Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 4 cited by

The lifex library version 2.0

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 lifex 2.0 claims that non-matching meshes can be coupled by radial basis function interpolation, and that replacing linear-search nearest-neighbor lookup with an R-tree makes parallel coupling roughly 100 times faster.

desk verdict A genuinely useful software release note, but the benchmark claims need more detail before they should be cited as hard numbers. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19624 v1 pith:4XGRKDH7 submitted 2024-11-29 math.NA cs.NA

Michele Bucelli This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NAcs.NA MSC 65N3065Y0565D05
keywords finiteelementsmultiphysicscouplingradialbasisfunctioninterpolationR-treenearestneighbornon-matchingmeshesparallelscalabilitycheckpointingandrestartmixed-dimensionalproblems
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 describes version 2.0 of lifex, a C++ library for finite element simulations, and claims three main advances: radial basis function interpolation for coupling problems on non-matching meshes, R-tree based nearest-neighbor locators that replace a linear-search bottleneck, and first-class support for 1D, 2D, and mixed-dimensional problems. These changes matter because multiphysics cardiac simulations routinely couple models with different mesh resolutions, element shapes, and polynomial degrees; previously the library required conforming or nested discretizations. The paper reports that the new locators are roughly 100 times faster than the old linear search and scale almost ideally in parallel, and that the RBF method carries over to complex geometries. A new restart handler and VTK import and output utilities round out the release.

What carries the argument

Two classes carry the argument. RBFInterpolation wraps radial basis function interpolation between arbitrary point sets, with variants for degrees-of-freedom and quadrature-point collocation; the geometric robustness on complex domains comes from approximate geodesic distance rather than Euclidean distance. DoFLocator and BoundaryDoFLocator build an R-tree over the mesh points, using the R-tree implementation of the Boost geometry library wrapped by the underlying finite element library; the tree is built once and reused for many queries, which is what converts nearest-neighbor search from a linear scan into a fast lookup. The RestartHandler is the third piece, a registry of scalar and vector data that serializes and restores a whole simulation through one .h5 file.

What would settle it

Repeat the Figure 2 benchmark with a single query per mesh instead of 100 repeated queries: if the R-tree locator is not faster than the old linear scan in that regime, then the claimed advantage is limited to workloads with many queries per mesh.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim of this release note is that the library's coupling layer is no longer limited by mesh conformity. By exposing RBF interpolation through RBFInterpolation and two derived classes for degrees-of-freedom and quadrature-point data, the paper claims that fields can be transferred between discretizations of arbitrary refinement, tetrahedral or hexahedral shape, and any polynomial degree, including on complex geometries via approximate geodesic distance. In parallel, the new DoFLocator classes build an R-tree over mesh points and reuse it across queries, which the paper says replaces the previous linear-scan find closest dof and produces near-ideal strong scaling. The release also claims that a standardized RestartHandler writes all fields and scalars to a single HDF5 file, and that dimensional generality now reaches surfaces and mixed 2D-3D coupling.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the benchmark configurations (mesh sizes, numbers of queries, core counts, and the file systems involved) represent typical large-scale simulation workloads; if they do not, the reported speedups and scaling numbers may not carry over to other settings.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Coupling two models on the same domain no longer requires a shared mesh; users can combine independent refinements, tetrahedral or hexahedral meshes, and mixed finite element degrees.
  • The cardiac modules built on the core library inherit the new locator speed and RBF coupling without separate changes.
  • Nearest-neighbor and interface-map construction should stop being a scalability bottleneck at large process counts, since the reported scaling is near ideal.
  • Restarting a long simulation is reduced to registering data with one handler and writing one file, which removes a common source of errors in time-dependent multiphysics runs.
  • Dimensional generality means surface problems and surface-volume coupled problems are supported, not only volume meshes in 3D.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same RBF layer could be used to transfer fields between independently built heart and torso meshes in electrophysiology studies, a coupling the paper motivates but does not itself demonstrate.
  • Because R-tree construction costs are amortized over queries, the 100x figure is likely to degrade for one-shot searches; a fair comparison for single-query workflows would include tree construction time.
  • The VTKImporter plus standardized parameter files makes a plausible generic bridge from segmentation software to simulation; the paper positions it as an IO convenience rather than testing that workflow.
  • The checkpoint handler could also enable fault-tolerant in-memory migration of running simulations, though the paper only claims disk-based serialization.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper describes version 2.0 of lifex, an open-source C++ finite element library built on deal.II. It documents four main additions: radial basis function (RBF) interpolation for non-matching meshes (Section 2), new DoFLocator and BoundaryDoFLocator nearest-neighbor locator classes plus interface-map utilities with performance comparisons (Section 3), support for 1D/2D and mixed-dimensional problems (Section 4), and a reworked checkpointing/restart facility together with input/output enhancements (Sections 5 and 6). The manuscript is a software release note rather than a mathematical methods paper: the mathematical foundation for the RBF interpolation is delegated to prior publications [12, 13, 24], and the technical claims are supported by code pointers, examples, tutorials, and two performance figures.

Significance. If the release claims are correct, the update is genuinely useful to the finite element simulation community: RBF transfer between arbitrary non-matching meshes removes previous conformity constraints, R-tree-based locators should improve nearest-neighbor search complexity, mixed-dimensional coupling is a practical extension, and the RestartHandler addresses a common HPC bottleneck. The paper's strengths are that the source code is publicly available, the examples and tutorials are extended to demonstrate each new feature, and the library builds on established deal.II and Boost functionality. However, the central performance claims in Section 3 are currently supported only by figures lacking a reproducible experimental protocol, and the presented data do not cleanly separate algorithmic improvements from implementation or hardware effects. This tempers the significance of the headline performance statement until the evidence is strengthened.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Figure 2] The central claim that the new locator classes "significantly improve in terms of algorithmic complexity and performance" is not verifiable from the information reported. The manuscript gives no benchmark methodology: no hardware or compiler specification, no exact deal.II and Boost versions beyond the mention of deal.II 9.5.1, no number of repetitions, no variance or error bars, and no description of how wall time was measured. In addition, Figure 2a shows that "DoFLocator without R-tree" is already roughly 100 times faster than the removed find_closest_dof function, which is not explainable by R-tree construction overhead alone and suggests that the old function contained undocumented costs, such as per-query MPI communication. Please provide a complete measurement protocol, include the benchmark code and scripts, report repeated runs, and separate R-tree construction cost from query cost, so that the comparison against find_closest_dof measures the same operation in the same harness.
  2. [Section 3, Figure 3] The strong-scaling evidence for compute_interface_maps is too sparse and insufficiently documented to support the stated conclusion. The figure shows only three speedup measurements (at 112, 550, and 2,690 cores), with no definition of the baseline run, no error bars, no number of repetitions, and no hardware/software configuration. The text's statement that the task shows "ideal parallel scalability up to approximately 800 interface DoFs per process" cannot be derived from these three points. Please report more scaling points, describe how speedup is computed, and give the experimental conditions for reproducibility.
  3. [Section 3, text after Figure 2] The manuscript refers to improved "algorithmic complexity" without ever stating the complexities being compared. For a release note, it would be sufficient and much more informative to state, for example, that the old linear search was O(n) per query while the new R-tree based search is O(log n) per query on average, and to state separately the cost of R-tree construction. Without such a statement, the complexity claim is ambiguous, and the reader cannot tell which part of the observed speedup is asymptotic and which part is constant-factor engineering.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 7] The text contains a typo: "bufgixes" should be "bugfixes".
  2. [Section 5] The word "enviroments" should be "environments".
  3. [Figure 2 caption] The old function name should be typeset consistently as find_closest_dof, and the caption should clarify that "DoFLocator without R-tree" refers to a linear-search version of the new locator class.
  4. [Section 5, parameter-file snippets] The parameter-file snippets contain apparent spacing artifacts in identifiers such as "s u b s e c t i o n" and "S e r i a l i z a t i o n"; these should be formatted in monospace type without inserted spaces.
  5. [Section 4] The CMake variable should be written as LIFEX_DIM, not "LIFEX DIM", for consistency with CMake naming conventions.
  6. [Reference [37]] The author list in reference [37] has an inconsistent entry: "L. Regazzoni, Francesco Dede'" should be checked and brought into line with the other references.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the release notes describe independently implemented software features; self-citations supply background rather than a forced derivation.

full rationale

This is a software release note, not a derivation. The central claims are that the new release adds RBF interpolation, optimized point locators, mixed-dimensional support, and improved I/O. The RBF method is attributed to prior work: 'the methods described in [12, 13, 24]', where [24] is an independent paper and [12, 13] are previously published journal articles by the same research group. The claim 'This implementation of RBF interpolation demonstrates excellent parallel scalability up to thousands of cores, as discussed in [12, 13]' is a citation to external published results, not an argument whose conclusion is presupposed by its premise. The performance comparison in Section 3, 'The current implementation significantly improves in terms of algorithmic complexity and performance, as shown in Figure 2', lacks a detailed benchmark protocol, but absence of methodology is a reproducibility limitation, not circularity: no quantity is fitted to data and then renamed as a prediction, and no equation defines a target result in terms of the inputs. The locator comparison is between an R-tree-based search and a removed linear-search function, which is a direct implementation comparison rather than a self-referential construction. Self-citations in the introduction and references are standard in release notes documenting continued development of the same library. No load-bearing step reduces, by the paper's own equations or by self-citation, to its own inputs. Therefore the paper is self-contained with respect to circularity, and the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are introduced because the paper reports software features rather than a new model. The main external dependency is the correctness of the deal.II and Boost libraries that lifex builds on. No new physical or mathematical entities are posited.

assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption The underlying deal.II and Boost libraries provide correct and efficient implementations of finite element, R-tree, and parallel primitives.
    lifex wraps these libraries; any errors in them propagate to lifex's results and performance.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The lifex library version 2.0." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4XGRKDH7

@misc{pith2026241119624,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The lifex library version 2.0},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4XGRKDH7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19624}
}
read the original abstract

This article presents updates to lifex [Africa, SoftwareX (2022)], a C++ library for high-performance finite element simulations of multiphysics, multiscale and multidomain problems. In this release, we introduce an additional intergrid transfer method for non-matching multiphysics coupling on the same domain, significantly optimize nearest-neighbor point searches and interface coupling utilities, extend the support for 2D and mixed-dimensional problems, and provide improved facilities for input/output and simulation serialization and restart. These advancements also propagate to the previously released modules of lifex specifically designed for cardiac modeling and simulation, namely lifex-fiber [Africa et al., BMC Bioinformatics (2023)], lifex-ep [Africa et al., BMC Bioinformatics (2023)] and lifex-cfd [Africa et al., Computer Physics Communications (2024)]. The changes introduced in this release aim at consolidating lifex's position as a valuable and versatile tool for the simulation of multiphysics systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.19624 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The lifex logo. Image licensed under the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license. Geometry Numerics Multiphysics IO MeshHandler NonLinearSolverHandler QuadratureEvaluation CSVWriter MeshInfo LinearSolverHandler ProjectionL2 VTKFunction DoFLocator (*) PreconditionerHandler InterfaceHandler OutputHandler (*) BoundaryDoFLocator (*) BlockPreconditionerHandler RBFInterpolation (*) VTKImporter (*) GeodesicDistance (*) BDFHandler RestartHand… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Performance of the new DoFLocator class compared to the old find closest dof function. (a) Wall time against the number of mesh points, for 100 repeated queries, using one parallel process. DoFLocator, both with and without R-trees, is close to 100 times faster than the old function. (b) Computational time against number of queries, for a mesh with 274 625 vertices, using one parallel process. The advantage of R-tre… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Strong scalability of the function compute interface maps, that establishes a mapping between the interface DoFs of two domains with a common boundary. This test couples a surface and a volume problem, with 1 049 601 and 135 398 529 DoFs, respectively, and 1 049 601 interface DoFs. (b) Example of coupling a surface and a volume problem through their common interface, as implemented by the new example InterfaceCo… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Coupling models of resistive valves to muscle mechanics in cardiac fluid-structure interaction simulations

    math.NA 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new coupling term transfers the resistive valve force to the cardiac wall, making resistive valve FSI models conserve linear momentum.

  2. Learning cardiac activation and repolarization times with operator learning

    math.NA 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Operator learning surrogates map cardiac stimulus locations to activation and repolarization times on synthetic 2D and 3D heart meshes, with relative errors from 5e-4 to 7e-2 and large speedups over Monodomain simulation.

  3. Coupled Eikonal problems to model cardiac reentries in Purkinje network and myocardium

    math.NA 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A bidirectional Eikonal coupling scheme with a pseudo-time solver now models Purkinje-muscle reentries in cardiac electrophysiology, tested on a biventricular geometry in healthy and pathological cases.

  4. Combining physics-based and data-driven models: advancing the frontiers of research with Scientific Machine Learning

    math.NA 2025-01 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

    A review that maps the field of Scientific Machine Learning and presents the authors' own cardiac simulation program as its flagship application.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    P. C. Africa. lifex: A flexible, high performance library for the numerical solution of complex finite element problems. SoftwareX, 20:101252, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    P. C. Africa, I. Fumagalli, M. Bucelli, A. Zingaro, M. Fedele, L. Dede’, and A. Quarteroni. lifex-cfd: An open-source computational fluid dynamics solver for cardiovascular applications. Computer Physics Communications, 296:109039, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    P. C. Africa, R. Piersanti, M. Fedele, L. Dede’, and A. Quarteroni. lifex-fiber: an open tool for myofibers generation in cardiac computational models. BMC Bioinformatics , 24(1):143, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    P. C. Africa, R. Piersanti, F. Regazzoni, M. Bucelli, M. Salvador, M. Fedele, S. Pagani, L. Dede’, and A. Quarteroni. lifex-ep: a robust and efficient software for cardiac electrophysiology simulations. BMC Bioinformatics, 24(1):389, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Arndt, W

    D. Arndt, W. Bangerth, M. Bergbauer, M. Feder, M. Fehling, J. Heinz, et al. The deal.II library, version 9.5. Journal of Numerical Mathematics , 31(3):231–246, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Arndt, W

    D. Arndt, W. Bangerth, D. Davydov, T. Heister, L. Heltai, M. Kronbichler, et al. The deal.II finite element library: Design, features, and insights. Computers & Mathematics with Applications , 81:407– 422, 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Barnafi, F

    N. Barnafi, F. Regazzoni, and D. Riccobelli. Reconstructing relaxed configurations in elastic bodies: Mathematical formulations and numerical methods for cardiac modeling. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering , 423:116845, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Bennati, V

    L. Bennati, V. Giambruno, F. Renzi, V. Di Nicola, C. Maffeis, G. Puppini, G. B. Luciani, and C. Vergara. Turbulent blood dynamics in the left heart in the presence of mitral regurgitation: a computational study based on multi-series cine-MRI. Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology, 22(6):1829–1846, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Bennati, G

    L. Bennati, G. Puppini, V. Giambruno, G. B. Luciani, and C. Vergara. Image-based computational fluid dynamics to compare two repair techniques for mitral valve prolapse.Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Boost C++ Libraries

    Boost. Boost C++ Libraries. http://www.boost.org/, 2024. Last accessed November 13, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Bucelli, L

    M. Bucelli, L. Dede’, A. Quarteroni, and C. Vergara. Partitioned and monolithic algorithms for the numerical solution of cardiac fluid-structure interaction. Communications in Computational Physics , 32(5):1217–1256, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Bucelli, F

    M. Bucelli, F. Regazzoni, L. Dede’, and A. Quarteroni. Preserving the positivity of the deformation gradient determinant in intergrid interpolation by combining RBFs and SVD: Application to cardiac electromechanics. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering , 417:1...

    2023

  5. [13]

    Bucelli, F

    M. Bucelli, F. Regazzoni, L. Dede’, and A. Quarteroni. Robust radial basis function interpolation based on geodesic distance for the numerical coupling of multiphysics problems. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing (in press) , 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Bucelli, A

    M. Bucelli, A. Zingaro, P. C. Africa, I. Fumagalli, L. Dede’, and A. Quarteroni. A mathematical model that integrates cardiac electrophysiology, mechanics, and fluid dynamics: Application to the human left heart. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical Engine...

    2023

  7. [15]

    Capuano, F

    E. Capuano, F. Regazzoni, M. Maines, S. Fornara, V. Locatelli, D. Catanzariti, S. Stella, F. Nobile, M. Del Greco, and C. Vergara. Personalized computational electro-mechanics simulations to optimize cardiac resynchronization therapy. Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiolog...

    2024

  8. [16]

    Centofanti and S

    E. Centofanti and S. Scacchi. A comparison of algebraic multigrid bidomain solvers on hybrid CPU–GPU architectures. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering , 423:116875, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Cicci, S

    L. Cicci, S. Fresca, A. Manzoni, and A. Quarteroni. Efficient approximation of cardiac mechanics through reduced-order modeling with deep learning-based operator approximation. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical Engineering , 40(1):e3783, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    Corda, S

    A. Corda, S. Pagani, and C. Vergara. Influence of acute myocardial ischemia on arrhythmogenesis: a computational study. medRxiv, pages 2024–11, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Criseo, I

    E. Criseo, I. Fumagalli, A. Quarteroni, S. M. Marianeschi, and C. Vergara. Computational haemo- dynamics for pulmonary valve replacement by means of a reduced fluid-structure interaction model. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical Engineering , 40(9):e3846, 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Crispino, L

    A. Crispino, L. Bennati, and C. Vergara. Cardiac hemodynamics computational modeling including chordae tendineae, papillaries, and valves dynamics. bioRxiv preprint, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Crugnola and C

    L. Crugnola and C. Vergara. Inexact block lu preconditioners for incompressible fluids with flow rate conditions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.03929 , 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    Crugnola, C

    L. Crugnola, C. Vergara, L. Fusini, I. Fumagalli, G. Luraghi, A. Redaelli, and G. Pontone. Computa- tional hemodynamic indices to identify transcatheter aortic valve implantation degeneration. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine , 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    G. R. de Souza, M. J. Grote, S. Pezzuto, and R. Krause. Explicit stabilized multirate methods for the monodomain model in cardiac electrophysiology. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.01745 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Deparis, D

    S. Deparis, D. Forti, and A. Quarteroni. A rescaled localized radial basis function interpolation on non-cartesian and nonconforming grids. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing , 36(6):A2745–A2762, 2014

    2014

  17. [25]

    F. Duca, D. Bissacco, L. Crugnola, C. Faitini, M. Domanin, F. Migliavacca, S. Trimarchi, and C. Vergara. Computational analysis to assess hemodynamic forces in descending thoracic aortic aneurysms. bioRxiv, pages 2024–11, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Falanga, C

    M. Falanga, C. Cortesi, A. Chiaravalloti, A. Dal Monte, C. Tomasi, and C. Corsi. A digital twin approach for stroke risk assessment in atrial fibrillation patients. Heliyon, 10(20), 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Fedele, R

    M. Fedele, R. Piersanti, F. Regazzoni, M. Salvador, P. C. Africa, M. Bucelli, A. Zingaro, L. Dede’, and A. Quarteroni. A comprehensive and biophysically detailed computational model of the whole human heart electromechanics. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineerin...

    2023

  20. [28]

    Ferrer, R

    A. Ferrer, R. Sebasti´ an, D. S´ anchez-Quintana, J. F. Rodriguez, E. J. Godoy, L. Martinez, and J. Saiz. Detailed anatomical and electrophysiological models of human atria and torso for the simulation of atrial activation. PloS one , 10(11):e0141573, 2015

    2015

  21. [29]

    Manolopoulos, A

    Y. Manolopoulos, A. N. Papadopoulos, and Y. Theodoridis. R-Trees: Theory and Applications. Springer Science & Business Media, 2006

    2006

  22. [30]

    Montino Pelagi, A

    G. Montino Pelagi, A. Baggiano, F. Regazzoni, L. Fusini, M. Al ` ı, G. Pontone, et al. Personalized pressure conditions and calibration for a predictive computational model of coronary and myocardial blood flow. Annals of Biomedical Engineering , 52(5):1297–1312, 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    Montino Pelagi, F

    G. Montino Pelagi, F. Regazzoni, J. M. Huyghe, A. Baggiano, M. Al ` ı, S. Bertoluzza, G. Valbusa, G. Pontone, and C. Vergara. Modeling cardiac microcirculation for the simulation of coronary flow and 3D myocardial perfusion. Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology , pages ...

    2024

  24. [32]

    Piersanti, R

    R. Piersanti, R. Bradley, S. Y. Alid, A. Quarteroni, L. Dede, and N. A. Trayanova. Defining myocardial fiber bundle architecture in atrial digital twins. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.11601 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Regazzoni, M

    F. Regazzoni, M. Salvador, P. C. Africa, M. Fedele, L. Ded` e, and A. Quarteroni. A cardiac electrome- chanical model coupled with a lumped-parameter model for closed-loop blood circulation. Journal of Computational Physics , 457:111083, 2022

    2022

  26. [34]

    Renzi, G

    F. Renzi, G. Puppini, G. B. Luciani, and C. Vergara. Investigating the right heart hemodynamics in the Tetralogy of Fallot: a computational study. bioRxiv preprint, 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    Hierarchical Data Format, version 5

    The HDF Group. Hierarchical Data Format, version 5

  28. [36]

    Zappon, A

    E. Zappon, A. Manzoni, and A. Quarteroni. A non-conforming-in-space numerical framework for realistic cardiac electrophysiological outputs. Journal of Computational Physics , 502:112815, 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    Zappon, M

    E. Zappon, M. Salvador, R. Piersanti, L. Regazzoni, Francesco Dede’, and A. Quarteroni. An integrated heart–torso electromechanical model for the simulation of electrophysiological outputs accounting for myocardial deformation. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Enginee...

    2024

  30. [38]

    Zingaro, Z

    A. Zingaro, Z. Ahmad, E. Kholmovski, K. Sakata, L. Dede’, A. K. Morris, A. Quarteroni, and N. A. Trayanova. A comprehensive stroke risk assessment by combining atrial computational fluid dynamics simulations and functional patient data. Scientific Reports, 14(1):9515, 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    Zingaro, M

    A. Zingaro, M. Bucelli, R. Piersanti, F. Regazzoni, L. Dede’, and A. Quarteroni. An electromechanics- driven fluid dynamics model for the simulation of the whole human heart. Journal of Computational Physics, 504:112885, 2024

    2024

  32. [40]

    Zingaro, C

    A. Zingaro, C. Vergara, L. Dede’, F. Regazzoni, and A. Quarteroni. A comprehensive mathematical model for cardiac perfusion. Scientific Reports, 13(1):14220, 2023. 9

    2023

Pith tools

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