Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 35 references

Convergent Operator-Splitting Scheme for Viscosity Solutions: A Foundation for Learning Domain-to-Solution Maps

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A stabilized operator-splitting FEM is proven to converge to viscosity solutions, and a neural operator built on it inherits the O(h^2) accuracy without a curse of dimensionality.

desk verdict The central M-matrix proof is false: the IP jump matrix has a positive off-diagonal P2 entry, so the discrete comparison principle and the convergence theorems are unsupported. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.20618 v5 pith:QASXHNFF submitted 2025-05-27 math.NA cs.NA

Po-Yi Wu This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NAcs.NA MSC 65M6035D4049L2565M1268T07
keywords operatorsplittingviscositysolutionsfiniteelementmethoddiscretecomparisonprincipleM-matrixBarles-Souganidisframeworkneuralcurseofdimensionality
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

The paper tries to establish that a semi-implicit operator-splitting finite element scheme computes the unique viscosity solution of a broad class of constrained second-order PDEs, and that the scheme can serve as a blueprint for a neural operator that learns domain-to-solution maps without a curse of dimensionality. The argument works by splitting the nonlinear part into an explicit predictor and treating diffusion and constraints in an implicit corrector, then proving that the corrector matrix is an M-matrix under a mild time-step restriction and a stabilization condition. That M-matrix gives a discrete comparison principle, which yields monotonicity and L∞-stability, and those three properties plug into the Barles–Souganidis convergence theorem. For smoother solutions the paper also proves an O(Δt + h²) L² error bound, and for the neural operator it claims the same O(h²) accuracy with depth O(h⁻²) and size O(h⁻ᵈ log h⁻¹). If the claims hold, the practical payoff is a convergent, geometry-agnostic solver and a learning architecture whose complexity depends on the fixed ambient grid rather than on a high-dimensional description of the domain's topology.

What carries the argument

The machine is the matrix Lh = (1/Δt)Mh + Ah, where Mh is the lumped mass matrix and Ah is the stabilized bilinear form consisting of an interior-penalty jump term σh[[∇u]]·[[∇v]] summed over element faces plus a gradient regularization μ(∇u,∇v). The paper chooses the stabilization ratio σ/μ large enough to force all off-diagonal entries non-positive and relies on positive row sums from the mass term, making Lh an M-matrix; inverse-monotonicity of this matrix is what turns ordered data into ordered solutions at each time step, and the same operator reappears as the (1,1) block of the Newton Jacobian for the nonlinear corrector. A second object, the PCNO, is the nT-fold composition of a one-step emulator that mirrors the predictor-corrector structure; the paper's complexity bound comes from composing these emulators and invoking a replacement lemma for the one-step map.

What would settle it

One concrete check would be to assemble the interior-penalty matrix Jij for P2 Lagrange elements on a quasi-uniform triangulation and test whether every off-diagonal entry is non-positive; if any positive off-diagonal entry appears and cannot be dominated by the σ/µ condition without breaking diagonal dominance, the Z-matrix premise fails and the discrete comparison principle is not established.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that monotone convergence can be engineered by construction rather than left to chance: with lumped mass, a stabilized interior-penalty term, and a time step Δt ≤ mini(Mii)/Lf, the discrete operator Lh = (1/Δt)Mh + Ah is an M-matrix, so its inverse is non-negative and the scheme is inverse-monotone. The paper shows this discrete comparison principle implies monotonicity and stability in the Barles–Souganidis sense, yielding local uniform convergence to the viscosity solution, and, under C¹([0,T];C³(Ω))∩C²([0,T];C²(Ω)) regularity, an optimal-order error bound O(Δt+h²). It then proves that a Physics-Constrained Neural Operator built as an nT-fold composition of a one-step FNO emulator achieves the same O(h²) accuracy, with depth O(h⁻²) and size O(h⁻ᵈ log h⁻¹), because the emulation errors accumulate only linearly through the stable one-step maps. The reformulation of a perforated domain as a fixed-domain constraint field is what makes the approach agnostic to topological changes in the geometry.

Load-bearing premise

The whole proof leans on the unproved assertion that the interior-penalty matrix has non-positive off-diagonal entries for quadratic finite elements, so that a large stabilization ratio can make the discrete operator an M-matrix.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Under the stated assumptions and the M-matrix conditions, the numerical solution converges locally uniformly to the unique viscosity solution of the constrained PDE as h, Δt → 0.
  • For solutions with additional regularity, the L² error satisfies the optimal bound O(Δt + h²), with the time step taken as O(h) or O(h²) depending on the target accuracy.
  • The PCNO reaches the same O(h²) accuracy with depth O(h⁻²) and size O(h⁻ᵈ log h⁻¹), so the learning complexity is independent of any high-dimensional parameterization of the domain's geometry.
  • The fixed-domain reformulation turns changing topology into a spatially varying constraint field, so the method avoids re-meshing for each new geometry and can handle merging, splitting, or nucleating holes.
  • The numerical experiments on a Hamilton-Jacobi equation with state constraints and a two-target controlled reaction-diffusion system show empirical convergence orders around 1.45 and 0.96, respectively, in relative L² error.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the unproved sign pattern of the interior-penalty matrix is checkable in floating point before any PDE solve, so the stabilization condition σ/μ ≥ Cmesh could be calibrated by a cheap preprocessing routine on each mesh family.
  • Editorial inference: the curse-of-dimensionality statement shifts rather than removes the resolution burden: the fixed grid must still resolve the smallest geometric feature of the constraint set, so the favorable complexity is relative to parameter-space dimension, not to geometric scale.
  • Editorial inference: because the monotonicity proof requires f to be non-increasing in the state, superlinear reaction terms such as the Fisher–KPP growth in Example 2.2 are only covered when the solution stays in the monotone regime; a testable extension would be to introduce an exponential integrating factor that restores monotonicity globally.
  • Editorial inference: the recurrent weight-sharing PCNO treats the one-step emulator as reusable across all time steps; an immediate empirical test is whether training the shared network on a few time steps transfers to the full nT-fold composition, since the theory assumes the same per-step accuracy is maintained after composition.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes an operator-splitting finite element scheme for a class of constrained second-order PDEs whose solutions are understood in the viscosity sense, and it claims convergence via the Barles--Souganidis framework. The key step is a discrete comparison principle (Theorem 5.1) obtained by showing that the discrete corrector matrix is an M-matrix. On this basis the paper states L-infinity stability, convergence to the unique viscosity solution, an O(dt + h^2) error estimate, and a neural-operator complexity theorem for a Physics-Constrained Neural Operator (PCNO) that emulates the scheme. Numerical experiments for a Hamilton--Jacobi equation and a controlled reaction--diffusion system are reported.

Significance. If the central convergence theorem were correct, the paper would provide a useful template for combining stabilized finite element methods with the Barles--Souganidis theory and for transferring numerical stability properties to neural operator architectures. The attempt to connect discrete comparison principles with operator learning is timely and the PCNO complexity result is ambitious. However, the main convergence claim rests on a false structural property of the interior-penalty matrix, and the consistency proof contains a circular step. The numerical experiments do not compensate for these gaps; they are few in number and their measured rates are not fully reconciled with the claimed optimal rates. The paper therefore does not currently establish its central claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.2, Theorem 5.1 proof] The proof that L_h is a Z-matrix relies on the assertion that 'a standard property of the IP formulation is that its corresponding off-diagonal entries J_ij are non-positive.' This assertion is false for the gradient-jump bilinear form A_h(u,v) = sum_e sigma h int_e [nabla u] . [nabla v] ds with P2 elements. On the two-triangle mesh with T+ = {(0,0),(1,0),(0,1)} and T- = {(1,0),(0,1),(1,1)}, taking the shared-edge midpoint m = (1/2,1/2) and vertex B = (1,0), direct calculation gives [nabla phi_B] = (3-4y,3-4y) and [nabla phi_m] = (4,4) along the edge, so J_{B,m} = 8 sqrt(2) sigma h > 0. Hence L_{B,m} = mu K_{B,m} + sigma J_{B,m} contains a positive contribution that grows with sigma, and the condition sigma/mu >= C_mesh cannot make this entry non-positive. The Z-matrix condition, the M-matrix conclusion, the discrete comparison principle, L-infinity stability in Theorem 5.2, the Barles--Souganidis convergence in Theorem 5.4, and the error bound in Theorem 5.5 all depend on this failed premise.
  2. [Theorem 5.1 and Theorem 5.4] Theorem 5.1 is stated and proved only for the 'linearized version of (3.2)', as explicitly noted in Remark 3.2 and in the theorem statement. Theorem 5.4, however, claims convergence of the numerical solution generated by the semi-implicit scheme (3.2), which is the nonlinear saddle-point system. Remark 5.1 attempts to bridge this gap by discussing the Jacobian of the nonlinear residual, but it only asserts that the M-matrix property 'is robust' under boundedness assumptions; it does not prove that the nonlinear map is monotone in the Barles--Souganidis sense. Thus the convergence theorem does not cover the implemented scheme.
  3. [Theorem 4.1, proof step 3] The consistency proof assumes the object it needs to establish. In the treatment of the nonlinear and control terms, the proof states that 'the control p_h^{m+1} will converge to a limit p(x0,t0) that satisfies the continuous constraint.' No argument is given for the existence of such a limit or for the claim that the discrete constraint equations imply the continuous constraint in the limit. This is a circular step because the convergence of the discrete controls is part of what consistency in the viscosity sense must establish. As a result, the consistency of the scheme is not rigorously demonstrated.
  4. [Theorem 7.1] The PCNO convergence and complexity theorem inherits the unsupported error estimate of Theorem 5.5, so it is already undermined by the M-matrix defect. Independently, the proof transfers the FNO approximation results of [35] to the one-step map S_h without verifying the required hypotheses: S_h involves the inversion of a lumped mass matrix and the solution of a linearized saddle-point problem, and [35, Theorem 26] concerns specific elliptic operators with regularity and structural conditions that are not shown to hold here. The composition argument also assumes a stability property of S_h in L^2 that is not proved. The claim size(G_theta) <= C' h^{-d} log(h^{-1}) with depth O(h^{-2}) is thus not supported by the cited results.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 6.1, Table 1] The measured convergence rate is reported as approximately O(h^1.453), while Theorem 5.5 claims O(dt + h^2) with dt = 0.2 h, i.e., O(h^2). The discrepancy between the theory and the experiment is not discussed.
  2. [Section 6.2, Table 2] The last mesh refinement produces a much smaller error reduction than the previous refinements, which is not explained; the linear regression over all rows may be dominated by the early rows and does not convincingly establish a first-order rate.
  3. [Remark 5.2] The constant C_mesh is said to be 'a fixed, computable constant' for a given quasi-uniform mesh, but no formula, algorithm, or numerical value is provided, which makes the stabilization condition difficult to verify in practice.
  4. [Section 7.1.1] The comparison of depth(G_theta) = O(h^{-2}) with size(G_theta) = size(N_step) relies on weight sharing across the n_T step emulators; the paper should clarify that this is a recurrent parameter-counting convention and should discuss how this interacts with the approximation and composition lemmas taken from [35].

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Consistency proof assumes the discrete control converges to a constrained limit; the remaining derivation is independent, though Theorem 5.1's M-matrix premise is unproved.

  1. other [Theorem 4.1 proof, item 3 (Section 4, near Eq. (4.1))]
    "The control pm+1h will converge to a limit p(x0, t0) that satisfies the continuous constraint."

    Consistency in the viscosity sense requires showing that substituting a smooth test function into the scheme yields the PDE residual, including the control term B·p and the constraint g=0. The discrete control is only known to satisfy the weak constraint ⟨g(φ_h^{m+1}, ∇φ_h^{m+1}), q_h⟩=0 for all q_h∈Q_h; its convergence to a strong pointwise limit satisfying g=0 is exactly the nontrivial constraint-consistency statement. The proof simply asserts this convergence, so the consistency of the constraint component is assumed rather than derived.

full rationale

The paper's derivation is largely self-contained and benchmarked against external results: convergence is framed in the Barles–Souganidis framework [16], the PCNO error bounds invoke the universal-approximation and composition lemmas of [35], and the numerical experiments use manufactured solutions rather than fitted data. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain, no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness argument imported from the author's prior work. The single circular/gappy step is in Theorem 4.1, where the proof asserts that the discrete control converges to a continuous constrained limit; this is the very consistency property at issue. Additionally, Theorem 5.1's M-matrix proof rests on the unproved and in fact false assertion that the interior-penalty gradient-jump off-diagonal entries J_ij are non-positive, and Theorem 5.4 applies a comparison principle proved only for the linearized corrector to the nonlinear scheme (3.2); these are correctness gaps rather than circular reductions. Weighing these, the circularity score is low but not zero because one central proof step assumes its conclusion.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest on assumed comparison and control existence for the continuous problem, a non-increasing reaction condition, an unproved sign pattern for the IP matrix, assumed convergence of discrete controls, and imported FNO approximation theorems. The only hand-chosen numbers are stabilization parameters, time-step constants, and the PCNO error tolerance.

free parameters (4)
  • stabilization parameter mu = 0.01 in Section 6 experiments
    Chosen by hand in the numerical tests; the convergence proofs require positive mu but do not specify how it should scale with h.
  • stabilization parameter sigma = not reported
    Required by the M-matrix condition sigma/mu >= Cmesh, but no value or computed Cmesh is given and the experiments omit it.
  • time-step proportionality constants = dt = 0.2h and 0.4h in the two experiments
    Hand-chosen CFL-type constants; the convergence theorem only needs dt <= Ch, and these exact choices are not derived.
  • PCNO emulator error tolerance epsilon_step = O(h^4)
    Set so that the accumulated emulation error balances the discretization error in Theorem 7.1; it is an ad hoc accuracy target rather than a fitted data parameter.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Assumption 2.5: the constrained PDE system (2.1) satisfies a comparison principle.
    Uniqueness and the Barles-Souganidis application require it; no proof is given for the constrained, control-coupled system.
  • domain assumption Assumption 2.4: there exists a bounded measurable control p enforcing the constraint in the viscosity sense.
    Existence of Lagrange multipliers for the constraint is assumed, and the consistency proof later assumes convergence of discrete controls to such a p.
  • domain assumption The reaction term f is non-increasing in y, as required by Theorem 5.1.
    Needed for the comparison argument; the paper itself notes that the logistic term in Example 2.2 violates it for u < 1/2.
  • ad hoc to paper The interior penalty jump matrix J has non-positive off-diagonal entries.
    Asserted in the proof of Theorem 5.1 as a standard property without proof; it is the decisive step for the Z-matrix condition.
  • ad hoc to paper Discrete controls p_h converge to a continuous control satisfying the constraint.
    Used in Theorem 4.1 to conclude consistency of the control term; this is close to assuming part of the convergence result.
  • domain assumption Universal approximation and composition estimates for Psi-FNO from [35] (Theorems 15, 26, Lemmas 46-47).
    The PCNO complexity theorem in Section 7 imports these results without re-proving them; they are external to this paper and not verified here.
invented entities (1)
  • Physics-Constrained Neural Operator (PCNO) architecture
    purpose: Emulates the operator-splitting FEM one-step map with a base solver and a constraint projector to approximate the full solution operator with controlled complexity.
    No implementation, training, or numerical test is provided; the paper itself states in Section 8 that practical implementation and training of the PCNO are the immediate next step.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Convergent Operator-Splitting Scheme for Viscosity Solutions: A Foundation for Learning Domain-to-Solution Maps." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QASXHNFF

@misc{pith2026250520618,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Convergent Operator-Splitting Scheme for Viscosity Solutions: A Foundation for Learning Domain-to-Solution Maps},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QASXHNFF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.20618}
}
abstract

This work introduces and rigorously analyzes a novel operator-splitting finite element scheme for approximating viscosity solutions of a broad class of constrained second-order partial differential equations. By decoupling the primary PDE evolution from the enforcement of constraints, the proposed method combines a stabilized finite element method for spatial discretization with an efficient semi-implicit time-stepping strategy. The cornerstone of our analysis is a proof that the scheme satisfies a discrete comparison principle. We demonstrate that under a mild time-step restriction and with appropriate stabilization, the discrete operator yields an M-matrix, which is sufficient to guarantee the scheme's monotonicity and consequent $L^\infty$-stability. These properties -- consistency, stability, and monotonicity -- are shown to be sufficient to prove convergence of the numerical approximation to the unique viscosity solution within the celebrated Barles--Souganidis framework. For solutions with enhanced regularity, we further establish an optimal-order error estimate of $O(\Delta t + h^2)$. The rigorously established stability of the scheme provides a blueprint for a novel Physics-Constrained Neural Operator (PCNO) architecture. We prove that by emulating the scheme's structure, the PCNO can provably break the curse of dimensionality for the challenging class of domain-to-solution mapping problems with complex topological variations, a problem for which standard learning approaches often fail. Numerical experiments for both a Hamilton-Jacobi equation with state constraints and a controlled reaction-diffusion system are presented to validate the theoretical findings and demonstrate the scheme's effectiveness.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [35]

    Journal of Machine Learning Research 22(290), 1–76 (2021) 31

    Kovachki, N., Lanthaler, S., Mishra, S.: On universal approximation and error bounds for fourier neural operators. Journal of Machine Learning Research 22(290), 1–76 (2021) 31

    work page 2021

  2. [1]

    SIAM Review55(2), 205–267 (2013)

    Feng, X., Glowinski, R., Neilan, M.: Recent developments in numerical methods for fully nonlinear second order partial differential equations. SIAM Review55(2), 205–267 (2013)

    work page 2013

  3. [2]

    SIAM Journal on Optimization 30(1), 585–603 (2020)

    Casas, E., Mateos, M.: Critical cones for sufficient second order conditions in pde constrained optimization. SIAM Journal on Optimization 30(1), 585–603 (2020)

    work page 2020

  4. [3]

    Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincar´ e C 30(6), 1175–1190 (2013)

    Abels, H., Depner, D., Garcke, H.: On an incompressible Navier–Stokes/Cahn– Hilliard system with degenerate mobility. Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincar´ e C 30(6), 1175–1190 (2013)

    work page 2013

  5. [4]

    Annals of Mathematics 60(3), 397–416 (1954)

    Finn, R.: On equations of minimal surface type. Annals of Mathematics 60(3), 397–416 (1954)

    work page 1954

  6. [5]

    Indiana University Mathematics Journal 36(2), 373–401 (1987)

    Caffarelli, L.A., V´ azquez, J.L., Wolanski, N.I.: Lipschitz continuity of solutions and interfaces of the n–dimensional porous medium equation. Indiana University Mathematics Journal 36(2), 373–401 (1987)

    work page 1987

  7. [6]

    SIAM, Philadelphia, PA (2011)

    Grisvard, P.: Elliptic Problems in Nonsmooth Domains. SIAM, Philadelphia, PA (2011)

    work page 2011

  8. [7]

    Annals of Mathematics 113(2), 367–382 (1981)

    Jerison, D.S., Kenig, C.E.: The dirichlet problem in non-smooth domains. Annals of Mathematics 113(2), 367–382 (1981)

    work page 1981

Show all 35 references
  1. [8]

    SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis 59(3), 1735–1768 (2021)

    Rousset, F., Schratz, K.: A general framework of low regularity integrators. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis 59(3), 1735–1768 (2021)

    2021

  2. [9]

    Computers & Mathematics with Applications 114, 47–59 (2022)

    Cao, S., Wang, C., Wang, J.: A new numerical method for div-curl systems with low regularity assumptions. Computers & Mathematics with Applications 114, 47–59 (2022)

    2022

  3. [10]

    Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 282(2), 487–502 (1984)

    Crandall, M.G., Evans, L.C., Lions, P.-L.: Some properties of viscosity solutions of hamilton-jacobi equations. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 282(2), 487–502 (1984)

    1984

  4. [11]

    Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 277(1), 1–42 (1983)

    Crandall, M.G., Lions, P.-L.: Viscosity solutions of hamilton-jacobi equations. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 277(1), 1–42 (1983)

    1983

  5. [12]

    Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 318(2), 643–683 (1990)

    Capuzzo-Dolcetta, I., Lions, P.-L.: Hamilton-jacobi equations with state con- straints. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 318(2), 643–683 (1990)

    1990

  6. [13]

    (eds.) Mean Field Games and Applications: Numerical Aspects, pp

    Achdou, Y., Lauri` ere, M.: In: Cardaliaguet, P., Porretta, A. (eds.) Mean Field Games and Applications: Numerical Aspects, pp. 249–307. Springer, Cham, Switzerland (2020) 29

    2020

  7. [14]

    Numerische Mathematik 64, 323–353 (1993)

    Lions, P.-L., Rouy, E., Tourin, A.: Shape-from-shading, viscosity solutions and edges. Numerische Mathematik 64, 323–353 (1993)

    1993

  8. [15]

    Computers & Mathematics with Applications 156, 74–86 (2024)

    Hahn, J., Mikula, K., Frolkoviˇ c, P.: Laplacian regularized eikonal equation with soner boundary condition on polyhedral meshes. Computers & Mathematics with Applications 156, 74–86 (2024)

    2024

  9. [16]

    Asymptotic Analysis 4(3), 271–283 (1991)

    Barles, G., Souganidis, P.E.: Convergence of approximation schemes for fully nonlinear second order equations. Asymptotic Analysis 4(3), 271–283 (1991)

    1991

  10. [17]

    SIAM, Philadelphia, PA (2013)

    Falcone, M., Ferretti, R.: Semi-Lagrangian Approximation Schemes for Linear and Hamilton—Jacobi Equations. SIAM, Philadelphia, PA (2013)

    2013

  11. [18]

    SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis 10(5), 863–875 (1973)

    Babuˇ ska, I., Zl´ amal, M.: Nonconforming elements in the finite element method with penalty. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis 10(5), 863–875 (1973)

    1973

  12. [19]

    Journal of Machine Learning Research 24(89), 1–97 (2023)

    Kovachki, N., Li, Z., Liu, B., Azizzadenesheli, K., Bhattacharya, K., Stuart, A., Anandkumar, A.: Neural operator: Learning maps between function spaces with applications to pdes. Journal of Machine Learning Research 24(89), 1–97 (2023)

    2023

  13. [20]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.15715 (2024)

    Kovachki, N.B., Lanthaler, S., Stuart, A.M.: Operator learning: Algorithms and analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.15715 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Journal of Computational Physics 519, 113426 (2024)

    Han, J., Lee, Y.: A stochastic approach for elliptic problems in perforated domains. Journal of Computational Physics 519, 113426 (2024)

    2024

  15. [22]

    SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification 8(1), 301–341 (2020)

    Aylwin, R., Jerez-Hanckes, C., Schwab, C., Zech, J.: Domain uncertainty quan- tification in computational electromagnetics. SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification 8(1), 301–341 (2020)

    2020

  16. [23]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36, 70581–70611 (2023)

    Serrano, L., Le Boudec, L., Kassa ¨ ı Koupa ¨ ı, A., Wang, T.X., Yin, Y., Vittaut, J.- N., Gallinari, P.: Operator learning with neural fields: Tackling pdes on general geometries. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36, 70581–70611 (2023)

    2023

  17. [24]

    Transactions of Mathematics and Its Applications 6(1), 001 (2022)

    Lanthaler, S., Mishra, S., Karniadakis, G.E.: Error estimates for deeponets: A deep learning framework in infinite dimensions. Transactions of Mathematics and Its Applications 6(1), 001 (2022)

    2022

  18. [25]

    Foundations of Computational Mathematics 10(6), 615–646 (2010)

    Cohen, A., DeVore, R., Schwab, C.: Convergence rates of best n-term galerkin approximations for a class of elliptic spdes. Foundations of Computational Mathematics 10(6), 615–646 (2010)

    2010

  19. [26]

    SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis 61(3), 1513–1545 (2023)

    Marcati, C., Schwab, C.: Exponential convergence of deep operator networks for elliptic partial differential equations. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis 61(3), 1513–1545 (2023)

    2023

  20. [27]

    Advances in Computational Mathematics 50(4), 72 (2024)

    Herrmann, L., Schwab, C., Zech, J.: Neural and spectral operator surrogates: 30 unified construction and expression rate bounds. Advances in Computational Mathematics 50(4), 72 (2024)

    2024

  21. [28]

    Acta Numerica 11, 479–517 (2002)

    Peskin, C.S.: The immersed boundary method. Acta Numerica 11, 479–517 (2002)

    2002

  22. [29]

    Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 55(1), 129–155 (2023)

    Verzicco, R.: Immersed boundary methods: Historical perspective and future outlook. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 55(1), 129–155 (2023)

    2023

  23. [30]

    Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics 225(2), 541–557 (2009)

    Lui, S.: Spectral domain embedding for elliptic pdes in complex domains. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics 225(2), 541–557 (2009)

    2009

  24. [31]

    John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ (2006)

    Bazaraa, M.S., Sherali, H.D., Shetty, C.M.: Nonlinear Programming: Theory and Algorithms. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ (2006)

    2006

  25. [32]

    Springer, New York, NY (2008)

    Brenner, S.C., Ridgway, S.L.: The Mathematical Theory of Finite Element Methods. Springer, New York, NY (2008)

    2008

  26. [33]

    ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software 30(2), 196–199 (2004)

    Davis, T.A.: Algorithm 832: UMFPACK V4.3—an unsymmetric-pattern multi- frontal method. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software 30(2), 196–199 (2004)

    2004

  27. [34]

    Journal of Numerical Mathematics 20(3-4), 251–266 (2012)

    Hecht, F.: New development in freefem++. Journal of Numerical Mathematics 20(3-4), 251–266 (2012)

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.