Consider the classical C

bump function with support on (-1,1) rescaled so it has magnitude 1 at its center.
In[2]:= Bump[x_] : Piecewise]Exp]
x
2
x
2
1
|, Abs[x] 1|; Bump[x]
Plot[Bump[x], {x, 1, 1}, Filling Axis]
Out[2]=

x
2
1x
2
Absx 1
0 True
Out[3]=
1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Observe that the second derivative becomes large in magnitude near the edges of the support. As the absolute value of
the function and its derivatives is symmetric about the origin, only half of it is visualized.
In[4]:= Plot[Evaluate[Table[Derivative[d][Bump][x], {d, 0, 2}]],
{x, 0, 1}, Filling Axis, PlotRange Full,
PlotLabel "Zeroth, first, and second derivatives"]
Out[4]=
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
5
10
15
20
Zeroth, first, and second derivatives
The magnitudes observed grow strikingly as the derivative order increases.
In[5]:= Table[{d, N[MaxValue[Abs[Derivative[d][Bump][x]], x]]}, {d, 0, 7}] // MatrixForm
Out[5]//MatrixForm=
0 1.
1 2.17036
2 21.0659
3 506.688
4 22604.9
5 1.62107 10
6
6 2.21471 10
8
7 3.95463 10
10
This growth makes the bump function ill-suited for numerical initialization smoothing on coarse grids. A coarse grid
that can fully resolve the bump function will likely not be able to resolve its derivatives. This lack of resolution may
cause ringing to appear and can destabilize a simulation. One fix would be to initialize with a Gaussian rather than a
bump function. However, Gaussian functions do not have compact support (and alleviating that issue in a C

-way
brings one back again to bump functions).
This growth makes the bump function ill-suited for numerical initialization smoothing on coarse grids. A coarse grid
that can fully resolve the bump function will likely not be able to resolve its derivatives. This lack of resolution may
cause ringing to appear and can destabilize a simulation. One fix would be to initialize with a Gaussian rather than a
bump function. However, Gaussian functions do not have compact support (and alleviating that issue in a C

-way
brings one back again to bump functions).
One way to alleviate this problem is to use powers of the bump function to minimize the derivative magnitudes up to
some finite derivative order. Powers of the magnitude-one bump function still possess that same magnitude at x = 0
and remain C

.
In[6]:= BumpPower[n_] : Piecewise]Exp]
n 1
2
1
2
1
|, Abs[1] 1| &; BumpPower[n][x]
Plot[Evaluate[Table[Derivative[0][BumpPower[power]][x], {power, 1, 7}]],
{x, 0, 1}, Filling Axis, PlotRange Full,
PlotLabel "Bump function to increasing powers"]
Out[6]=

n x
2
1x
2
Absx 1
0 True
Out[7]=
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Bump function to increasing powers
Derivative maximum magnitudes seem to decrease with the chosen power up to some limiting case. After that case,
the abruptness of the functions magnitude increase at x = 0 dominates the behavior.
In[8]:= Plot[Evaluate[Table[Derivative[1][BumpPower[power]][x], {power, 1, 7}]],
{x, 0, 1}, Filling Axis, PlotRange Full,
PlotLabel "First derivative of increasing powers"]
Out[8]=
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
First derivative of increasing powers
2 BumpFunctionPowers.nb
In[9]:= Plot[Evaluate[Table[Derivative[2][BumpPower[power]][x], {power, 1, 12}]],
{x, 0, 1}, Filling Axis, PlotRange Full,
PlotLabel "Second derivative of increasing powers"]
Out[9]=
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
20
10
10
20
Second derivative of increasing powers
Spot checking a few powers suggests that low powers best control the second derivative.
In[10]:= MagnitudeBumpPowerDerivative[n_, d_] :
N[MaxValue[Abs[Derivative[d][BumpPower[n]][x]], x]]
In[11]:= Table[MagnitudeBumpPowerDerivative[n, d], {d, 0, 5}, {n, 1, 7}] // MatrixForm
Out[11]//MatrixForm=
1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1.
2.17036 1.91156 1.98514 2.11782 2.26213 2.40592 2.54565
21.0659 10.2802 8.36423 8.06356 10. 12. 14.
506.688 127.416 73.0156 57.093 51.8527 62.4822 75.8722
22604.9 2881.99 1129.32 687.778 534.214 542.248 595.288
1.62107 10
6
103571. 29124.4 14355.1 9722.52 8005.8 7479.46
The table suggests that taking a power near four will optimally control the first and second derivative. Attempting to
minimize the derivative absolute magnitudes shows the following continous power-dependence:
In[12]:= Plot[{
MagnitudeBumpPowerDerivative[n, 1],
MagnitudeBumpPowerDerivative[n, 2]
}, {n, 3, 5}, PlotRange {All, {0, Full}},
PlotLabel "First and second derivative versus power taken"]
Out[12]=
3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
2
4
6
8
10
First and second derivative versus power taken
Going to a non-integer power seems to buy very little benefit for the extra computational cost. The integer power 4
seems to be a reasonable tradeoff between the first and second derivatives maximum absolute magnitudes.
BumpFunctionPowers.nb 3
In[13]:= BumpPower[4][x]
Out[13]=

4 x
2
1x
2
Absx 1
0 True
In[14]:= Plot[Evaluate[Table[Derivative[0][BumpPower[power]][x], {power, {1, 4}}]],
{x, 0, 1}, Filling Axis, PlotRange Full]
Out[14]=
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
In[15]:= Plot[Evaluate[Table[Derivative[1][BumpPower[power]][x], {power, {1, 4}}]],
{x, 0, 1}, Filling Axis, PlotRange Full]
Out[15]=
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
In[16]:= Plot[Evaluate[Table[Derivative[2][BumpPower[power]][x], {power, {1, 4}}]],
{x, 0, 1}, Filling Axis, PlotRange Full]
Out[16]=
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
5
5
10
15
20
4 BumpFunctionPowers.nb
In[17]:= Plot[Evaluate[Table[Derivative[3][BumpPower[power]][x], {power, {1, 4}}]],
{x, 0, 1}, Filling Axis, PlotRange Full]
Out[17]=
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
500
400
300
200
100
100
200
BumpFunctionPowers.nb 5