Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 47 references

Bound-preserving and entropy stable enriched Galerkin methods for nonlinear hyperbolic equations

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper develops a limiting strategy that makes enriched Galerkin discretizations of nonlinear scalar conservation laws both bound-preserving and entropy stable, while preserving near-optimal convergence in smooth tests.

desk verdict A solid, careful extension of MCL to nonlinear EG that deserves refereeing but overstates its proof content; the main gap is an unproved O(h^2) perturbation claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19160 v1 pith:KWJQWPUA submitted 2024-11-28 math.NA cs.NA

Dmitri Kuzmin , Sanghyun Lee , Yi-Yung Yang This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NAcs.NA MSC 65M6035L6565M12
keywords enrichedGalerkinmethodnonlinearhyperbolicconservationlawsdiscretemaximumprincipleentropystabilitymonolithicconvexlimitingflux-correctedtransportalgebraicfluxcorrectionlocalLax-Friedrichsscheme
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper aims to establish that an enriched Galerkin (EG) space discretization of a nonlinear scalar conservation law can be made both bound-preserving and entropy stable without abandoning its advantages over discontinuous Galerkin methods. The authors split the high-order EG semi-discretization into a low-order local Lax-Friedrichs scheme that is provably stable and a remainder of antidiffusive fluxes and element contributions, then limit that remainder so that local discrete maximum principles and entropy inequalities hold simultaneously. They prove that the constrained semi-discrete problems satisfy these properties, and in two-dimensional tests the limited schemes keep the physically correct weak solution while converging at nearly second order on smooth problems. This matters because EG methods are locally conservative and cheaper than DG but had not previously been equipped with nonlinear stability constraints.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is an algebraic splitting of the high-order EG discretization into a property-preserving low-order part and limited antidiffusive corrections. For cell averages, the low-order part is the local Lax-Friedrichs finite volume scheme and the limiter is a monolithic convex limiting formula constrained by an entropy production bound on each interface. For nodal values, the low-order part is an algebraic CG-LLF scheme and the new element is an entropic clip-and-scale limiter that clips each antidiffusive element contribution to local intermediate-state bounds, scales it to satisfy the entropy production bound, and then rescales the element vector to preserve the zero-sum condition that guarantees conservation. The low-order schemes supply the baseline bound and entropy guarantees, and the limiters are designed not to destroy them.

What would settle it

On a smooth manufactured solution with rectangular meshes, compute the difference between the original EG weak form (20) and the modified target (24) under the same initial data and boundary conditions; if that difference decays more slowly than $O(h^2)$ as the mesh is refined, the claimed second-order perturbation, and with it the optimal accuracy of the limited scheme, fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For the initial value problem $\partial_t u + \nabla\cdot f(u)=0$, the paper claims that one can evolve the EG cell averages $U_e$ and the continuous nodal values $u_i$ through a corrected system whose right-hand sides are weighted sums toward locally bound-preserving intermediate states. The cell-average flux limiter enforces local bounds together with an entropy production bound on each interface flux, while a new clip-and-scale limiter on element contributions enforces nodal bounds and a discrete analogue of the entropy inequality for the continuous component. The zero-sum conservation property is maintained by a final scaling step, and a strong stability preserving two-stage time integrator keeps the bounds at every stage under CFL conditions. The numerical experiments claim optimal second-order convergence for smooth solutions and show that, in a rotating two-dimensional benchmark with nonconvex flux, the entropy fix is what prevents convergence to the wrong weak solution.

Load-bearing premise

The accuracy claim rests on the unproved assertion that the modified high-order target (equation (24), built from a linearized flux and a group finite element interpolant) differs from the original EG weak form only by second-order terms; if that perturbation is larger, neither the optimal convergence rate nor the fidelity to the original EG method is established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Cell averages and nodal values of an EG solution can satisfy local bounds and semi-discrete entropy stability at the same time, in a single monolithic solve, rather than through operator splitting or postprocessing.
  • The entropy fix is load-bearing for correct weak solutions: in the rotational benchmark, bound-preserving limiting alone converges to the wrong two-shock solution, while the entropy-limited version captures the spiral wave.
  • Constrained EG schemes recover near-optimal accuracy in smooth tests, with reported $\ell^\infty(L^1)$ rates about 1.91 for linear advection and $L^1$ rates around 1.82--1.93 for the two-dimensional KPP-type problem.
  • The same splitting framework carries modern FCT/MCL limiting tools from continuous and discontinuous Galerkin settings into enriched Galerkin discretizations.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the unproved assertion that the modified high-order target is a second-order perturbation of the original EG weak form is correct, the same splitting should extend to systems with a known entropy pair, such as the shallow water equations, with the entropy fix applied in entropy variables; the paper only sketches this direction.
  • A direct comparison of the original EG weak form with the linearized target on smooth manufactured solutions would settle whether the limiting stage is masking an accuracy loss introduced by the group finite element and linearization step.
  • Since the underlying EG stability analysis is proven only on triangles while all experiments use quadrilateral meshes, a quadrilateral-specific stability proof would close the gap between the theory and the reported computations.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops bound-preserving and entropy stable enriched Galerkin (EG) methods for nonlinear scalar hyperbolic conservation laws. The spatial discretization is split into a property-preserving low-order local Lax--Friedrichs part and an antidiffusive high-order correction. A flux limiter constrains the cell averages of the piecewise-constant enrichment, while a clip-and-scale monolithic convex limiter with an algebraic entropy fix constrains the nodal values of the continuous component. The fully discrete scheme uses SSP-RK2 time stepping. Numerical experiments for linear advection, inviscid Burgers, and the two-dimensional KPP problem are reported, showing optimal convergence rates for smooth solutions and correct entropy solutions for the rotating KPP benchmark.

Significance. If fully established, the paper would provide the first property-preserving AFC/MCL-type EG method for nonlinear scalar hyperbolic conservation laws, extending the authors' earlier linear-advection EG work. The limiter construction is explicit and parameter-free: the constraints are enforced through algebraic inequalities (44), (45), (47), (49), and (50), and the zero-sum conditions (39) guarantee discrete conservation. The numerical KPP test convincingly demonstrates that the entropy fix is needed, not just cosmetic. However, the central proof claims in the abstract and conclusions are not matched by formal theorem statements in the body, and the optimal-order claim rests on an unproved consistency assertion about the modified high-order target.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2.1, Eq. (24)] The statement immediately after Eq. (24) that the modified high-order scheme 'represents a second-order perturbation of (20)' is load-bearing but unproved. The perturbation involves four distinct substitutions: the Taylor approximation (21), the group finite element interpolant (22), lumped boundary-face quadrature, and the reconstructed time derivative (23). No estimate in h, no regularity assumptions, and no reference are supplied. Since all subsequent limiting and entropy analysis applies to this modified target, the claimed optimal convergence of the BP and BP-ES schemes in Section 7 and the Conclusions depends on this assertion. Please provide a lemma with a proof (or a precise citation) showing that the difference between the right-hand sides of (20) and (24) is O(h^2) in the relevant norm for solutions of the regularity used in the convergence tests.
  2. [§5.1–§5.3] The paper contains no formal theorem statements, despite the abstract's claim 'In addition to proving the claimed properties of the proposed approach'. The arguments in Section 5 are conditional: inequalities (44), (45), (47), (49), and (50) are stated as sufficient conditions, and the statements 'It is easy to verify' carry the entropy-flux correction in Section 5.2 and the clipping step in Section 5.3. In particular, the final scaling stage (51) modifies the clipped contributions, and its preservation of both (49) and (50) is asserted but not demonstrated. Please state explicit theorems for the semi-discrete scheme (38): local DMP/LED, invariance of the admissible interval, and the discrete entropy inequality, with proofs that include the scaling stage. The same applies to the SSP-RK2 statement in Section 6, where the convex-combination argument should be formalized under the CFL conditions (42)–(43).
  3. [Remark 1 (Section 3.1)] Remark 1 concedes that the cited linear stability analysis of the EG method is valid only for triangular meshes, while all numerical experiments in Section 7 use uniform rectangular (Q1) meshes. The paper then asserts that the piecewise-constant enrichment of CG-Q1 'has a stabilizing effect' on quadrilaterals, without proof or reference. This is load-bearing because the HO scheme (24) is the target that the limiters are designed not to degrade; if the HO baseline is unstable or only first-order accurate on quadrilaterals, the optimal-order numerical results cannot be explained by the limiting analysis. Please either supply a stability or consistency analysis for the quadrilateral case, or clearly restrict the theoretical claims to the setting in which they are proven and rephrase the accuracy claim as a numerical observation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, introductory paragraph] There is a typo in 'In the remainder if this section', which should read 'In the remainder of this section'.
  2. [Figure 3 caption] The caption of Figure 3 says 'BP schemes' but the figure includes BP-ES results; please update the caption to 'BP and BP-ES schemes'.
  3. [References] Reference [44] appears to be a duplicate of reference [20]: both cite Kuzmin, Hajduk, and Rupp, 'Limiter-based entropy stabilization of semi-discrete and fully discrete schemes for nonlinear hyperbolic problems', CMAME 389 (2022) 114428. Please remove the duplicate.
  4. [Section 3.2.1, Eq. (24)] The set E'_e is used in Eq. (24) before its definition later in the same subsection; move the definition immediately before the equation or add a forward reference.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the limiting algorithms enforce constraints by construction and the convergence claims are empirical, not derived from fitted inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained with respect to circularity. The high-order target (24) is a modified semi-discretization whose accuracy is asserted as a second-order perturbation of (20); that assertion is an unproved approximation assumption (a correctness risk), not an equation equivalent to its input by construction. The bound-preserving and entropy-stable limiters are explicit algebraic constraints (47), (49), (50), (51) that are imposed on antidiffusive fluxes and element contributions and then verified; satisfying the constraints is the design goal, not a data-fitted prediction. The low-order LLF/Q1 baseline is standard and its properties are cited from prior works ([23], [34], [38]); although several of those references share authors with the present paper, they are parameter-free, externally published results whose assumptions do not include the target nonlinear-EG claim, so they constitute independent support rather than a self-citation chain forcing the result. The optimal convergence rates in Section 7 are numerical observations, not consequences of a fitted parameter. No prediction in the paper reduces to its inputs by definition, and no uniqueness or existence theorem is imported from the authors' own prior work to rule out alternatives. The main unproved link, that the modifications in (21)-(24) are O(h^2) close to (20), is an accuracy assumption, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces mathematical enrichments and limiters, not physical entities. Its stability argument rests on cited low-order baseline properties plus two unproved modeling assumptions: the second-order perturbation of the high-order target and the stabilizing effect of EG on quadrilateral meshes. No physical constants are fitted to data.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The local Lax-Friedrichs finite volume scheme (31) is bound-preserving and entropy stable for scalar conservation laws.
    Used as the low-order baseline for cell averages; the proof is cited to [23,34] rather than repeated.
  • domain assumption The continuous Galerkin low-order scheme (34) with LLF graph viscosity is invariant-domain preserving and LED.
    Used as the low-order baseline for nodal values; the proof is cited to [38,23].
  • ad hoc to paper The linear Taylor approximation f(u_h+delta u_h) approximately f(u_h)+f'(u_h) delta u_h and the group finite element interpolation (22) produce a second-order perturbation of the original EG weak form.
    Asserted in Section 3.2.1 without proof; this modified scheme is the actual high-order target that the limiters protect.
  • ad hoc to paper Uniform rectangular meshes with Q1 elements inherit the stabilizing property of the EG enrichment.
    Remark 1 notes the earlier linear stability analysis in [24] is only for triangles; for quadrilaterals the stabilizing effect is assumed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bound-preserving and entropy stable enriched Galerkin methods for nonlinear hyperbolic equations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KWJQWPUA

@misc{pith2026241119160,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bound-preserving and entropy stable enriched Galerkin methods for nonlinear hyperbolic equations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KWJQWPUA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19160}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we develop monolithic limiting techniques for enforcing nonlinear stability constraints in enriched Galerkin (EG) discretizations of nonlinear scalar hyperbolic equations. To achieve local mass conservation and gain control over the cell averages, the space of continuous (multi-)linear finite element approximations is enriched with piecewise-constant functions. The resulting spatial semi-discretization has the structure of a variational multiscale method. For linear advection equations, it is inherently stable but generally not bound preserving. To satisfy discrete maximum principles and ensure entropy stability in the nonlinear case, we use limiters adapted to the structure of our locally conservative EG method. The cell averages are constrained using a flux limiter, while the nodal values of the continuous component are constrained using a clip-and-scale limiting strategy for antidiffusive element contributions. The design and analysis of our new algorithms build on recent advances in the fields of convex limiting and algebraic entropy fixes for finite element methods. In addition to proving the claimed properties of the proposed approach, we conduct numerical studies for two-dimensional nonlinear hyperbolic problems. The numerical results demonstrate the ability of our limiters to prevent violations of the imposed constraints, while preserving the optimal order of accuracy in experiments with smooth solutions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.19160 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Visualization of the notation for vertices, cells, and faces of a uniform quadrilateral mesh. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Degrees of freedom for finite element approximations on a patch of four cells. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Example 1. The convergence behavior of EG errors for LO, HO, and BP schemes. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example 2. The diagrams show (a) error behavior and (b) solution profiles along the line [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example 4. Numerical solutions produced by di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Example 4: Numerical solutions produced by di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Example 4. Solution profiles along the left diagonal of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. Bear, A. Cheng, Modeling Groundwater Flow and Contaminant Transport, V ol. 23, Springer Netherlands, 2010

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    Aizinger, C

    V . Aizinger, C. Dawson, A discontinuous galerkin method for two-dimensional flow and transport in shallow water, Advances in Water Resources 25 (1) (2002) 67–84

    work page 2002

  3. [3]

    A. A. Khan, W. Lai, Modeling shallow water flows using the discontinuous Galerkin method, CRC Press, 2014

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    R. E. Ewing, Finite element methods for nonlinear flows in porous media, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 51 (1) (1985) 421–439

    work page 1985

  5. [5]

    D. W. Peaceman, Fundamentals of numerical reservoir simulation / Donald W. Peaceman, Elsevier Scientific Pub. Co. : distributors for the U.S. and Canada, Elsevier North-Holland Amsterdam ; New York, 1977

    work page 1977

  6. [6]

    M. E. Wheeler (Ed.), Numerical Simulation in Oil Recovery, The IMA V olumes in Mathematics and its Applica- tions, Springer-Verlag, 1988. 24

    work page 1988

  7. [7]

    J. Bear, A. H.-D. Cheng, Modeling groundwater flow and contaminant transport, V ol. 23, Springer, 2010

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    G. P. Karatzas, Developments on modeling of groundwater flow and contaminant transport, Water Resources Man- agement 31 (2017) 3235–3244

    work page 2017

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    G. R. Barrenechea, V . John, P. Knobloch, Analysis of algebraic flux correction schemes, SIAM Journal on Numer- ical Analysis 54 (4) (2016) 2427–2451

    2016

  2. [10]

    Kuzmin, Algebraic flux correction I

    D. Kuzmin, Algebraic flux correction I. Scalar conservation laws, in: D. Kuzmin, R. L ¨ohner, S. Turek (Eds.), Flux-Corrected Transport: Principles, Algorithms, and Applications, 2nd Edition, Springer, 2012, pp. 145–192

    2012

  3. [11]

    Kuzmin, M

    D. Kuzmin, M. M ¨oller, M. Gurris, Algebraic flux correction II. Compressible flow problems, in: D. Kuzmin, R. L ¨ohner, S. Turek (Eds.), Flux-Corrected Transport: Principles, Algorithms, and Applications, 2nd Edition, Springer, 2012, pp. 193–238

    2012

  4. [12]

    Kuzmin, M

    D. Kuzmin, M. M ¨oller, J. N. Shadid, M. Shashkov, Failsafe flux limiting and constrained data projections for equations of gas dynamics, Journal of Computational Physics 229 (23) (2010) 8766–8779

    2010

  5. [13]

    L ¨ohner, K

    R. L ¨ohner, K. Morgan, J. Peraire, M. Vahdati, Finite element flux-corrected transport (FEM-FCT) for the Euler and Navier–Stokes equations, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids 7 (10) (1987) 1093–1109

    1987

  6. [14]

    Lohmann, D

    C. Lohmann, D. Kuzmin, Synchronized flux limiting for gas dynamics variables, Journal of Computational Physics 326 (2016) 973–990

    2016

  7. [15]

    S. T. Zalesak, Fully multidimensional flux-corrected transport algorithms for fluids, Journal of Computational Physics 31 (3) (1979) 335–362

    1979

  8. [16]

    C. J. Cotter, D. Kuzmin, Embedded discontinuous Galerkin transport schemes with localised limiters, Journal of Computational Physics 311 (2016) 363–373

    2016

  9. [17]

    Lohmann, D

    C. Lohmann, D. Kuzmin, J. N. Shadid, S. Mabuza, Flux-corrected transport algorithms for continuous Galerkin methods based on high order Bernstein finite elements, Journal of Computational Physics 344 (2017) 151–186

    2017

  10. [18]

    Guermond, M

    J.-L. Guermond, M. Nazarov, B. Popov, I. Tomas, Second-order invariant domain preserving approximation of the Euler equations using convex limiting, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 40 (5) (2018) A3211–A3239

    2018

  11. [19]

    D. Kuzmin, Monolithic convex limiting for continuous finite element discretizations of hyperbolic conservation laws, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 361 (2020) 112804

    2020

  12. [21]

    Kuzmin, M

    D. Kuzmin, M. Quezada de Luna, Algebraic entropy fixes and convex limiting for continuous finite element dis- cretizations of scalar hyperbolic conservation laws, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 372 (2020) 113370

    2020

  13. [22]

    Tadmor, Entropy stability theory for di fference approximations of nonlinear conservation laws and related time- dependent problems, Acta Numerica 12 (2003) 451–512

    E. Tadmor, Entropy stability theory for di fference approximations of nonlinear conservation laws and related time- dependent problems, Acta Numerica 12 (2003) 451–512

    2003

  14. [23]

    Kuzmin, H

    D. Kuzmin, H. Hajduk, Property-Preserving Numerical Schemes for Conservation Laws, World Scientific, 2023

    2023

  15. [24]

    Becker, E

    R. Becker, E. Burman, P. Hansbo, M. G. Larson, A reduced p1-discontinuous Galerkin method, chalmers Finite Element Center Preprint 2003-13, Chalmers University of Technology (2003)

    2003

  16. [25]

    S. Sun, J. Liu, A locally conservative finite element method based on piecewise constant enrichment of the contin- uous galerkin method, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 31 (4) (2009) 2528–2548

    2009

  17. [26]

    Lee, Y .-J

    S. Lee, Y .-J. Lee, M. F. Wheeler, A locally conservative enriched Galerkin approximation and e fficient solver for elliptic and parabolic problems, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 38 (3) (2016) A1404–A1429

    2016

  18. [27]

    S. Lee, M. F. Wheeler, Adaptive enriched Galerkin methods for miscible displacement problems with entropy residual stabilization, Journal of Computational Physics 331 (2017) 19–37

    2017

  19. [28]

    Juanes, T

    R. Juanes, T. W. Patzek, Multiscale-stabilized solutions to one-dimensional systems of conservation laws, Com- puter methods in Applied Mechanics and engineering 194 (25-26) (2005) 2781–2805

    2005

  20. [29]

    S. Lee, M. F. Wheeler, Enriched Galerkin methods for two-phase flow in porous media with capillary pressure, Journal of Computational Physics 367 (2018) 65–86

    2018

  21. [30]

    J. Choo, S. Lee, Enriched galerkin finite elements for coupled poromechanics with local mass conservation, Com- puter Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 341 (2018) 311–332

    2018

  22. [31]

    Lee, S.-Y

    S. Lee, S.-Y . Yi, Locking-free and locally-conservative enriched Galerkin method for poroelasticity, Journal of Scientific Computing 94 (1) (2023) 26

    2023

  23. [32]

    S.-Y . Yi, S. Lee, Physics-preserving enriched galerkin method for a fully-coupled thermo-poroelasticity model, Numerische Mathematik (2024) 1–30

    2024

  24. [33]

    Kuzmin, H

    D. Kuzmin, H. Hajduk, A. Rupp, Locally bound-preserving enriched Galerkin methods for the linear advection equation, Computers & Fluids 205 (2020) 104525

    2020

  25. [34]

    D. Kuzmin, A new perspective on flux and slope limiting in discontinuous Galerkin methods for hyperbolic con- servation laws, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 373 (2021) 113569

    2021

  26. [35]

    L. C. Evans, Partial di fferential equations, American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I., 2010

    2010

  27. [36]

    Fletcher, The group finite element formulation, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 37 (2) (1983) 225–244

    C. Fletcher, The group finite element formulation, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 37 (2) (1983) 225–244. 25

    1983

  28. [37]

    Selmin, L

    V . Selmin, L. Formaggia, Unified construction of finite element and finite volume discretizations for compressible flows, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 39 (1) (1996) 1–32

    1996

  29. [38]

    Kuzmin, M

    D. Kuzmin, M. Quezada de Luna, Entropy conservation property and entropy stabilization of high-order continuous Galerkin approximations to scalar conservation laws, Computers & Fluids 213 (2020) 104742

    2020

  30. [39]

    Jameson, Computational algorithms for aerodynamic analysis and design, Applied Numerical Mathematics 13 (5) (1993) 383–422

    A. Jameson, Computational algorithms for aerodynamic analysis and design, Applied Numerical Mathematics 13 (5) (1993) 383–422

    1993

  31. [40]

    Jameson, Positive schemes and shock modelling for compressible flows, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids 20 (8–9) (1995) 743–776

    A. Jameson, Positive schemes and shock modelling for compressible flows, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids 20 (8–9) (1995) 743–776

    1995

  32. [41]

    Kuzmin, M

    D. Kuzmin, M. Quezada de Luna, D. I. Ketcheson, J. Gr ¨ull, Bound-preserving convex limiting for high-order Runge–Kutta time discretizations of hyperbolic conservation laws, Journal of Scientific Computing 91 (2022) 21

    2022

  33. [42]

    D. Kuzmin, Entropy stabilization and property-preserving limiters for P1 discontinuous galerkin discretizations of scalar hyperbolic problems, Journal of Numerical Mathematics 29 (4) (2021) 307–322

    2021

  34. [43]

    Arndt, W

    D. Arndt, W. Bangerth, M. Feder, M. Fehling, R. Gassm ¨oller, T. Heister, L. Heltai, M. Kronbichler, M. Maier, P. Munch, J.-P. Pelteret, S. Sticko, B. Turcksin, D. Wells, The deal.II library, version 9.4, Journal of Numerical MathematicsAccepted (2022)

    2022

  35. [44]

    Kuzmin, H

    D. Kuzmin, H. Hajduk, A. Rupp, Limiter-based entropy stabilization of semi-discrete and fully discrete schemes for nonlinear hyperbolic problems, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 389 (2022) 114428

    2022

  36. [45]

    Guermond, B

    J.-L. Guermond, B. Popov, Invariant domains and first-order continuous finite element approximation for hyper- bolic systems, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis 54 (4) (2016) 2466–2489

    2016

  37. [46]

    Guermond, B

    J.-L. Guermond, B. Popov, Invariant domains and second-order continuous finite element approximation for scalar conservation equations, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis 55 (6) (2017) 3120–3146

    2017

  38. [47]

    Kuzmin, J

    D. Kuzmin, J. Vedral, Dissipation-based weno stabilization of high-order finite element methods for scalar conser- vation laws, Journal of Computational Physics 487 (2023) 112153

    2023

  39. [48]

    Kurganov, G

    A. Kurganov, G. Petrova, B. Popov, Adaptive semidiscrete central-upwind schemes for nonconvex hyperbolic conservation laws, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 29 (6) (2007) 2381–2401. 26

    2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.