pith. sign in

arxiv: 2411.03264 · v3 · submitted 2024-11-05 · 🧮 math.NA · cs.NA

A priori and a posteriori error estimates of a mathcal C⁰-in-time method for the wave equation in second order formulation

Zhaonan Dong , Lorenzo Mascotto , Zuodong Wang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 17:49 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.NA cs.NA
keywords wave equationGalerkin discretizationa priori estimatesa posteriori estimateserror analysistime discretizationPetrov-Galerkin method
0
0 comments X

The pith

A discontinuous-continuous Galerkin method yields explicit a priori and a posteriori error estimates for the wave equation.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper proves a priori error estimates for a fully discrete version of a discontinuous-continuous Galerkin method for the wave equation in second order form. These estimates are in L infinity type norms and rely on custom projection operators and stability arguments. It also derives a posteriori error estimates for the semi-discrete in time version in the L infinity of L two norm, complete with explicit constants through a reconstruction into C one polynomials. This framework supports accurate error control in time-stepping for wave problems.

Core claim

We establish fully-discrete a priori and semi-discrete in time a posteriori error estimates for a discontinuous-continuous Galerkin discretization of the wave equation; the method uses piecewise polynomial test functions and continuous piecewise polynomial trial functions in time. A priori estimates in L^infty-type norms follow from designed projection operators and nonstandard stability estimates. Reliable a posteriori estimates in L^infty(L^2) with explicit constants are obtained via a reconstruction operator into C^1 piecewise polynomials.

What carries the argument

Discontinuous-continuous Galerkin scheme as a Petrov-Galerkin method with discontinuous test and continuous trial functions in time, supported by projection operators and a C^1 reconstruction operator.

Load-bearing premise

The projection and interpolation operators from the parabolic case extend to the wave equation and the stability estimates based on a nonstandard test function hold.

What would settle it

Numerical computation showing that the a posteriori error estimator fails to bound the true L^infty(L^2) error by the predicted constant, or that a priori estimates do not hold for the chosen operators.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.03264 by Lorenzo Mascotto, Zhaonan Dong, Zuodong Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Exact solution as in (75), uniform τ-refinement. 26 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Exact solution as in (75), uniform p t n-refinement. We observe exponential convergence rate for all the errors. Even though this is not covered by the results in Section 2, we can expect this behaviour from the smoothness of the function in (75) and standard p-FEM techniques [34]. 4.1.2 Uniform refinements: test case 2 We consider analytic in space solutions u(x, y, t) := (1 − x 2 )(1 − y 2 )t α , α > 1.5… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Exact solution as in (76), uniform τ-refinement. We observe optimal convergence rates for the errors in (72) as dictated by Corollary 2.9; similar rates are achieved by the error measures in (73). The error measured in the W 1,∞(L 2 )-seminorm confirms estimate (41); that seminorm converges with the same rate of the error in (74). 27 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Exact solution as in (76), p t n-refinement. We observe doubling order convergence rate in p t n , which is standard in p-FEM while approxi￾mating functions with growth of t α type [34, Section 3.3.5], for the jump of the H1 (L 2 )-seminorm, whereas other quantities display a super-convergence phenomenon. 4.1.3 Simultaneous space–time uniform refinements: test case 3 We consider the analytic solution u(x, … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Exact solution as in (77), τ-refinement. From [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Exact solution as in (77) with parameters m = n = 10 and ω = 10√ 2: polynomial degrees VS errors. From [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Exact solution as in (75), (76), and (77) uniform τ-refinement. The estimator has the optimal convergence rate as the error measured in the L∞(0, T;L 2 (Ω)) norm. Notably, the effectivity index in (78) seems stable with respect to τ , i.e., is uniformly bounded by a constant with respect to τ . Then, in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Exact solution as in (75), (76) and (77), p t n-refinement. Also in this case, the estimator has the same convergence rate as that of the L∞(0, T;L 2 (Ω)) norm of the error. For the test case with exact solution in (75) and (77), the effectivity index κ is uniformly bounded in terms of p t n ; for the test case with exact solution in (76), κ increases with rate 1/2 in terms of p t n . 4.3 Adaptive refineme… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Exact solution as in (76). Some remarks for this test case are in order: 32 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Exact solution as in (76), time mesh visualization. • the adaptive algorithm delivers optimal convergence rate in terms of the number DoF s of the method; • the effectivity index is uniformly bounded for fixed p t n , and the adaptive algorithm asymp￾totically returns smaller effectivity indices. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_10.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We establish fully-discrete a priori and semi-discrete in time a posteriori error estimates for a discontinuous-continuous Galerkin discretization of the wave equation in second order formulation; the resulting method is a Petrov-Galerkin scheme based on piecewise polynomial test functions and continuous piecewise polynomial trial functions in time, respectively. Crucial tools in the a priori analysis for the fully-discrete formulation are the design of suitable projection and interpolation operators extending those used in the parabolic setting, and stability estimates based on a nonstandard choice of the test function; a priori estimates are shown, which are measured in $L^\infty$-type norms in time. For the semi-discrete in time formulation, we exhibit reliable a posteriori error estimates for the error measured in the $L^\infty(L^2)$ norm with fully explicit constants; to this aim, we design a reconstruction operator into $\mathcal C^1$ piecewise polynomials over the time grid with optimal approximation properties in terms of the polynomial degree distribution and the time steps. Numerical examples illustrate the theoretical findings.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a Petrov-Galerkin discretization of the wave equation in second-order form that is discontinuous in the test functions and continuous (C^0) in the trial functions in time. It derives fully discrete a priori error estimates in L^∞-type norms via specialized projection/interpolation operators extending parabolic techniques together with stability arguments that employ a nonstandard test function. For the semi-discrete-in-time case it constructs a C^1 reconstruction operator with optimal approximation properties and obtains reliable a posteriori bounds in the L^∞(L²) norm that carry fully explicit constants. Numerical examples are included to illustrate the theory.

Significance. If the claimed estimates hold, the work supplies a concrete extension of projection-based a priori analysis and reconstruction-based a posteriori analysis from parabolic to second-order hyperbolic problems, with the explicit constants constituting a practical advantage for adaptive computations. The approach relies on standard approximation-theory tools plus one nonstandard device for stability; the absence of hidden circularity or parameter fitting in the stated argument is a positive feature.

minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that constants are fully explicit; the manuscript should verify in a dedicated remark or appendix that every constant appearing in the final a posteriori bound is indeed independent of the solution and can be computed from the data of the problem alone.
  2. Notation for the trial and test spaces (continuous vs. discontinuous in time) and for the reconstruction operator should be introduced once in a preliminary section and used consistently thereafter to avoid repeated re-definition.
  3. The numerical examples section would benefit from a short table reporting observed convergence rates alongside the theoretically predicted rates for at least two different polynomial-degree distributions.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and positive assessment of the manuscript, including the recommendation for minor revision. The report does not list any specific major comments requiring response.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation self-contained

full rationale

The paper constructs projection/interpolation operators extending parabolic techniques and a reconstruction operator into C^1 polynomials, then proves their approximation properties and uses them with a nonstandard test function to derive a priori L^∞-type bounds and explicit a posteriori L^∞(L²) bounds. These steps rely on standard approximation theory and stability arguments rather than any self-definitional reduction, fitted input renamed as prediction, or load-bearing self-citation chain. The central claims are independent of the target error estimates and do not reduce to inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review supplies no concrete free parameters, ad-hoc axioms, or invented entities; the work rests on standard functional-analysis assumptions for Galerkin methods and wave-equation regularity that are not enumerated here.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5726 in / 1241 out tokens · 20395 ms · 2026-05-23T17:49:52.747876+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. A posteriori error analysis and adaptivity of a space-time finite element method for the wave equation in second order formulation

    math.NA 2025-09 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    The authors derive rigorous a posteriori error bounds in the L^∞(L²) norm for an arbitrary-order space-time FEM for the wave equation that supports adaptive mesh modification via temporal reconstructions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    S. Adjerid. A posteriori finite element error estimation for second-order hyperbolic problems.Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg., 191(41-42):4699–4719, 2002

    work page 2002

  2. [2]

    A. K. Aziz and P. Monk. Continuous finite elements in space and time for the heat equation.Math. Comp., 52(186):255–274, 1989

    work page 1989

  3. [3]

    Babuˇ ska and J

    I. Babuˇ ska and J. Osborn. Analysis of finite element methods for second order boundary value problems using mesh dependent norms.Numer. Math., 34(1):41–62, 1980

    work page 1980

  4. [4]

    G. A. Baker. Error estimates for finite element methods for second order hyperbolic equations.SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 13(4):564–576, 1976

    work page 1976

  5. [5]

    Bernardi and E

    Ch. Bernardi and E. S¨ uli. Time and space adaptivity for the second-order wave equation.Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci., 15(02):199–225, 2005

    work page 2005

  6. [6]

    Castillo, B

    P. Castillo, B. Cockburn, D. Sch¨ otzau, and Ch. Schwab. Optimal a priori error estimates for thehp-version of the local discontinuous Galerkin method for convection–diffusion problems.Math. Comp., 71(238):455–478, 2002

    work page 2002

  7. [7]

    Chaumont-Frelet

    Th. Chaumont-Frelet. Asymptotically constant-free and polynomial-degree-robust a posteriori estimates for space discretizations of the wave equation.SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 45(4):A1591–A1620, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Chaumont-Frelet and A

    Th. Chaumont-Frelet and A. Ern. Damped energy-norm a posteriori error estimates for fully discrete approxi- mations of the wave equation usingC 2-reconstructions.ESAIM Math. Model. Numer. Anal., 59(4):1937–1972, 2025

    work page 1937

  9. [9]

    Z. Dong, E. H. Georgoulis, L. Mascotto, and Z. Wang. A posteriori error analysis and adaptivity of a space-time finite element method for the wave equation in second order formulation.http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.08537, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    L. C. Evans.Partial Differential Equations, volume 19. American Mathematical Society, 2022

    work page 2022

  11. [11]

    M. Feischl. Inf-sup stability implies quasi-orthogonality.Math. Comp., 91(337):2059–2094, 2022

    work page 2059

  12. [12]

    Feischl and D

    M. Feischl and D. Niederkofler. Optimal adaptive implicit time stepping.https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.18809, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    D. A. French. A space-time finite element method for the wave equation.Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg., 107(1-2):145–157, 1993

    work page 1993

  14. [14]

    D. A. French and T. E. Peterson. A continuous space-time finite element method for the wave equation.Math. Comp., 65(214):491–506, 1996

    work page 1996

  15. [15]

    E. H. Georgoulis, O. Lakkis, and Ch. Makridakis. A posterioriL ∞(L2)-error bounds for finite element approx- imations to the wave equation.IMA J. Numer. Anal., 33(4):1245–1264, 2013

    work page 2013

  16. [16]

    E. H. Georgoulis, O. Lakkis, Ch. Makridakis, and J. M. Virtanen. A posteriori error estimates for leap-frog and cosine methods for second order evolution problems.SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 54(1):120–136, 2016

    work page 2016

  17. [17]

    E. H. Georgoulis, O. Lakkis, and Th. P. Wihler. A posteriori error bounds for fully-discretehp-discontinuous Galerkin timestepping methods for parabolic problems.Numer. Math., 148:363–386, 2021

    work page 2021

  18. [18]

    G´ omez and V

    S. G´ omez and V. Nikoliˇ c. Combined DG–CG finite element method for the Westervelt equation.IMA J. Numer. Anal., page draf080, 09 2025

    work page 2025

  19. [19]

    Gorynina, A

    O. Gorynina, A. Lozinski, and M. Picasso. Time and space adaptivity of the wave equation discretized in time by a second-order scheme.IMA J. Numer. Anal., 39(4):1672–1705, 2019

    work page 2019

  20. [20]

    Grisvard.Elliptic Problems in Nonsmooth Domains, volume 69 ofClassics in Applied Mathematics

    P. Grisvard.Elliptic Problems in Nonsmooth Domains, volume 69 ofClassics in Applied Mathematics. SIAM, 2011

    work page 2011

  21. [21]

    Grote, S

    M. Grote, S. Michel, and S. Sauter. Stabilized leapfrog based local time-stepping method for the wave equation. Math. Comp., 90(332):2603–2643, 2021

    work page 2021

  22. [22]

    Holm and Th

    B. Holm and Th. P. Wihler. Continuous and discontinuous Galerkin time stepping methods for nonlinear initial value problems with application to finite time blow-up.Numer. Math., 138(3):767–799, 2018

    work page 2018

  23. [23]

    G. M. Hulbert and Th. J. R. Hughes. Space-time finite element methods for second-order hyperbolic equations. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg., 84(3):327–348, 1990

    work page 1990

  24. [24]

    Ilyin, A

    A. Ilyin, A. Laptev, M. Loss, and S. Zelik. One-dimensional interpolation inequalities, Carlson–Landau in- equalities, and magnetic Schr¨ odinger operators.Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN, 2016(4):1190–1222, 2016

    work page 2016

  25. [25]

    C. Johnson. Discontinuous Galerkin finite element methods for second order hyperbolic problems.Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg., 107(1-2):117–129, 1993

    work page 1993

  26. [26]

    Karakashian and Ch

    O. Karakashian and Ch. Makridakis. Convergence of a continuous Galerkin method with mesh modification for nonlinear wave equations.Math. Comp., 74(249):85–102, 2005

    work page 2005

  27. [27]

    Makridakis and R

    Ch. Makridakis and R. H. Nochetto. A posteriori error analysis for higher order dissipative methods for evolution problems.Numer. Math., 104(4):489–514, 2006. 34

    work page 2006

  28. [28]

    Ch. G. Makridakis. On the Babuˇ ska-Osborn approach to finite element analysis:L2 estimates for unstructured meshes.Numer. Math., 139(4):831–844, 2018

    work page 2018

  29. [29]

    M¨ uller, D

    F. M¨ uller, D. Sch¨ otzau, and Ch. Schwab. Symmetric interior penalty discontinuous Galerkin methods for elliptic problems in polygons.SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 55(5):2490–2521, 2017

    work page 2017

  30. [30]

    Nataraj, R

    N. Nataraj, R. Ruiz-Baier, and A. Yousuf. Semi and fully-discrete analysis of lowest-order nonstandard finite element methods for the biharmonic wave problem.Comput. Methods Appl. Math., 25(4):921–948, 2025

    work page 2025

  31. [31]

    Raviart and J.-M

    P.-A. Raviart and J.-M. Thomas.Introduction ` a l’analyse num´ erique des ´ equations aux d´ eriv´ ees partielles. Collection Math´ ematiques Appliqu´ ees pour la Maˆ ıtrise. [Collection of Applied Mathematics for the Master’s Degree]. Masson, Paris, 1983

    work page 1983

  32. [32]

    Sch¨ otzau and Ch

    D. Sch¨ otzau and Ch. Schwab. Time discretization of parabolic problems by thehp-version of the discontinuous Galerkin finite element method.SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 38(3):837–875, 2000

    work page 2000

  33. [33]

    Sch¨ otzau and Th

    D. Sch¨ otzau and Th. P. Wihler. A posteriori error estimation forhp-version time-stepping methods for parabolic partial differential equations.Numer. Math., 115(3):475–509, 2010

    work page 2010

  34. [34]

    Schwab.p- andhp-Finite Element Methods: Theory and Applications in Solid and Fluid Mechanics

    Ch. Schwab.p- andhp-Finite Element Methods: Theory and Applications in Solid and Fluid Mechanics. The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, New York, 1998

    work page 1998

  35. [35]

    E. S¨ uli. A posteriori error analysis and adaptivity for finite element approximations of hyperbolic problems. In An Introduction to Recent Developments in Theory and Numerics for Conservation Laws: Proceedings of the International School on Theory and Numerics for Conservation Laws, Freiburg/Littenweiler, October 20–24, 1997, pages 123–194. Springer, 1999

    work page 1997

  36. [36]

    Thom´ ee.Galerkin Finite Element Methods for Parabolic Problems, volume 25

    V. Thom´ ee.Galerkin Finite Element Methods for Parabolic Problems, volume 25. Springer Science & Business Media, 2007

    work page 2007

  37. [37]

    L. N. Trefethen.Approximation Theory and Approximation Practice, Extended Edition. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA, 2019

    work page 2019

  38. [38]

    Verdugo and S

    F. Verdugo and S. Badia. The software design of Gridap: a finite element package based on the Julia JIT compiler.Comput. Phys. Commun., 276:Paper No. 108341, 24, 2022

    work page 2022

  39. [39]

    N. J. Walkington. Combined DG–CG time stepping for wave equations.SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 52(3):1398– 1417, 2014. 35

    work page 2014