pith. sign in

arxiv: 2508.05372 · v2 · submitted 2025-08-07 · 🧮 math.NA · cs.NA

The domain-of-dependence stabilization for cut-cell meshes is fully discretely stable

Louis Petri , Gunnar Birke , Christian Engwer , Hendrik Ranocha This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 00:36 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.NA cs.NA
keywords domain-of-dependence stabilizationcut-cell meshesfully discrete stabilitylinear advectionoperator norm estimateCFL conditionhyperbolic problems
0
0 comments X

The pith

Domain-of-dependence stabilization for cut-cell meshes achieves fully discrete stability under a time step restriction independent of small cells.

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

The paper shows that redistributing mass around small cut cells at the semi-discrete level produces a scheme that stays stable after time discretization without shrinking the time step to the size of the smallest cell. A sympathetic reader would care because cut cells appear whenever complex geometries cut a regular background mesh, and the usual CFL restriction from tiny cells makes explicit time stepping impractical for many simulations. The analysis is carried out for linear advection in one space dimension and relies on an operator-norm bound to control the growth of the fully discrete solution. The work also notes difficulties that arise with higher-order polynomials and offers a modification that yields a usable CFL-like condition, with supporting numerical checks in one and two dimensions.

Core claim

Applying the domain-of-dependence stabilization exactly at the semi-discrete stage before time discretization yields a fully discrete evolution operator whose norm remains bounded under a CFL restriction that depends only on the background mesh size and not on the arbitrarily small cut cells, as established by a direct operator-norm estimate for the linear advection equation.

What carries the argument

Operator-norm bound on the fully discrete evolution operator after the domain-of-dependence stabilization has been incorporated at the semi-discrete level.

If this is right

  • An explicit time step can be chosen from the background mesh size alone.
  • The same stability mechanism extends to two-dimensional cut-cell computations.
  • A simple adjustment produces a practical CFL condition when higher-order polynomials are used.
  • The operator-norm viewpoint clarifies why mass redistribution prevents instability from small cells.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same norm estimate might be adapted to other hyperbolic systems if the semi-discrete operator remains dissipative on the background mesh.
  • Codes that already use embedded-boundary methods could adopt the stabilization to enlarge allowable time steps without changing the spatial mesh.
  • Testing the modified higher-order version on problems with curved boundaries would show whether the feasible CFL condition remains robust in practice.

Load-bearing premise

The stabilization operator is applied exactly before time discretization and the underlying spatial discretization is stable on a uniform background mesh.

What would settle it

A one-dimensional advection computation in which the discrete solution norm grows when the time step satisfies the uniform-mesh CFL but the cut cell is orders of magnitude smaller than the background mesh size would disprove the claimed stability.

read the original abstract

We present a fully discrete stability analysis of the domain-of-dependence stabilization for hyperbolic problems. The method aims to address issues caused by small cut cells by redistributing mass around the neighborhood of a small cut cell at a semi-discrete level. Our analysis is conducted for the linear advection model problem in one spatial dimension. We demonstrate that fully discrete stability can be achieved under a time step restriction that does not depend on the arbitrarily small cells, using an operator norm estimate. Additionally, this analysis offers a detailed understanding of the stability mechanism and highlights some challenges associated with higher-order polynomials. We also propose a way to mitigate these issues to derive a feasible CFL-like condition. The analytical findings, as well as the proposed solution are verified numerically in one- and two-dimensional simulations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper presents a fully discrete stability analysis of the domain-of-dependence stabilization for hyperbolic problems on cut-cell meshes. For the 1D linear advection model, it demonstrates that stability can be achieved under a time step restriction independent of arbitrarily small cut cells using an operator norm estimate on the combined spatial stabilization and time-stepping operator. The analysis assumes semi-discrete application of the stabilization and standard stability of the underlying DG discretization on the uniform background mesh; it also discusses challenges with higher-order polynomials, proposes a mitigation strategy, and verifies the findings numerically in 1D and 2D.

Significance. If the central operator-norm result holds, the work is significant for numerical methods for hyperbolic PDEs, as it rigorously establishes that the stabilization permits a CFL condition free of dependence on arbitrarily small cut cells. This removes a major practical obstacle in cut-cell and immersed-boundary simulations. The paper earns credit for deriving the bound directly from the discrete operators rather than fitting parameters, for explicitly stating modeling assumptions, and for providing numerical corroboration across dimensions together with a concrete mitigation for higher-order cases.

major comments (1)
  1. [§3] §3 and the operator-norm derivation: the stability bound is obtained under the modeling assumption that the stabilization operator is applied exactly at the semi-discrete level before time discretization and that the background-mesh DG scheme satisfies standard stability properties. This assumption is load-bearing for the cut-size-independent claim; a short explicit statement of the stability constant inherited from the background scheme or a one-line verification for the specific DG flux would make the bound fully transparent.
minor comments (3)
  1. [higher-order section] The discussion of higher-order polynomial challenges and the proposed mitigation would benefit from a table or plot quantifying the observed stable CFL numbers versus polynomial degree, rather than qualitative statements alone.
  2. [figures] Figure captions and legends should explicitly label the polynomial degrees and the presence/absence of stabilization for each curve to improve readability.
  3. [introduction] A brief sentence in the introduction recalling the precise definition of the domain-of-dependence neighborhood would help readers who are not already familiar with the method.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment and the constructive suggestion regarding transparency in the stability analysis. We address the major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 and the operator-norm derivation: the stability bound is obtained under the modeling assumption that the stabilization operator is applied exactly at the semi-discrete level before time discretization and that the background-mesh DG scheme satisfies standard stability properties. This assumption is load-bearing for the cut-size-independent claim; a short explicit statement of the stability constant inherited from the background scheme or a one-line verification for the specific DG flux would make the bound fully transparent.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit reference to the inherited stability constant would improve clarity. In the revised manuscript we will add one sentence in Section 3 stating that the background-mesh DG scheme with the standard upwind flux satisfies the L²-stability bound ||u_h(t)|| ≤ ||u_h(0)|| with constant 1, which is the classical energy estimate for the linear advection problem on a uniform mesh. This short verification makes the load-bearing assumption fully transparent while leaving the subsequent operator-norm argument unchanged. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation is self-contained

full rationale

The paper derives its fully discrete stability result for the domain-of-dependence stabilization directly via an operator-norm bound on the combined spatial-plus-stabilization operator for the 1D linear advection problem. This bound is obtained from the discrete operators under explicitly stated modeling assumptions (semi-discrete application of stabilization and standard DG stability on the uniform background mesh) rather than by fitting parameters, self-definition, or reduction to prior self-citations. The central claim therefore remains independent of the inputs and does not exhibit any of the enumerated circularity patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The proof relies on standard properties of finite-volume or DG discretizations for linear advection and on the exact application of the domain-of-dependence redistribution before time stepping. No new free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The spatial discretization without stabilization satisfies a standard stability estimate for the linear advection equation on a background mesh.
    Invoked to bound the combined operator after stabilization is applied.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5664 in / 1316 out tokens · 33790 ms · 2026-05-19T00:36:29.868431+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Strong Stability of Explicit Runge-Kutta Methods

    F. Achleitner, A. Arnold, and A. Jüngel. “Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Strong Stability of Explicit Runge-Kutta Methods.” In:From Particle Systems to Partial Differential Equations. PSPDE X, Braga, Portugal, June 2022. Ed. by E. Carlen, P. Gonçalves, and A. J. Soares. Vol. 465. Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics. Cham: Springer, 2...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-65195-3_1 2022

  2. [2]

    Computers & Mathematics with Applications 81 (Jan

    P.Bastian,M.Blatt,A.Dedner,N.-A.Dreier,C.Engwer,R.Fritze,C.Gräser,C.Grüninger,D. Kempf,R.Klöfkorn,M.Ohlberger,andO.Sander.“TheDuneframework:Basicconceptsand recentdevelopments.”In:Computers&MathematicswithApplications 81(2021).Development and Application of Open-source Software for Problems with Numerical PDEs, pp. 75–112. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.c...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.camwa.2020.06.007 2021

  3. [3]

    A Generic Grid Interface for Parallel and Adaptive Scientific Computing. Part II: Implementation and Tests in DUNE

    P. Bastian, M. Blatt, A. Dedner, C. Engwer, R. Klöfkorn, R. Kornhuber, M. Ohlberger, and O. Sander. “A Generic Grid Interface for Parallel and Adaptive Scientific Computing. Part II: Implementation and Tests in DUNE.” In:Computing 82.2–3 (2008), pp. 121–138.doi: 10. 1007/s00607-008-0004-9. url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00607-008-0004-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s00607-008-0004-9 2008

  4. [4]

    A Generic Grid Interface for Parallel and Adaptive Scientific Computing. Part I: Abstract Framework

    P. Bastian, M. Blatt, A. Dedner, C. Engwer, R. Klöfkorn, M. Ohlberger, and O. Sander. “A Generic Grid Interface for Parallel and Adaptive Scientific Computing. Part I: Abstract Framework.” In:Computing 82.2–3 (2008), pp. 103–119.doi: 10.1007/s00607-008-0003-x . url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00607-008-0003-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s00607-008-0003-x 2008

  5. [5]

    A New Provably Stable Weighted State Redistribution Algo- rithm

    M. Berger and A. Giuliani. “A New Provably Stable Weighted State Redistribution Algo- rithm.” In:SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing46.5 (2024), A2848–A2873.doi: 10.1137/ 23M1597484

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    A state redistribution algorithm for finite volume schemes on cut cell meshes

    M. Berger and A. Giuliani. “A state redistribution algorithm for finite volume schemes on cut cell meshes.” In:Journal of Computational Physics428 (2021), p. 109820.doi: https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2020.109820

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2020.109820 2021

  7. [7]

    B¨orner, R.-U

    J.Bezanson,A.Edelman,S.Karpinski,andV.B.Shah.“Julia:AFreshApproachtoNumerical Computing.” In:SIAM Review59.1 (2017), pp. 65–98.doi: 10.1137/141000671

    work page doi:10.1137/141000671 2017

  8. [8]

    Birke, C

    G. Birke, C. Engwer, J. Giesselmann, and S. May.Error analysis of a first-order DoD cut cell method for 2D unsteady advection. 2024. arXiv:2411.10283 [math.NA]

    work page arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    PAMM 24(4), 202400051 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1002/pamm

    G. Birke, C. Engwer, S. May, and F. Streitbürger. “DoD Stabilization of linear hyperbolic PDEs on general cut-cell meshes.” In:PAMM23.1 (2023), e202200198.doi: 10.1002/pamm. 202200198

    work page doi:10.1002/pamm 2023

  10. [10]

    Blatt, S

    M. Blatt, S. Burbulla, A. Burchardt, A. Dedner, C. Engwer, C. Gräser, C. Grüninger, R. Klöfkorn, T. Koch, S. O. D. L. Ríos, S. Praetorius, and O. Sander.The Distributed and Unified Numerics Environment (DUNE), Version 2.10. 2025. arXiv:2506.23558 [cs.MS]

    work page arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    I. N. Bronstein.Taschenbuch der Mathematik. Publication Title: Taschenbuch der Mathematik. Thun, Frankfurt am Main: Harri Deutsch, 1987

    work page 1987

  12. [12]

    Canuto, M

    C. Canuto, M. Hussaini, A. Quarteroni, and T. Zang.Spectral Methods: Fundamentals in Single Domains. Vol. 23. Jan. 2006.doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-30726-6

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-540-30726-6 2006

  13. [13]

    Makie.jl: Flexible high-performance data visualization for Julia

    S. Danisch and J. Krumbiegel. “Makie.jl: Flexible high-performance data visualization for Julia.” In:Journal of Open Source Software6.65 (2021), p. 3349.doi: 10.21105/joss.03349

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.03349 2021

  14. [14]

    MethodsofNumericalIntegration .ComputerScience and Applied Mathematics

    P.Davis,P.Rabinowitz,andW.Rheinbolt. MethodsofNumericalIntegration .ComputerScience and Applied Mathematics. Academic Press, 2014.doi: 10.1016/C2013-0-10566-1

    work page doi:10.1016/c2013-0-10566-1 2014

  15. [15]

    Di Pietro and A

    D. Di Pietro and A. Ern.Mathematical Aspects of Discontinuous Galerkin Methods. Vol. 69. Jan

    work page

  16. [16]

    doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-22980-0

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-22980-0

  17. [17]

    Function space bases in the dune-functions module

    C.Engwer,C.Gräser,S.Müthing,andO.Sander.“Functionspacebasesinthedune-functions module.” In:(Preprint) arxiv:1806.09545(2018)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  18. [18]

    The interface for functions in the dune- functions module

    C. Engwer, C. Gräser, S. Müthing, and O. Sander. “The interface for functions in the dune- functions module.” In:Archive of Numerical Software(2017)

    work page 2017

  19. [19]

    Geometric Reconstruction of Implicitly Defined Surfaces and Domains with Topological Guarantees

    C. Engwer and A. Nüßing. “Geometric Reconstruction of Implicitly Defined Surfaces and Domains with Topological Guarantees.” In:ACM Trans. Math. Softw.44.2 (2017). doi: 10. 1145/3104989. url: https://doi.org/10.1145/3104989

    work page doi:10.1145/3104989 2017

  20. [20]

    A stabilized DG cut cell method for discretizing the linear transport equation

    C. Engwer, S. May, A. Nüßing, and F. Streitbürger. “A stabilized DG cut cell method for discretizing the linear transport equation.” In:SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing42.6 (2020), A3677–A3703.doi: 10.1137/19M1268318

    work page doi:10.1137/19m1268318 2020

  21. [21]

    High Order Cut Discontinuous Galerkin Methods for Hyperbolic Conservation Laws in One Space Dimension

    P. Fu and G. Kreiss. “High Order Cut Discontinuous Galerkin Methods for Hyperbolic Conservation Laws in One Space Dimension.” In:SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing43.4 (2021), A2404–A2424.doi: 10.1137/20M1349060. 29

    work page doi:10.1137/20m1349060 2021

  22. [22]

    SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing , author =

    G. J. Gassner. “A Skew-Symmetric Discontinuous Galerkin Spectral Element Discretization and Its Relation to SBP-SAT Finite Difference Methods.” In:SIAM Journal on Scientific Com- puting35.3 (2013), A1233–A1253.doi: 10.1137/120890144

    work page doi:10.1137/120890144 2013

  23. [23]

    ATwo-DimensionalStabilizedDiscontinuousGalerkinMethodonCurvilinear Embedded Boundary Grids

    A.Giuliani.“ATwo-DimensionalStabilizedDiscontinuousGalerkinMethodonCurvilinear Embedded Boundary Grids.” In:SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing44.1 (2022), A389– A415. doi: 10.1137/21M1396277

    work page doi:10.1137/21m1396277 2022

  24. [24]

    G. H. Golub and C. F. Van Loan.Matrix Computations - 4th Edition. Philadelphia, PA: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2013.doi: 10.1137/1.9781421407944

    work page doi:10.1137/1.9781421407944 2013

  25. [25]

    Total Variation Diminishing

    S. Gottlieb and C.-W. Shu. “Total Variation Diminishing Runge-Kutta Schemes.” In:Mathe- matics of Computation67 (Aug. 1996).doi: 10.1090/S0025-5718-98-00913-2

    work page doi:10.1090/s0025-5718-98-00913-2 1996

  26. [26]

    Stabilized Cut Discontinuous Galerkin Methods for Advection-Reaction Problems

    C. Gürkan, S. Sticko, and A. Massing. “Stabilized Cut Discontinuous Galerkin Methods for Advection-Reaction Problems.” In:SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing42.5 (2020), A2620– A2654. doi: 10.1137/18M1206461

    work page doi:10.1137/18m1206461 2020

  27. [27]

    Highly Efficient Strong Stability-Preserving Runge–Kutta Methods with Low-StorageImplementations

    D. I. Ketcheson. “Highly Efficient Strong Stability-Preserving Runge–Kutta Methods with Low-StorageImplementations.”In:SIAMJournalonScientificComputing 30.4(2008),pp.2113–

    work page 2008

  28. [28]

    doi: 10.1137/07070485X

    work page doi:10.1137/07070485x

  29. [29]

    D. A. Kopriva. Implementing Spectral Methods for Partial Differential Equations: Algorithms for Scientists and Engineers. 1st. Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated, 2009

    work page 2009

  30. [30]

    OntheQuadratureandWeakFormChoicesinCollocation Type Discontinuous Galerkin Spectral Element Methods

    D.A.KoprivaandG.J.Gassner.“OntheQuadratureandWeakFormChoicesinCollocation Type Discontinuous Galerkin Spectral Element Methods.” In:Journal of Scientific Computing 44.2 (2010), pp. 136–155.doi: 10.1007/s10915-010-9372-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s10915-010-9372-3 2010

  31. [31]

    Error Boundedness of Discontinuous Galerkin Spectral Element Approximations of Hyperbolic Problems

    D. A. Kopriva, J. Nordström, and G. J. Gassner. “Error Boundedness of Discontinuous Galerkin Spectral Element Approximations of Hyperbolic Problems.” In:Journal of Scien- tific Computing72.1 (2017), pp. 314–330.doi: 10.1007/s10915-017-0358-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s10915-017-0358-2 2017

  32. [32]

    DoD stabilization for non-linear hyperbolic conservation laws on cut cell meshes in one dimension

    S. May and F. Streitbürger. “DoD stabilization for non-linear hyperbolic conservation laws on cut cell meshes in one dimension.” In:Applied Mathematics and Computation419 (2022), p. 126854.doi: 10.1016/j.amc.2021.126854

    work page doi:10.1016/j.amc.2021.126854 2022

  33. [33]

    On the Legendre–Gauss–Lobatto Points and Weights

    S. V. Parter. “On the Legendre–Gauss–Lobatto Points and Weights.” In:J. Sci. Comput.14.4 (1999), 347–355.doi: 10.1023/A:1023204631825

    work page doi:10.1023/a:1023204631825 1999

  34. [34]

    The domain-of- dependence stabilization for cut-cell meshes is fully discretely stable

    L. Petri, G. Birke, C. Engwer, and H. Ranocha.Reproducibility repository for "The domain-of- dependence stabilization for cut-cell meshes is fully discretely stable". https : / / github . com / louispetri/2025_dod_linear_stability. 2025.doi: 10.5281/zenodo.16751960

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.16751960 2025

  35. [35]

    SummationByPartsOperators.jl: A Julia library of provably stable semidis- cretization techniques with mimetic properties

    H. Ranocha. “SummationByPartsOperators.jl: A Julia library of provably stable semidis- cretization techniques with mimetic properties.” In:Journal of Open Source Software6.64 (Aug. 2021), p. 3454.doi: 10 . 21105 / joss . 03454. url: https : / / github . com / ranocha / SummationByPartsOperators.jl

    work page 2021

  36. [36]

    𝐿2 Stability of Explicit Runge-Kutta Schemes

    H. Ranocha and P. Öffner. “𝐿2 Stability of Explicit Runge-Kutta Schemes.” In:Journal of Scientific Computing75.2 (May 2018), pp. 1040–1056.doi: 10.1007/s10915-017-0595-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s10915-017-0595-4 2018

  37. [37]

    HigherOrderCutFiniteElementsfortheWaveEquation

    S.StickoandG.Kreiss.“HigherOrderCutFiniteElementsfortheWaveEquation.”In: Journal of Scientific Computing80.3 (2019), pp. 1867–1887.doi: 10.1007/s10915-019-01004-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s10915-019-01004-2 2019

  38. [38]

    DoDStabilizationforHigher-OrderAdvec- tion in Two Dimensions

    F.Streitbürger,G.Birke,C.Engwer,andS.May.“DoDStabilizationforHigher-OrderAdvec- tion in Two Dimensions.” In:Spectral and High Order Methods for Partial Differential Equations ICOSAHOM 2020+1. Ed. by J. M. Melenk, I. Perugia, J. Schöberl, and C. Schwab. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2023, pp. 495–508

    work page 2020

  39. [39]

    Stabilized discontinuous Galerkin methods for solving hyperbolic conser- vation laws on grids with embedded objects. Universitätsbibliothek Dortmund

    F. Streitbürger. “Stabilized discontinuous Galerkin methods for solving hyperbolic conser- vation laws on grids with embedded objects. Universitätsbibliothek Dortmund.” In: (2023). doi: 10.17877/de290r-23928. 30

    work page doi:10.17877/de290r-23928 2023

  40. [40]

    StabilityofthefourthorderRunge-Kuttamethodfortime-dependent partial differential equations

    Z.SunandC.-W.Shu.“StabilityofthefourthorderRunge-Kuttamethodfortime-dependent partial differential equations.” In:Annals of Mathematical Sciences and Applications2.2 (2017), pp. 255–284.doi: 10.4310/AMSA.2017.v2.n2.a3

    work page doi:10.4310/amsa.2017.v2.n2.a3 2017

  41. [41]

    Strong Stability of Explicit Runge-Kutta Time Discretizations

    Z. Sun and C.-W. Shu. “Strong Stability of Explicit Runge-Kutta Time Discretizations.” In: SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis57.3 (2019), pp. 1158–1182.doi: 10.1137/18M122892X

    work page doi:10.1137/18m122892x 2019

  42. [42]

    Szegő.Orthogonal Polynomials

    G. Szegő.Orthogonal Polynomials. American Math. Soc: Colloquium publ. American Mathe- matical Society, 1975

    work page 1975

  43. [43]

    From Semidiscrete to Fully Discrete: Stability of Runge-Kutta Schemes by the EnergyMethodII

    E. Tadmor. “From Semidiscrete to Fully Discrete: Stability of Runge-Kutta Schemes by the EnergyMethodII.”In: CollectedLecturesonthePreservationofStabilityunderDiscretization .Ed. by D. J. Estep and S. Tavener. Vol. 109. Proceedings in Applied Mathematics. Philadelphia: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 2002, pp. 25–49

    work page 2002

  44. [44]

    OnthestabilityofRunge–KuttamethodsforarbitrarilylargesystemsofODEs

    E.Tadmor.“OnthestabilityofRunge–KuttamethodsforarbitrarilylargesystemsofODEs.” In: Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematicsn/a.n/a ().doi: https://doi.org/10. 1002/cpa.22238

    work page

  45. [45]

    O. Tange. GNU Parallel 20250422 (’Tariffs’). GNU Parallel is a general parallelizer to run multiple serial command line programs in parallel without changing them. Apr. 2025.doi: 10.5281/zenodo.15265748

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.15265748 2025

  46. [46]

    An energy stable high-order cut cell discontinuous Galerkinmethodwithstateredistributionforwavepropagation

    C. G. Taylor, L. C. Wilcox, and J. Chan. “An energy stable high-order cut cell discontinuous Galerkinmethodwithstateredistributionforwavepropagation.”In: JournalofComputational Physics521 (2025), p. 113528.doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2024.113528

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2024.113528 2025

  47. [47]

    The L2-norm Stability Analysis of Runge–Kutta Discontinuous Galerkin Methods for Linear Hyperbolic Equations

    Y. Xu, Q. Zhang, C.-w. Shu, and H. Wang. “The L2-norm Stability Analysis of Runge–Kutta Discontinuous Galerkin Methods for Linear Hyperbolic Equations.” In:SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis57.4 (2019), pp. 1574–1601.doi: 10.1137/18M1230700. 31

    work page doi:10.1137/18m1230700 2019