infty \end{align} (4.22)

    and

    \begin{align} \mu(z)\Big|\sum_{i = j}^{m}(u_{i}(z) B_{i,j}(\varphi(z)))\Big|\leq C < +\infty \end{align} (4.23)

    for any z\in\mathbb{B} . By (4.18) and (4.19), for arbitrary \varepsilon > 0 , there is a r\in(0, 1) , for any z\in K such that

    \begin{align} \frac{\mu(z)|u_{0}(z)| }{(1-|\varphi(z)|^2)^{\frac{\gamma+n+1}{p}}}\Big[\log\Big(1-\frac{1} {\log|\varphi(z)|}\Big)\Big]^{-\frac{\delta}{p}} < \varepsilon. \end{align} (4.24)

    and

    \begin{align} \frac{\mu(z)\Big|\sum_{i = j}^{m}(u_{i}(z)B_{i,j}(\varphi(z)))\Big| }{(1-|\varphi(z)|^2)^{\frac{\gamma+n+1}{p}+j}} \Big[\log\Big(1-\frac{1}{\log|\varphi(z)|}\Big)\Big]^{-\frac{\delta}{p}} < \varepsilon. \end{align} (4.25)

    Assume that \{f_{s}\} is a sequence such that \sup_{s\in\mathbb{N}}\|f_{s}\|_{A^p_{w_{\gamma, \delta}}}\leq M < +\infty and f_{s}\rightarrow 0 uniformly on any compact subset of \mathbb{B} as s\rightarrow \infty . Then by Theorem 3.1, Theorem 3.2 and (4.22)–(4.25), one has that

    \begin{align} \|\mathfrak{S}^m_{\vec{u},{\varphi}} f_{s}\|_{H_{\mu}^{\infty}(\mathbb{B})} & = \sup_{z\in\mathbb{B}}\mu(z)\Big|u_{0}(z)f(\varphi(z))+ \sum_{i = 1}^{m}u_{i}(z)\Re^{i} f(\varphi(z))\Big|\\ & = \sup_{z\in K}\mu(z)\Big|u_{0}(z)f(\varphi(z))+ \sum_{i = 1}^{m}u_{i}(z)\Re^{i} f(\varphi(z))\Big|\\ &\quad+\sup_{z\in\mathbb{B}\setminus K}\mu(z)\Big|u_{0}(z)f(\varphi(z))+ \sum_{i = 1}^{m}u_{i}(z)\Re^{i} f(\varphi(z))\Big|\\ &\lesssim \sup_{z\in K}\frac{\mu(z)|u_{0}(z)| }{(1-|\varphi(z)|^2)^{\frac{\gamma+n+1}{p}}}\Big[\log\Big(1-\frac{1} {\log|\varphi (z)|}\Big)\Big]^{-\frac{\delta}{p}}\|f_{s}\|_{A^p_{w_\gamma,\delta}} \\ &\quad+\sup_{z\in K}\frac{\mu(z)\Big|\sum_{i = j}^{m}(u_{i}(z) B_{i,j}(\varphi(z)))\Big| }{(1-|\varphi(z)|^2)^{\frac{\gamma+n+1}{p}+j}}\Big[\log\Big(1-\frac{1} {\log|\varphi (z)|}\Big)\Big]^{-\frac{\delta}{p}} \|f_{s}\|_{A^p_{w_\gamma,\delta}} \\ &\quad+\sup_{z\in\mathbb{B}\setminus K}\mu(z)|u_{0}(z)||f_{s}(\varphi(z))|\\ &\quad+\sup_{z\in\mathbb{B}\setminus K}\sum_{j = 1}^{m} \mu(z)\Big|\sum_{i = j}^{m}(u_{i}(z)B_{i,j}(\varphi(z)))\Big| \max_{\{l_{1},l_{2},\ldots,l_{j}\}}\Big|\frac{\partial^{j} f_{s}}{\partial z_{l_{1}} \partial z_{l_{2}}\cdots\partial z_{l_{j}}}(\varphi(z))\Big|\\ &\leq M\varepsilon+C\sup_{|w|\leq \delta}\sum_{j = 0}^{m} \max_{\{l_{1},l_{2},\ldots,l_{j}\}}\Big|\frac{\partial^{j} f_{s}}{\partial z_{l_{1}} \partial z_{l_{2}}\cdots\partial z_{l_{j}}}(w)\Big|. \end{align} (4.26)

    Since f_{s}\rightarrow0 uniformly on any compact subset of \mathbb{B} as s\rightarrow \infty . By Cauchy's estimates, we also have that \frac{\partial^{j} f_{s}}{\partial z_{l_{1}}\partial z_{l_{2}}\cdots\partial z_{l_{j}}}\rightarrow 0 uniformly on any compact subset of \mathbb{B} as s\rightarrow \infty . From this and using the fact that \{w\in{\mathbb{B}}:|w|\leq\delta\} is a compact subset of \mathbb{B} , by letting s\rightarrow \infty in inequality (4.26), one get that

    \begin{align*} \limsup_{s\rightarrow \infty}\|\mathfrak{S}^m_{\vec{u},{\varphi}} f_{s}\|_{H_{\mu}^{\infty}}\lesssim \varepsilon. \end{align*}

    Since \varepsilon is an arbitrary positive number, it follows that

    \begin{align*} \lim_{s\rightarrow \infty}\|\mathfrak{S}^m_{\vec{u},{\varphi}} f_{s}\|_{H_{\mu}^{\infty}} = 0. \end{align*}

    By Lemma 4.1, the operator \mathfrak{S}^m_{\vec{u}, {\varphi}}:A^p_{w_{\gamma, \delta}}\rightarrow H_\mu^\infty is compact.

    As before, we also have the following result.

    Corollary 4.2. Let m\in\mathbb{N} , u\in H(\mathbb{B}) , \varphi\in S(\mathbb{B}) and \mu is a weight function on \mathbb{B} . Then, the operators C_{{\varphi}}\Re^{m}M_{u}:A^p_{w_{\gamma, \delta}}\rightarrow H_\mu^\infty is compact if and only if the operator C_{{\varphi}}\Re^{m}M_{u}:A^p_{w_{\gamma, \delta}}\rightarrow H_\mu^\infty is bounded,

    \begin{align*} \lim_{|\varphi(z)|\rightarrow1}\frac{\mu(z)|\Re^mu \circ {\varphi}(z)| }{(1-|\varphi(z)|^2)^{\frac{\gamma+n+1}{p}}}\Big[\log\Big(1-\frac{1}{\log|\varphi (z)|}\Big)\Big]^{-\frac{\delta}{p}} = 0 \end{align*}

    and

    \begin{align*} \lim_{|\varphi(z)|\rightarrow1}\frac{\mu(z)|\sum_{i = j}^{m}(\Re^{m-i}u \circ {\varphi}(z)B_{i,j}(\varphi(z))| }{\Big(1-|\varphi(z)|^2)^{\frac{\gamma +n+1}{p}+j}}\Big[\log(1-\frac{1}{\log|\varphi (z)|}\Big)\Big]^{-\frac{\delta}{p}} = 0 \end{align*}

    for j = \overline{1, m} .

    In this paper, we study and obtain some properties about the logarithmic Bergman-type space on the unit ball. As some applications, we completely characterized the boundedness and compactness of the operator

    \begin{align*} \mathfrak{S}^m_{\vec{u},{\varphi}} = \sum_{i = 0}^{m}M_{u_i}C_{\varphi}\Re^{i} \end{align*}

    from the logarithmic Bergman-type space to the weighted-type space on the unit ball. Here, one thing should be pointed out is that we use a new method and technique to characterize the boundedness of such operators without the condition (1.5), which perhaps is the special flavour in this paper.

    The authors declare they have not used Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the creation of this article.

    This work was supported by Sichuan Science and Technology Program (2022ZYD0010) and the Graduate Student Innovation Foundation (Y2022193).

    The authors declare that they have no competing interests.



    [1] V. I. Arnol'd, Mathematical methods of classical mechanics, Springer Science & Business Media, 60 (2013).
    [2] R. Riaza, Differential-algebraic systems: analytical aspects and circuit applications, World Scientific, (2008).
    [3] M. M. Uddin, Computational Methods for Approximation of Large-scale Dynamical Systems, Chapman and Hall/CRC, (2019).
    [4] M. M. Rahman, M. M. Uddin, L. Andallah, M. Uddin, Tangential interpolatory projections for a class of second-order index-1 descriptor systems and application to mechatronics, Production Engineering, 15 (2021), 9–19. doi: 10.1007/s11740-020-00995-4
    [5] E. Eich-Soellner, C. Führer, Numerical methods in multibody dynamics, Springer, 45 (1998).
    [6] R. R. Craig Jr, A. J. Kurdila, Fundamentals of structural dynamics, John Wiley & Sons, (2006).
    [7] B. Yan, S. X.-D. Tan, B. McGaughy, Second-order balanced truncation for passive-order reduction of rlck circuits, IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems II: Express Briefs, 55 (2008), 942–946. doi: 10.1109/TCSII.2008.925655
    [8] A. C. Antoulas, Approximation of large-scale dynamical systems, SIAM, (2005).
    [9] P. Benner, V. Mehrmann, D. C. Sorensen, Dimension reduction of large-scale systems, Springer, 45 (2005).
    [10] M. M. Uddin, Computational methods for model reduction of large-scale sparse structured descriptor systems, (2015).
    [11] B. Moore, Principal component analysis in linear systems: Controllability, observability, and model reduction, IEEE transactions on automatic control, 26 (1981), 17–32. doi: 10.1109/TAC.1981.1102568
    [12] M. S. Tombs, I. Postlethwaite, Truncated balanced realization of a stable non-minimal state-space system, International Journal of Control, 46 (1987), 1319–1330. doi: 10.1080/00207178708933971
    [13] E. Grimme, Krylov projection methods for model reduction, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, (1997).
    [14] S. Gugercin, A. C. Antoulas, C. Beattie, H_2 model reduction for large-scale linear dynamical systems, SIAM journal on matrix analysis and applications, 30 (2008), 609–638. doi: 10.1137/060666123
    [15] S. Gugercin, An iterative svd-krylov based method for model reduction of large-scale dynamical systems, Linear Algebra and its Applications, 428 (2008), 1964–1986. doi: 10.1016/j.laa.2007.10.041
    [16] F. Tisseur, K. Meerbergen, The quadratic eigenvalue problem, SIAM review, 43 (2001), 235–286. doi: 10.1137/S0036144500381988
    [17] P. Benner, J. Saak, Efficient balancing based mor for second order systems arising in control of machine tools, Proceedings of the MathMod, (2009).
    [18] M. S. Hossain, S. G. Omar, A. Tahsin, E. H. Khan, Efficient system reduction modeling of periodic control systems with application to circuit problems, in 2017 4th International Conference on Advances in Electrical Engineering (ICAEE), IEEE, (2017), 259–264.
    [19] J.-R. Li, Model reduction of large linear systems via low rank system gramians, Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, (2000).
    [20] S. A. Wyatt, Issues in interpolatory model reduction: Inexact solves, second-order systems and daes, Ph.D. dissertation, Virginia Tech, (2012).
    [21] M. Khatibi, H. Zargarzadeh, M. Barzegaran, Power system dynamic model reduction by means of an iterative svd-krylov model reduction method, in 2016 IEEE Power & Energy Society Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Conference (ISGT), IEEE, (2016), 1–6.
    [22] S. Li, J. Trevelyan, Z. Wu, H. Lian, D. Wang, W. Zhang, An adaptive svd–krylov reduced order model for surrogate based structural shape optimization through isogeometric boundary element method, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 349 (2019), 312–338. doi: 10.1016/j.cma.2019.02.023
    [23] A. Lu, E. L. Wachspress, Solution of lyapunov equations by alternating direction implicit iteration, Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 21 (1991), 43–58.
    [24] P. Benner, J.-R. Li, T. Penzl, Numerical solution of large-scale lyapunov equations, riccati equations, and linear-quadratic optimal control problems, Numerical Linear Algebra with Applications, 15 (2008), 755–777. doi: 10.1002/nla.622
    [25] M. M. Rahman, M. M. Uddin, L. S. Andallah, M. Uddin, Interpolatory projection techniques for \mathcal{H}_2 optimal structure-preserving model order reduction of second-order systems, Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, 5 (2020), 715–723. doi: 10.25046/aj050485
    [26] P. Benner, M. Köhler, J. Saak, Sparse-dense sylvester equations in h_2-model order reduction, (2011).
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Hafiz Muhammad Fraz, Kashif Ali, Muhammad Faisal Nadeem, Entropy measures of silicon nanotubes using degree based topological indices, 2025, 100, 0031-8949, 015202, 10.1088/1402-4896/ad94b4
    2. Pranavi Jaina, K. Anil Kumar, J. Vijayasekhar, Application of Zagreb Index Models in Predicting the Physicochemical Properties of Unsaturated Fatty Acids, 2025, 41, 22315039, 201, 10.13005/ojc/410124
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2021 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(3930) PDF downloads(138) Cited by(3)

Figures and Tables

Figures(5)  /  Tables(2)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog