Stabilized Morley FEM for surface Stokes in stream-function formulation: Optimal convergence via a new geometric estimate

Hao Zhou; Shuonan Wu

REVIEW 1 major objections 7 minor 29 references

Stabilized Morley FEM for surface Stokes in stream-function formulation: Optimal convergence via a new geometric estimate

T0 review · 1 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A stabilized Morley finite element method for the surface Stokes stream-function formulation reaches optimal convergence by upgrading first-order normal errors to second order through an integral cancellation.

desk verdict Strong paper: the new normal-separated geometric estimate is real and delivers the advertised optimal rates; the flagged interpolation bug is a typo in the displayed formula, not a load-bearing flaw. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.26664 v1 pith:XWLV236E submitted 2026-07-29 math.NA cs.NA

Shuonan Wu , Hao Zhou This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.NAcs.NA MSC 65N1265N1565N30

keywords surfaceStokesstream-functionformulationMorleyelementnonconformingfinitegeometricconsistencynormal-separatedestimatebrokenH^1errordiscreteKorninequality

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 claims that a stabilized Morley finite element method for the stream-function form of surface Stokes equations converges at optimal rates on plain polyhedral surface meshes: first order in the broken H^2 norm and second order in the broken H^1 norm, with second-order L^2 recovery of the velocity, under only H^3 regularity of the stream function. The obstruction to such rates was the first-order pointwise accuracy of the polyhedral normal. The paper's main step is a new normal-separated geometric estimate showing that normal-dependent consistency errors gain a second order through an integral cancellation in the first normal variation. A sympathetic reader would care because this removes the need for higher-order surface approximation, extra solution regularity, or a tuning parameter to obtain optimal accuracy for a fourth-order surface problem.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the normal-separated geometric estimate (Theorem 3.2). It treats a surface integrand F(y, ν(y)) as a function of the normal variable, Taylor-expands in that variable, and separates the derivative into tangential and normal parts. The tangential part is a tangential vector field q_F; Lemma 3.1 (normal-to-divergence estimate) shows its integral against the discrete normal is O(h^2) with constant governed by div_γ q_F, because the O(h) pointwise normal error cancels under integration. This single estimate yields the P_hν-type estimate, a superconvergence identity for first-order tangential forms, second-order consistency of the trace-free Hessian, the Stokes-type tens

What would settle it

Run the stabilized scheme on a manufactured C^4 surface problem with a sequence of meshes that violate the geometric approximation: vertices deliberately offset from the surface by O(h) (or strongly graded triangles), and record the broken-H^1 error order. If second order persists despite the first-order position error, the claimed dependence on the geometric approximation is wrong; if the rate drops below 2, the cancellation argument is doing the work.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 5.7: for a C^4 surface, if φ is the exact stream function and φ_h is the stabilized Morley solution, then ||φ^e − φ_h||_{H_h^1(Γ_h)} ≤ C h^2 (||φ||_{H^3(γ)} + ||f||_{L^2(γ)}), with the companion broken-H^2 bound O(h) from Theorem 5.6 and the recovered velocity u_h = curl_{Γ_h} φ_h satisfying ||u − u_h||_{L^2} ≤ C h^2 ||f||_{L^2(γ)}. These rates are optimal for piecewise quadratic elements and hold under the minimal H^3 regularity that the equation itself provides. What makes them attainable is the geometric estimate of Theorem 3.2: although the discrete normal differs from the exact normal pointwise by O(h), the integral of a tangential pairing with that normal d

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the polyhedral mesh is a genuine second-order geometric approximation of a C^4 surface — vertices on the surface, O(h^2) position and area errors, O(h) normal errors, with shape-regular quasi-uniform triangles — because the cancellation that upgrades all key estimates relies on those specific error scales.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

On a C^4 surface, the stabilized Morley scheme converges at O(h) in the broken H^2 norm and O(h^2) in the broken H^1 norm under the natural H^3 regularity, so no super-regularity assumption is needed.
The recovered tangential velocity u_h = curl_{Γ_h} φ_h converges in L^2 at O(h^2), giving a directly usable fluid velocity from the scalar stream function.
The scheme is intrinsic to the polyhedral mesh: it uses only edge lengths and vertex/edge degrees of freedom, no discrete Gaussian curvature and no user-tuned penalty parameter.
The geometric estimate is a general tool: it recovers classical geometric consistency estimates and proves second-order consistency for several tensorial forms, so it can be reused in other surface finite element analyses.

Reading between the lines

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

The same Taylor-in-normal mechanism may extend to higher-order geometric approximations, potentially yielding higher-order nonconforming surface methods; the paper mentions this direction as work in preparation but does not prove it.
Because the argument is not specific to the Stokes stream-function equation, it may sharpen error analyses of other fourth-order surface problems (for example surface biharmonic or vector-Laplacian formulations) that currently settle for first-order geometric consistency.
The error constants depend on surface curvature through div_γ q_F; this dependence is not made explicit, so surfaces with large curvature gradients could be the first place the practical rates degrade.
A natural test is whether the cancellation survives mild violations of the geometric approximation — for example vertices offset by O(h^2) rather than lying on the surface — which would weaken the mesh-generation requirement.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Strong paper. The main analytic contribution, Theorem 3.2, is genuinely new: a normal-separated geometric estimate that contains the classical P_hν estimate as a special case and, more importantly, yields second-order consistency for the trace-free Hessian, the curl–divergence pairing, and the conormal fluxes. That is what lets the authors get optimal broken-H1 and velocity L2 rates under the natural H3 regularity, with a parameter-free stabilization and no curvature input. The proofs are detailed and the key lemmas actually compute the q_F terms; this is not a sketch. The discrete Korn inequality via the H(div)-conforming relative is a nice piece of work. The numerical experiments line up with the theory, and the destabilization test in Table 6.4 gives good evidence that the stabilization is doing something real.

The stress-test concern about (4.9) does not hold up. The displayed formula is missing a breve: the RHS should be the Piola pullback \breve{\nabla_γ w}, not the plain extension. The sentence before the equation says the normal-preserving property of the Piola transform is what makes the degrees of freedom well-defined, and the proof of Lemma 4.5 invokes the Piola estimate (4.6) to bound the difference between \nabla_{Γ_h} w^e and \breve{\nabla_γ w}. So the intended definition preserves conormal moments and the interpolant does lie in V_h. It is a typo, and the authors should fix it, but it is not a load-bearing flaw.

Other soft spots are minor. The paper leans on the authors' own [23] for the Piola estimates and on [15] for the discrete Korn inequality; both are published results and the usage is appropriate. The geometric assumptions (C4 surface, O(h^2) position/area, O(h) normals) are standard for a piecewise-linear fit. The torus experiment is fine: the solution is coexact, which sidesteps the simple-connectivity requirement, and the authors say so. No code is shipped, but the experiments are simple enough to reproduce from the text.

Who should read this: anyone working on surface fourth-order problems, nonconforming methods on surfaces, or the stream-function formulation of surface Stokes. It deserves a serious referee. My recommendation: accept after minor revision — fix the missing breve and add a line in (4.9) or its caption clarifying that the RHS is the Piola pullback.

Referee Report

1 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper introduces an intrinsic stabilized Morley finite element for the stream-function formulation of the surface Stokes problem on a polyhedral approximation Γ_h of a smooth closed surface γ. The method uses a parameter-free value-jump stabilization, is defined entirely through edge lengths and vertex values, and does not use discrete curvature information. The main analytical contribution is a normal-separated geometric estimate (Theorem 3.2) that converts first-order normal errors into second-order consistency for trace-free Hessians, Stokes-type tensor Green identities, and conormal fluxes. Under C^4 surface and H^3 solution regularity, the authors prove first-order broken-H^2 convergence, second-order broken-H^1 convergence, and a second-order L^2 estimate for the recovered velocity. Numerical experiments on a sphere, a torus, and a general implicit surface support the predicted rates.

Significance. If the results stand, this is a substantial advance. The normal-separated estimate is a clean and apparently powerful tool: it recovers the classical P_hν estimate, yields superconvergence for first-order tangential forms, and supplies the second-order interior and skeleton consistency needed for optimal broken-H^1 convergence under only H^3 regularity. The method itself is attractive: intrinsic to Γ_h, no tunable penalty parameter, no Gaussian-curvature approximation. The proofs are detailed and largely self-contained, with external results (notably a discrete Korn inequality for H(div)-conforming surface BDM spaces) clearly cited. The numerical experiments cover a nontrivial coexact case on a torus and confirm the predicted orders.

major comments (1)

As printed, equation (4.9) defines the edge normal-derivative degrees of freedom using ∇_γ w rather than the Piola pullback \breve{∇_γ w}. Taken literally, the two contributions on an interior edge e=∂K_1∩∂K_2 sum to ∫_e (∇_γ w)^e·(n_1+n_2) ds_h, which is not zero on a curved polyhedral surface. Hence \tilde I_h w would not satisfy the V_h edge-moment condition, and the interpolation estimates (4.10), Corollary 4.6, and the comparison arguments in Theorems 5.6 and 5.7 would lose their foundation. The surrounding text and the use of the Piola transformation property (4.6) in the proof of Lemma 4.5 make clear that \breve{∇_γ w} is intended. Please restore the missing breve in (4.9) and in the corresponding line of Lemma 4.5, and add one sentence explicitly verifying that the Piola pullback makes the two edge contributions cancel.

minor comments (7)

The decomposition of a_h(w_I,ψ_I)-a(w,ψ) lists five terms but labels them I_1,...,I_4, and then reuses I_1 for the first two terms. This is confusing; please relabel the terms consistently.
In the bound for [t_h^T(H_γ w)^e n_h], the text refers to P J n_h K, but the natural object is P(n_1-n_2); the estimate is O(h^2) after using H_γ w's tangentiality, but the displayed identity should be corrected or clarified.
The identity ∂_{t_1}[∇_{Γ_h}w·n_h] = [t_h^T H_{Γ_h} w t_h] is asserted without proof and is not immediate. Since it underpins the crucial bound (4.22), please add a short derivation in the planar edge frame.
The proof is only sketched ('Sketch of proof'). In a paper whose central claim depends on this consistency bound, please expand the pointwise comparison or give a precise reference to the exact statement in [15].
The proof is omitted and referred to [23, Lemma 3.4]. This is acceptable, but a one-line indication of how (4.6), norm equivalence, and interpolation combine would improve readability.
The notation \breve{u} is used before it is defined. Please state explicitly that \breve{u} := \breve{\mathrm{curl}_γ ϕ} is the Piola pullback of the exact velocity to Γ_h.
The torus H^2 orders at the coarser levels (0.54, 0.77) are far from the asymptotic rate 1; only the final refinement approaches it. Please comment on this pre-asymptotic behavior or add one more refinement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the convergence rates are genuine theorems, with only minor auxiliary self-citation.

full rationale

The main result chain is not circular. Theorem 3.2 is proved from Lemma 3.1, whose proof uses only the signed-distance geometry, the identity ∇_{Γ_h} d = P_h(P−dH)(∇γρ_h)^e, and integration by parts on the closed exact surface; it does not assume the theorem it establishes. The subsequent consistency lemmas (3.5, 3.6, 3.8) and corollaries are genuine applications of Theorem 3.2, and the error bounds in Theorems 5.6/5.7 combine these estimates with discrete Korn/coercivity, Strang arguments, and elliptic regularity (2.7). No quantity in the error bounds is fitted to data, and no 'prediction' reduces to an input by construction. The self-citations to [23] are used for auxiliary Piola norm equivalence (Lemma 4.1) and pointwise/elementwise Piola estimates (Lemma 4.2 and Corollary 4.3; Corollary 4.3's proof is explicitly omitted with reference to [23, Lemma 3.4]). These are parameter-free auxiliary technical estimates with external counterpart [7]; they are not the central geometric premise, and the cited results do not include the target error estimates. The paper explicitly presents Corollary 3.3 as recovering the known P_hν estimate rather than concealing a renaming. A separate non-circular concern is flagged: as typeset, Eq. (4.9) uses ∇_γ w without a breve, which if taken literally would make \tilde I_h w fail the V_h flux condition and would make Lemma 4.5's use of Piola estimate (4.6) inconsistent. This is a proof-consistency/correctness issue, not a reduction of the claimed theorem to its own input, and is therefore not scored as circularity.

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

No free parameters are fitted; the stabilization weight is fixed by scaling. The main assumptions are standard surface-FEM geometric approximation (O(h²) position/area, O(h) normal), H3 elliptic regularity, lift/norm-equivalence properties, and an external discrete Korn inequality from [15]. No invented entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Polyhedral surface approximation Γ_h satisfies |d|≲h^2, |ν_h−ν|≲h, |1−μ_h|≲h^2, with shape-regular quasi-uniform simplicial mesh.
Section 2.3; standard geometric approximation of a smooth surface by a triangulated polyhedron. The entire second-order consistency argument presupposes these bounds.
domain assumption Elliptic regularity (2.7): on a C4 closed surface, the stream function satisfies ||φ||_{H^3(γ)} ≲ ||f||_{L^2(γ)}.
Section 2.2, eq. (2.7), following [15, Lemma 6.2]; needed for the H3 setting of the error estimates and for the Aubin–Nitsche duality.
domain assumption Closest-point projection extension properties and norm equivalence (2.12)–(2.13) for C^{m+1} surfaces.
Section 2.3; standard surface FEM lifting results used throughout the geometric estimates and the Piola transform analysis.
domain assumption Discrete Korn inequality for H(div)-conforming surface BDM1 spaces, [15, Lemma B.1/(B.4)].
Used in the proof of Lemma 4.8 (discrete Korn's inequality for the trace-free Hessian) without reproof; this is a published external result.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stabilized Morley FEM for surface Stokes in stream-function formulation: Optimal convergence via a new geometric estimate." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XWLV236E

@misc{pith2026260726664,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stabilized Morley FEM for surface Stokes in stream-function formulation: Optimal convergence via a new geometric estimate},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XWLV236E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.26664}
}

abstract

We propose an intrinsic stabilized Morley finite element method for the stream-function formulation of the surface Stokes problem on closed surfaces. The method is posed directly on a polyhedral approximation of the surface. A parameter-free jump stabilization is introduced to recover coercivity, and a discrete Korn's inequality for the trace-free Hessian is established. The main analytical contribution is a normal-separated geometric estimate for piecewise linearly approximated closed surfaces. It shows that a broad class of normal-dependent geometric consistency errors is in fact second order, even though a direct treatment suggests only first-order control. The missing order is recovered through an integral cancellation in the first normal variation. This estimate refines the standard $P_h\nu$-type estimate and yields second-order consistency for the trace-free Hessian, the Stokes-type tensor Green identity, and the conormal fluxes arising in the discretization. Together with the discrete Korn's inequality, these estimates yield, under the natural $H^3$ regularity, optimal-order convergence: first order in the broken $H^2$ norm and second order in the broken $H^1$ norm. As a direct consequence, the recovered tangential velocity admits a second-order $L^2$ estimate. Numerical experiments are provided to support the theoretical results.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.26664 by the authors.

**Figure 6.1.** Computed discrete velocity fields uh = curlΓh ϕh. The surface color represents |uh|, and the arrows indicate the velocity direction. 24 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_6_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

[23]

Astabilizednonconformingfiniteelementmethodforthesurfacebiharmonic problem.SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 63(4):1642–1665, 2025

ShuonanWuandHaoZhou. Astabilizednonconformingfiniteelementmethodforthesurfacebiharmonic problem.SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 63(4):1642–1665, 2025

2025
[15]

AC0 interior penalty method for the stream function formulation of the surface Stokes problem.ESAIM: Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Analysis, 59(2):1177–1211, 2025

Michael Neilan and Hongzhi Wan. AC0 interior penalty method for the stream function formulation of the surface Stokes problem.ESAIM: Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Analysis, 59(2):1177–1211, 2025

2025
[1]

Olshanskii, and Arnold Reusken

Thomas Jankuhn, Maxim A. Olshanskii, and Arnold Reusken. Incompressible fluid problems on embed- ded surfaces: Modeling and variational formulations.Interfaces and Free Boundaries, 20(3):353–377, 2018

2018
[2]

Finite element methods for surface PDEs.Acta Numerica, 22:289–396, 2013

Gerhard Dziuk and Charles M Elliott. Finite element methods for surface PDEs.Acta Numerica, 22:289–396, 2013

2013
[3]

Olshanskii, Annalisa Quaini, Arnold Reusken, and Vladimir Yushutin

Maxim A. Olshanskii, Annalisa Quaini, Arnold Reusken, and Vladimir Yushutin. A finite element method for the surface Stokes problem.SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 40(4):A2492–A2518, 2018

2018
[4]

Olshanskii, Arnold Reusken, and Alexander Zhiliakov

Thomas Jankuhn, Maxim A. Olshanskii, Arnold Reusken, and Alexander Zhiliakov. Error analysis of higher order trace finite element methods for the surface Stokes equation.Journal of Numerical Mathematics, 29(3):245–267, 2021

2021
[5]

Philip Brandner, Thomas Jankuhn, Simon Praetorius, Arnold Reusken, and Axel Voigt. Finite ele- ment discretization methods for velocity–pressure and stream function formulations of surface Stokes equations.SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 44(4):A1807–A1832, 2022

2022
[6]

Hanne Hardering and Simon Praetorius. Parametric finite-element discretization of the surface Stokes equations: inf-sup stability and discretization error analysis.IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis, 45(5):2948–2987, 2025

2025

Show all 29 references

[7]

A divergence-conforming finite element method for the surface Stokes equation.SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 58(5):2764–2798, 2020

Andrea Bonito, Alan Demlow, and Martin Licht. A divergence-conforming finite element method for the surface Stokes equation.SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 58(5):2764–2798, 2020

2020
[8]

Divergence-free tangential finite ele- ment methods for incompressible flows on surfaces.International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 121(11):2503–2533, 2020

Philip L Lederer, Christoph Lehrenfeld, and Joachim Schöberl. Divergence-free tangential finite ele- ment methods for incompressible flows on surfaces.International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 121(11):2503–2533, 2020

2020
[9]

A tangential and penalty-free finite element method for the surface Stokes problem.SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 62(1):248–272, 2024

Alan Demlow and Michael Neilan. A tangential and penalty-free finite element method for the surface Stokes problem.SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 62(1):248–272, 2024

2024
[10]

A Taylor–Hood finite element method for the surface Stokes problem without penalization.SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 64(2):565–600, 2026

Alan Demlow and Michael Neilan. A Taylor–Hood finite element method for the surface Stokes problem without penalization.SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 64(2):565–600, 2026

2026
[11]

Nochetto and Mansur Shakipov

Ricardo H. Nochetto and Mansur Shakipov. Surface Stokes without inf-sup condition. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.13342, 2025

2025 arXiv
[12]

Stream function formulation of surface Stokes equations.IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis, 40(1):109–139, 2020

Arnold Reusken. Stream function formulation of surface Stokes equations.IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis, 40(1):109–139, 2020

2020
[13]

Releasing the pressure: High-order surface flow discretizations via discrete Helmholtz–Hodge decompositions

Tim Brüers, Christoph Lehrenfeld, Tim van Beeck, and Max Wardetzky. Releasing the pressure: High-order surface flow discretizations via discrete Helmholtz–Hodge decompositions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.27714, 2026

2026 arXiv
[14]

Finite element error analysis of surface Stokes equations in stream function formulation.ESAIM: Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Analysis, 54(6):2069–2097, 2020

Philip Brandner and Arnold Reusken. Finite element error analysis of surface Stokes equations in stream function formulation.ESAIM: Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Analysis, 54(6):2069–2097, 2020
[16]

A continuous/discontinuous Galerkin method and a priori error estimates for the biharmonic problem on surfaces.Mathematics of Computation, 86(308):2613–2649, 2017

Karl Larsson and Mats Larson. A continuous/discontinuous Galerkin method and a priori error estimates for the biharmonic problem on surfaces.Mathematics of Computation, 86(308):2613–2649, 2017

2017
[17]

Continuous linear finite element method for biharmonic problems on surfaces.Journal of Scientific Computing, 107:39, 2026

Ying Cai, Hailong Guo, and Zhimin Zhang. Continuous linear finite element method for biharmonic problems on surfaces.Journal of Scientific Computing, 107:39, 2026. 27

2026
[18]

Second order splitting for a class of fourth order equations.Mathematics of Computation, 88(320):2605–2634, 2019

Charles Elliott, Hans Fritz, and Graham Hobbs. Second order splitting for a class of fourth order equations.Mathematics of Computation, 88(320):2605–2634, 2019

2019
[19]

A mixed finite element method with piecewise linear elements for the biharmonic equation on surfaces.arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.08029, 2019

Oded Stein, Eitan Grinspun, Alec Jacobson, and Max Wardetzky. A mixed finite element method with piecewise linear elements for the biharmonic equation on surfaces.arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.08029, 2019

1911 arXiv
[20]

The Kirchhoff plate equation on surfaces: the surface Hellan–Herrmann–Johnson method.IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis, 42(4):3094–3134, 2022

Shawn W Walker. The Kirchhoff plate equation on surfaces: the surface Hellan–Herrmann–Johnson method.IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis, 42(4):3094–3134, 2022

2022
[21]

L. S. D. Morley. The triangular equilibrium element in the solution of plate bending problems.The Aeronautical Quarterly, 19(2):149–169, 1968

1968
[22]

The Morley element for fourth order elliptic equations in any dimensions

Ming Wang and Jinchao Xu. The Morley element for fourth order elliptic equations in any dimensions. Numerische Mathematik, 103(1):155–169, 2006

2006
[24]

Yakov Berchenko-Kogan and Evan S. Gawlik. Blow-up Whitney forms, shadow forms, and Poisson processes.Results in Applied Mathematics, 25:100529, 2025

2025
[25]

Higher-order finite element methods and pointwise error estimates for elliptic problems on surfaces.SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 47(2):805–827, 2009

Alan Demlow. Higher-order finite element methods and pointwise error estimates for elliptic problems on surfaces.SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 47(2):805–827, 2009

2009
[26]

Finite element methods for the Laplace– Beltrami operator

Andrea Bonito, Alan Demlow, and Ricardo H Nochetto. Finite element methods for the Laplace– Beltrami operator. InHandbook of Numerical Analysis, volume 21, pages 1–103. Elsevier, 2020

2020
[27]

Springer, 1988

Gerhard Dziuk.Finite elements for the Beltrami operator on arbitrary surfaces. Springer, 1988

1988
[28]

Analysis of finite element methods for vector laplacians on surfaces.IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis, 40(3):1652–1701, 2020

Peter Hansbo, Mats G Larson, and Karl Larsson. Analysis of finite element methods for vector laplacians on surfaces.IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis, 40(3):1652–1701, 2020

2020
[29]

iFEM: an innovative finite element methods package in MATLAB.Preprint, University of Maryland, 2008

Long Chen. iFEM: an innovative finite element methods package in MATLAB.Preprint, University of Maryland, 2008. 28

2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [23]

Astabilizednonconformingfiniteelementmethodforthesurfacebiharmonic problem.SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 63(4):1642–1665, 2025

ShuonanWuandHaoZhou. Astabilizednonconformingfiniteelementmethodforthesurfacebiharmonic problem.SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 63(4):1642–1665, 2025

2025

[2] [15]

AC0 interior penalty method for the stream function formulation of the surface Stokes problem.ESAIM: Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Analysis, 59(2):1177–1211, 2025

Michael Neilan and Hongzhi Wan. AC0 interior penalty method for the stream function formulation of the surface Stokes problem.ESAIM: Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Analysis, 59(2):1177–1211, 2025

2025

[3] [1]

Olshanskii, and Arnold Reusken

Thomas Jankuhn, Maxim A. Olshanskii, and Arnold Reusken. Incompressible fluid problems on embed- ded surfaces: Modeling and variational formulations.Interfaces and Free Boundaries, 20(3):353–377, 2018

2018

[4] [2]

Finite element methods for surface PDEs.Acta Numerica, 22:289–396, 2013

Gerhard Dziuk and Charles M Elliott. Finite element methods for surface PDEs.Acta Numerica, 22:289–396, 2013

2013

[5] [3]

Olshanskii, Annalisa Quaini, Arnold Reusken, and Vladimir Yushutin

Maxim A. Olshanskii, Annalisa Quaini, Arnold Reusken, and Vladimir Yushutin. A finite element method for the surface Stokes problem.SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 40(4):A2492–A2518, 2018

2018

[6] [4]

Olshanskii, Arnold Reusken, and Alexander Zhiliakov

Thomas Jankuhn, Maxim A. Olshanskii, Arnold Reusken, and Alexander Zhiliakov. Error analysis of higher order trace finite element methods for the surface Stokes equation.Journal of Numerical Mathematics, 29(3):245–267, 2021

2021

[7] [5]

Philip Brandner, Thomas Jankuhn, Simon Praetorius, Arnold Reusken, and Axel Voigt. Finite ele- ment discretization methods for velocity–pressure and stream function formulations of surface Stokes equations.SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 44(4):A1807–A1832, 2022

2022

[8] [6]

Hanne Hardering and Simon Praetorius. Parametric finite-element discretization of the surface Stokes equations: inf-sup stability and discretization error analysis.IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis, 45(5):2948–2987, 2025

2025