 Research
 Open Access
 Published:
Iterative method for solving onedimensional fractional mathematical physics model via quartersweep and PAOR
Advances in Difference Equations volume 2021, Article number: 147 (2021)
Abstract
This paper will solve one of the fractional mathematical physics models, a onedimensional timefractional differential equation, by utilizing the secondorder quartersweep finitedifference scheme and the preconditioned accelerated overrelaxation method. The proposed numerical method offers an efficient solution to the timefractional differential equation by applying the computational complexity reduction approach by the quartersweep technique. The finitedifference approximation equation will be formulated based on the Caputo’s timefractional derivative and quartersweep central difference in space. The developed approximation equation generates a linear system on a large scale and has sparse coefficients. With the quartersweep technique and the preconditioned iterative method, computing the timefractional differential equation solutions can be more efficient in terms of the number of iterations and computation time. The quartersweep computes a quarter of the total mesh points using the preconditioned iterative method while maintaining the solutions’ accuracy. A numerical example will demonstrate the efficiency of the proposed quartersweep preconditioned accelerated overrelaxation method against the halfsweep preconditioned accelerated overrelaxation, and the fullsweep preconditioned accelerated overrelaxation methods. The numerical finding showed that the quartersweep finite difference scheme and preconditioned accelerated overrelaxation method can serve as an efficient numerical method to solve fractional differential equations.
Introduction
The growing interest in the theory and applications of fractional calculus has become the motivation for many researchers in recent years. Fractional calculus has attracted attention of experts from all over the world. Various fractional operators have been introduced in the literature such as [3, 9–11, 27, 30, 31], and this encourages more extensive researches to be conducted. Solving fractional differential equations (FDEs) using numerical methods has been seen as an ongoing research trend. The analytical solutions of most FDEs are challenging compared to the ordinary (ODEs) and partial differential equations (PDEs) in general. Therefore, numerical solutions are actively being found by proposing new numerical approximation techniques to solve the FDEs. Some notable numerical methods have been developed to solve the fractional partial derivatives problems [1, 2, 14, 19, 20, 29].
Besides that, [12] has presented several interesting MATLAB routines for solving FDEs. The author has provided many solution techniques for solving three identified FDE problems such as the standard FDEs, the multiorder systems of FDEs, and the multiterm FDEs. One of the studies [13] presented several computational cost evaluations for the numerical solutions of FDEs from the point of view of computer science. Based on that work, the computational complexities for the timefractional, spacefractional, and space–time FDEs are known to be \(O( N^{2} M)\), \(O ( NM^{2} )\), and \(O(NM ( M+N ) )\). The authors have also compared the three mentioned computational costs against \(O(MN)\), which is the cost of finding solutions for the classical partial differential equations using finitedifference methods. Here, M and N denote the number of spatial grid points and time steps, respectively. Moreover, the authors have mentioned that the preconditioner technique is a good alternative to accelerate the computational process in solving FDEs.
In our development of the numerical method to solve FDEs, we are interested in applying the secondorder quartersweep finitedifference scheme with a preconditioning technique to solve the timefractional FDE (TFDE). There are several finite difference scheme applications to solve the TFDE [5, 7, 12, 25, 26]. However, the investigation on the efficiency of the numerical method used to solve the TFDE is quite limited. The quartersweep finitedifference scheme has been a good computation complexity reduction approach, especially when a large number of mesh points are considered [4, 22, 28]. The quartersweep is able to reduce the computational complexity of computing the solutions of a large linear system by computing a quarter of the total number of mesh points without offsetting the solutions’ accuracy. Therefore, this paper investigates the efficiency of the quartersweep finite difference scheme with a preconditioning technique called PAOR [26] to solve the TFDE. The PAOR iterative method will be used to compute a quarter of mesh points after quartersweep implementation. The remaining mesh points will be estimated by averaging. This efficient numerical method is important to the physicists to aid their investigation on the timefractional mathematical model, arising from the necessity to sharpen the concepts of equilibrium, stability states, and time evolution in the long time limit [8, 17, 18].
Throughout this paper, we discretized TFDE using the unconditionally stable secondorder quartersweep implicit finitedifference (QSIFD) scheme. We used Caputo’s fractional partial derivative to form the approximation equation. Usually, the finitedifference approximation equation’s implementation leads to a tridiagonal matrix of the linear system due to its characteristics. The discretized finitedifference approximations also form a large and sparse matrix which is the best alternative to be solved using the iterative method. We have observed the successful iterative methods from many researchers. From many discussions and extensions made in several categories of iterative methods, we find that the preconditioned iterative methods have the unique properties to solve a linear system efficiently [15, 16, 23].
This paper’s main contribution is to present the efficiency of our proposed numerical method, which can be called the quartersweep preconditioned accelerated overrelaxation (QSPAOR) iterative method for solving TFDEs. In this paper, the numerical method’s efficiency is evaluated based on the number of iterations and the computation time. The QSPAOR iterative method’s efficiency will be compared against the halfsweep preconditioned accelerated overrelaxation (HSPAOR) and fullsweep preconditioned accelerated overrelaxation (FSPAOR), and the improvement in terms of the reduction of both the number of iterations and computation time will be illustrated. The stability analysis of the quartersweep finite difference approximation equation and the AOR iterative method’s convergence analysis are also provided.
The general TFDE that we consider as the main problem to be solved can be written as
where \(p ( x )\), \(q ( x )\), and \(r(x)\) are known functions or coefficients; meanwhile, α is a parameter that determines the degree of fractional order for the time derivative. For the formulation of the finitedifference approximation with Caputo’s derivative, here are the important definitions that we use:
Definition 1
The Riemann–Liouville fractional integral operator, \(J^{\alpha } \), of orderα is defined as
Definition 2
The Caputo’s fractional partial derivative operator, \(D^{\alpha }\), of orderα is defined as
with \(m  1<\alpha \leq m\), \(m \in N\) and \(x>0\).
Research methodology
To solve the fractional differential problem shown in Eq. (1), we assume that the solutions exist and satisfy the Dirichlet boundary conditions. Therefore, using Eq. (2), the timefractional derivative term in Eq. (1) is discretized using
Using the approximation equation to Eq. (1) employing the finitedifference method and Caputo’s fractional derivative, we develop a C++ code for the simulation of the approximate solutions. We have two examples of the TFDE to examine the iterative methods, i.e., the proposed QSPAOR, HSPAOR, and FSPAOR. The proposed numerical method’s efficiency is examined using the number of iterations (K) and the computation time measured in seconds. The maximum absolute error (MAE) is also observed for accuracy checking. These criteria are compared by using three different order parameters α, i.e., \(\alpha =0.25\), \(\alpha =0.50\), and \(\alpha =0.75\). The convergence tolerance, \(\varepsilon =1 0^{ 10}\), is set to terminate the iteration process.
Approximation to the time fractional differential equation
The firstorder approximation to the Caputo’s fractional derivative, which is derived from the discrete approximation to the timefractional derivative term shown in Eq. (4), can be written as
where, from Eq. (5), we define two representations for the sake of simplicity as follows:
and
Then, we use the common discretization by partitioning the solution domain of Eq. (1) uniformly, subjected by the Dirichlet boundary conditions. The numbers m and n (\(m,n\ni \aleph ^{+} \)) are defined so that the grid framework in space and time is fixed everywhere and has increments denoted as \(h=\Delta x= \frac{\gamma 0}{m}\) and \(k=\Delta t= \frac{T}{n}\), respectively. Based on the developed uniform grid network, the grid points in the space interval \([ 0,\gamma ]\) are represented by \(x_{i} =ih\), for \(i=0,1,2,\ldots,m\), meanwhile the grid points in the time interval \([ 0,T ]\) are labeled as \(t_{j} =jk\) for \(j=0,1,2,\ldots,n\). Therefore, the values of the function \(U ( x,t )\) at the grid points are expressed as \(U_{i,j} =U ( x_{i}, t_{j} )\).
The implementation of QSIFD discretization scheme for Eq. (5) produced the Caputo’s approximation to Eq. (1) at the grid point \(( x_{i}, t_{j} ) = ( i h,jk )\) which can be formulated as
for \(i=4, 8,\ldots,m4\).
When the approximation in Eq. (6) is applied on the specified time level \(n \geq 2\), Eq. (6) can be expressed as
and the coefficients are represented by
In addition to this, for \(n=1\), we have
where \(\omega _{j}^{ ( \alpha )} =1\), \(q_{i}^{*} = \sigma _{\alpha ,k}  q'_{i}\), and \(f_{i,1} = \sigma _{\alpha ,k} U_{i,1}\).
When a certain number of grid points is considered based on Eq. (8), a system of linear equations is obtained, which can be expressed in the form matrix as follows:
where
and
Analysis of stability
In this section, the stability analysis on the formulated Caputo’s finitedifference approximation in Eq. (6) is considered based on von Neumann’s approach and the Lax equivalence theorem [21, 24, 33].
Theorem 4.1
The fully IFD approximation to the solution of Eq. (1) with \(0<\alpha <1\) on the finite domain \(0\leq x\leq 1\), with zero boundary condition \(U ( 0,t ) =U ( \ell, t ) =0\) for all \(t \geq 0\), is consistent and unconditionally stable.
Proof
Writing the solution of Eq. (1) in the form \(U_{j}^{n} = \xi _{n} e^{i\omega j h}\), \(i= \sqrt{ 1}\), ω is real, Eq. (1) becomes
By simplifying and reordering Eq. (10), we get
Eventually, from Eq. (11), we reduce to
Hence, from Eq. (12), it can be observed that
for all α, n, ω, h, and k; then we have the inequality \(\xi _{1} \leq \xi _{0}\), and
Based on Eq. (14), for \(n=2\), we obtain
Then, by repeating the same process as in Eq. (15), we can get
From Eq. (16), we finally have
Since each term in the sum shown in Eq. (17) is negative, it implies that the inequalities in Eqs. (16) and (17) can be generalized into
Thus, \(\xi _{n} = \vert U_{j}^{n} \vert \leq \xi _{0} = \vert U_{j}^{0} \vert = \vert f_{j} \vert \), which entails \(\Vert U_{j}^{n} \Vert \leq \Vert f_{j} \Vert \), and we have stability. It follows that the numerical solution of the approximation equation to Eq. (1) converges to the exact solution as \(h,k \rightarrow 0\). □
QSPAOR iterative method
In this section, we discuss solving the tridiagonal linear system as in Eq. (9). To formulate the QSPAOR iterative method, first convert the initial linear system into the preconditioned system in the form of
Referring to Eq. (19), the new coefficient matrix is obtained by
then the righthand side functional vector is
and lastly, the approximate solutions are calculated using
Based on the transformation that we use in Eqs. (20)–(22), the matrix P is defined as a preconditioning matrix, that is,
where
and the matrix I is an identity matrix.
Next, we let the coefficient matrix \(A^{*}\) in Eq. (19) be given in the form of a sum as follows:
Based on the sum of three matrices in Eq. (24), we represent D, L, and V as the diagonal, the lower and the upper triangular matrices, respectively. Hence, using the preconditioned system in Eq. (19) and matrices in Eq. (24), the proposed iterative method for solving TFDE, QSPAOR, can be generally formulated as
where \(\mathop{x}\limits_{\sim}^{ ( K+1 )}\) denotes the vector to be determined at the \((K+1)\)th iteration.
The operation of the QSPAOR method is executed as in Algorithm 1.
Algorithm 1
(QSPAOR method)

i.
Initialize \(\mathop{U}\limits_{\sim} \leftarrow 0\) and \(\varepsilon \leftarrow 1 0^{ 10}\).

ii.
For \(j=4, 8,\ldots,n4\) and for \(i=4, 8,\ldots,m4\), calculate \(\mathop{x}\limits_{\sim}^{ ( K+1 )} = ( D  \omega L )^{ 1} [ \beta V+ ( \beta  \omega ) D+ ( 1  \beta ) D ] \mathop{x}\limits_{\sim}^{ ( K )} +\beta ( D  \omega L )^{ 1} \mathop{f}\limits_{\sim}^{*}\), and then \(\mathop{U}\limits_{\sim}^{ ( K+1 )} = P^{T} \mathop{x}\limits_{\sim}^{ ( K+1 )}\).

iii.
Convergence criterion \(\Vert \mathop{U}\limits_{\sim}^{ ( K+1 )}  \mathop{U}\limits_{\sim}^{ ( K )} \Vert \leq \varepsilon \). If the process converged, go to Step (iv). Otherwise, repeat Step (i).

iv.
Display approximate solutions.
Convergence of AOR method
As the QSPAOR iterative method has been formulated, in this section, we discuss the convergence of AOR method that we implement for the solution process to solve Eq. (1). Therefore, let us consider the AOR method [32]:
with \(n =0,1, 2,\ldots \) , where
Theorem 6.1
If the AOR method (16) converges (\(\rho ( L_{\omega ,\beta } ) <1\)) for some \(\beta ,\omega \neq 0\), then exactly one of the following statements holds:

(i)
\(\omega \in ( 0,2 )\) and \(\beta \in ( \infty ,0 ) \cup ( 0,+ \infty )\),

(ii)
\(\omega \in ( \infty ,0 ) \cup ( 2,+\infty )\) and \(\beta \in ( \frac{2\omega }{ ( 2  \omega )},0 ) \cup ( 0,2 )\).
Proof
It is known that the eigenvalues \(\lambda _{j}\) of \(L_{\omega ,\beta }\) (\(\beta ,\omega \neq 0 \)) are connected with the eigenvalues \(\xi _{j}\) of \(L_{\omega ,\omega } \equiv L_{\omega } \) (\(L_{\omega }\) is the SOR iteration matrix) by the relationship
From Eq. (28), we get \(\xi _{j} =1 \frac{\omega }{\beta } + \frac{\omega }{\beta } \lambda _{j}\), \(j=2 ( 2 ) m2\). We also note that \(\prod_{j=2,4,\ldots}^{m2} \xi _{j} = ( 1\omega )^{n} \).
Therefore, \(\prod_{j=2,4,\ldots}^{m2} ( 1 \frac{\omega }{\beta } + \frac{\omega \lambda _{j}}{\beta } )  ( 1\omega )^{n}\) and since \(\vert \lambda _{j} \vert <1\), \(j=2(2)m  2\) from hypothesis, we obtain
that is,
or equivalently,
It can be shown that Eq. (31) holds if and only if exactly one of the following statements holds:

(i)
\(\omega \in ( 0,2 )\) and \(\beta \in ( \infty ,0 ) \cup ( 0,+ \infty )\),

(ii)
\(\omega \in ( \infty ,0 ) \cup ( 2,+\infty )\) and \(\beta \in ( \frac{2\omega }{ ( 2  \omega )},0 ) \cup ( 0,2 )\),
and the proof is completed. □
Theorem 6.2
If the AOR method with \(\omega =0\) converges (\(\rho ( L_{0,\beta } ) <1 \)) then \(0<\beta <2\).
Proof
If \(\omega =0\), then \(L_{0,\beta } = ( 1  \beta ) D+\beta ( L+U ) = ( 1  \beta ) D+\beta B\). If \(\mu _{j}\), \(j=2 ( 2 ) m2\) are the eigenvalues of B, then for the eigenvalues \(\lambda _{j}\) of \(L_{0,\beta } \) we get
which implies
But since \(B=0\), we get
From Eq. (34) we have
and consequently,
Since \(\vert \lambda _{j} \vert <1\), \(j=2(2)m  2\) from the hypothesis, \(\vert ( \frac{m}{2} 1 ) ( 1\beta ) \vert < n\), or \(0<\beta <2\). □
Timefractional diffusion examples
For the numerical simulation, we consider two examples of the TFDE problems to evaluate the efficiency of the proposed QSPAOR against the previously developed iterative methods in our research, namely HSPAOR and FSPAOR. The three criteria, as mentioned in Sect. 2, are compared for each of the three different values of α, i.e., \(\alpha =0.25\), \(\alpha =0.50\), and \(\alpha =0.75\). The iteration cycle for the running program based on Algorithm 1 is limited by the tolerance \(\varepsilon = 1 0^{ 10}\). We consider the following two TFDE examples, namely the timefractional initial boundary value problems from [6]:
Example 1
The boundary conditions that we implement are stated in fractional terms as follows:
and to initiate the approximate solutions, we set the initial condition
Example 2
For the example of Eq. (40), we initiate the approximate solutions using the initial condition \(U ( x,0 ) = x^{2}  x^{3}\) and implement the zero Dirichlet conditions. Meanwhile, the exact solution to this problem is \(U ( {x},{t} ) = x^{2} ( 1{x} ) e^{{t}}\).
Allimportant numerical results from the implementation of QSPAOR, HSPAOR, and FSPAOR methods to solve the numerical examples in Eqs. (37) and (40) are recorded in Tables 1 and 2. For the consistency inspection, we run the numerical simulation by increasing the values of mesh sizes, that is, \(m= 128, 256, 512, 1024\), and 2048. Based on the results tabulated in Tables 1 and 2, we found that QSPAOR required the least number of iterations and the shortest computation time to finish computing the two examples’ solutions compared to the HSPAOR and FSPAOR. The numerical results are similar for all values of mesh sizes and parameter α. These results attribute the significant improvement in computing efficiency to the quartersweep technique, which computes a quarter of the total number of mesh points using PAOR instead of all mesh points in the solution domain.
The results can be summarized as follows. For Example 1, the number of iterations and computation time have declined by 80.25–85.36% and 71.89–81.78%, respectively, if QSPAOR method is compared to the FSPAOR method. When QSPAOR is compared to HSPAOR, the number of iterations and the computation time have reduced by about 49.20–54.74% and 44.18–57.27%, respectively. For Example 2, QSPAOR has reduced the number of iterations and the computation time of FSPAOR by about 72.13–84.16% and 67.16–80.90% respectively. When compared to HSPAOR, these improvements became 43.57–64.35% and 38.57–57.28%, respectively. Overall, the accuracy of the three numerical methods, i.e., QSPAOR, HSPAOR, and FSPAOR, is comparable.
Conclusion
This paper solved a onedimensional TFDE by applying the quartersweep finitedifference scheme and the PAOR iterative method. Using the quartersweep technique and PAOR iterative method, the computational complexity of computing the solutions of the TFDE has been successfully reduced. The quartersweep calculated only a quarter of the total mesh points by using PAOR while averaging the remaining mesh points, and the result is promising. The numerical experiments demonstrated the efficiency of the proposed QSPAOR method, in which the number of iterations and computation time have been reduced significantly, compared to the HSPAOR and FSPAOR methods. In addition to that, the accuracy of the three tested methods is almost identical. The study found that the computational complexity reduction by the quartersweep and the PAOR method can be an efficient numerical method to solve TFDE.
Availability of data and materials
Not applicable.
References
Agarwal, P., ElSayed, A.A.: Vieta–Lucas polynomials for solving a fractionalorder mathematical physics model. Adv. Differ. Equ. 2020(1), 626 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s1366202003085y
Akram, T., Abbas, M., Ali, A., Iqbal, A., Baleanu, D.: A numerical approach of a time fractional reaction–diffusion model with a nonsingular kernel. Symmetry 12(10), 1653 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12101653
Ali, K.K., Osman, M.S., Baskonus, H.M., Elazabb, N.S., İlhan, E.: Analytical and numerical study of the HIV1 infection of CD4+ Tcells conformable fractional mathematical model that causes acquired immunodeficiency syndrome with the effect of antiviral drug therapy. Math. Methods Appl. Sci. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1002/mma.7022
Aruchunan, E., Muthuvalu, M.S., Sulaiman, J.: Quartersweep iteration concept on conjugate gradient normal residual method via second order quadraturefinite difference schemes for solving Fredholm integrodifferential equations. Sains Malays. 44(1), 139–146 (2015). https://doi.org/10.17576/jsm2015440119
Cen, Z., Huang, J., Le, A., Xu, A.: A secondorder scheme for a timefractional diffusion equation. Appl. Math. Lett. 90, 79–85 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aml.2018.10.016
Demir, A., Erman, S., Özgür, B., Korkmaz, E.: Analysis of fractional partial differential equations by Taylor series expansion. Bound. Value Probl. 2013(1), 68 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1186/16872770201368
Duo, S., Ju, L., Zhang, Y.: A fast algorithm for solving the space–time fractional diffusion equation. Comput. Math. Appl. 75(6), 1929–1941 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.camwa.2017.04.008
Fujita, Y.: Cauchy problems of fractional order and stable processes. Jpn. J. Appl. Math. 7(3), 459–476 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03167854
Gao, W., Veeresha, P., Prakasha, D.G., Baskonus, H.M.: New numerical simulation for fractional Benney–Lin equation arising in falling film problems using two novel techniques. Numer. Methods Partial Differ. Equ. 37(1), 210–243 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1002/num.22526
Gao, W., Veeresha, P., Prakasha, D.G., Baskonus, H.M., Yel, G.: New numerical results for the timefractional Phifour equation using a novel analytical approach. Symmetry 12(3), 478 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12030478
Gao, W., Yel, G., Baskonus, H.M., Cattani, C.: Complex solitons in the conformable \((2+1)\)dimensional Ablowitz–Kaup–Newell–Segur equation. AIMS Math. 5(1), 507–521 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3934/math.2020034
Garrappa, R.: Numerical solution of fractional differential equations: a survey and a software tutorial. Mathematics 6(2), 16 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3390/math6020016
Gong, C., Bao, W., Tang, G., Jiang, Y., Liu, J.: Computational challenge of fractional differential equations and the potential solutions: a survey. Math. Probl. Eng. 2015, 258265 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/258265
GonzálezOlvera, M.A., Torres, L., HernándezFontes, J.V., Mendoza, E.: Time fractional diffusion equation for shipping water events simulation. Chaos Solitons Fractals 143, 110538 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2020.110538
Gunawardena, A.D., Jain, S.K., Snyder, L.: Modified iterative methods for consistent linear systems. Linear Algebra Appl. 154–156, 123–143 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1016/00243795(91)903768
Hacksbusch, W.: Iterative solution of large sparse systems of equations. Appl. Math. Sci. (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/9781461242888
Hilfer, R.: Foundations of fractional dynamics. Fractals 3(3), 549–556 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1142/s0218348x95000485
Hilfer, R.: Fractional diffusion based on Riemann–Liouville fractional derivatives. J. Phys. Chem. B 104(16), 3914–3917 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1021/jp9936289
Jaradat, I., Alquran, M., Momani, S., Baleanu, D.: Numerical schemes for studying biomathematics model inherited with memorytime and delaytime. Alex. Eng. J. 59(5), 2969–2974 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2020.03.038
Kumar, S., Shaw, P.K., AbdelAty, A., Mahmoud, E.E.: A numerical study on fractional differential equation with population growth model. Numer. Methods Partial Differ. Equ. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1002/num.22684
Langlands, T.A.M., Henry, B.I.: The accuracy and stability of an implicit solution method for the fractional diffusion equation. J. Comput. Phys. 205(2), 719–736 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2004.11.025
Othman, M., Abdullah, A.R.: An efficient four points modified explicit group Poisson solver. Int. J. Comput. Math. 76(2), 203–217 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1080/00207160008805020
Saad, Y.: Iterative Methods for Sparse Linear Systems. SIAM, Philadelphia (2003)
Schultz, M.H.: A generalization of the Lax equivalence theorem. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 17(5), 1034–1035 (1966). https://doi.org/10.1090/s00029939196601982621
Sun, H., Cao, W.: A fast temporal secondorder difference scheme for the timefractional subdiffusion equation. Numer. Methods Partial Differ. Equ. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1002/num.22612
Sunarto, A., Sulaiman, J.: Computational algorithm PAOR for timefractional diffusion equations. IOP Conf. Ser., Mater. Sci. Eng. 874, 012029 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1088/1757899x/874/1/012029
Veeresha, P., Baskonus, H.M., Prakasha, D.G., Gao, W., Yel, G.: Regarding new numerical solution of fractional Schistosomiasis disease arising in biological phenomena. Chaos Solitons Fractals 133, 109661 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2020.109661
Vui Lung, J.C., Sulaiman, J.: On quartersweep finite difference scheme for onedimensional porous medium equations. Int. J. Appl. Math. 33(3), 439–450 (2020). https://doi.org/10.12732/ijam.v33i3.6
Xu, Q., Xu, Y.: Extremely low order timefractional differential equation and application in combustion process. Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul. 64, 135–148 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnsns.2018.04.021
Yang, X.J., Gao, F.: A new technology for solving diffusion and heat equations. Therm. Sci. 21(1 Part A), 133–140 (2017). https://doi.org/10.2298/tsci160411246y
Yang, X.J., Ragulskis, M., Taha, T.: A new general fractionalorder derivative with Rabotnov fractionalexponential kernel. Therm. Sci. 23(6 Part B), 3711–3718 (2019). https://doi.org/10.2298/tsci180825254y
Yeyios, A.K.: A necessary condition for the convergence of the accelerated overrelaxation (AOR) method. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 26(3), 371–373 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1016/03770427(89)903099
Zwillinger, D.: Handbook of Differential Equations, 3rd edn. Academic Press, San Diego (1997)
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the anonymous referees and the handling editor for their careful reading and relevant remarks/suggestions.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
The authors contributed equally to this article. They have all read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Sunarto, A., Agarwal, P., Sulaiman, J. et al. Iterative method for solving onedimensional fractional mathematical physics model via quartersweep and PAOR. Adv Differ Equ 2021, 147 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13662021033102
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13662021033102
Keywords
 Caputo’s fractional derivative
 Implicit finitedifference scheme
 QSPAOR
 TFDE