Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 47 references

Space-Time Nonlinear Upscaling Framework Using Non-local Multi-continuum Approach

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes a space-time nonlinear upscaling framework in which test functions define macroscopic continua and oversampled local solves build a downscaling map, with $O(H)$ convergence proved for a monotone elliptic model.

desk verdict A real NLMC extension with a partial convergence proof, but the headline accuracy numbers are in-sample and the analysis does not cover the ML-based numerical scheme. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05582 v2 pith:ET43B2IC submitted 2019-08-15 math.NA cs.NA

Wing T. Leung , Eric T. Chung , Yalchin Efendiev , Maria Vasilyeva , Mary Wheeler This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NAcs.NA MSC 65M6065N3076S0568T07
keywords nonlinearupscalingnonlocalmulti-continuumspace-timeheterogeneityoversamplingmachinelearningporousmediatwo-phaseflowhighcontrast
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 tries to establish that nonlinear multiscale problems in porous media can be upscaled in both space and time without assuming scale separation, by replacing each coarse block with several macroscopic 'continua' defined through test functions. Local nonlinear solves in oversampled regions, constrained by averages of these test functions, define a downscaling map from macroscopic variables to fine-grid fields; the coarse model then enforces the original equation weakly through the same test functions. For a monotone elliptic model, the paper proves that with oversampling of $M$ coarse layers the error is bounded by $CH + C_1(M) + C_2(M)$, and when $M\sim O(\log(H^{-1})+\log(C_\kappa))$ the error is $O(H)$. It also reports that replacing expensive local solves with neural-network-learned transmissibilities yields relative $L^2$ errors of $2.155\%$ for an unsaturated flow problem and $0.281\%$ (pressure) / $3.512\%$ (saturation) for two-phase flow, against $11.8$–$14.1\%$ for classical upscaling. A sympathetic reader would care because the framework offers a route to coarse models for highly heterogeneous, nonlinear, time-dependent problems where standard upscaling is known to be process-dependent.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the nonlinear nonlocal multi-continuum (NLMC) construction with three ingredients: test functions $\{\psi^{(j)}_i\}$ selecting continua, local downscaling maps obtained by solving constrained nonlinear problems on oversampled regions $K^+_i$ (with a Lagrange multiplier enforcing the continuum constraints), and a coarse-scale variational formulation using the same test functions. The convergence argument uses the monotone operator $A_\omega(u,w)=\int_\omega \kappa(x,\nabla u)\cdot \nabla w$, three assumptions (approximation by the auxiliary projection, stability of the auxiliary space, and a norm equivalence), and a geometric decay lemma for the localization error $\|F_i(U)-F^{loc}_i(U)\|$ in oversampling layers. In the numerical part, the downscaling map is replaced by convolutional neural networks that learn upscaled nonlinear transmissibilities as functions of local permeability, fracture geometry, and coarse solution averages.

What would settle it

Take the same two test problems but evaluate the trained networks on a permeability/fracture realization not present in the training data, ideally one with a different channel or fracture geometry; if the relative $L^2$ errors of the ML-NLMC solution rise above the classical upscaling errors or fail to shrink as the coarse mesh is refined, the central claim that the learned local maps support accurate coarse models is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a nonlinear version of nonlocal multi-continuum upscaling works for space-time heterogeneous problems: choose test functions that define continua (macroscopic variables) on each coarse block, solve local nonlinear problems in oversampled space-time regions with constraints locking the continua values, and use the resulting downscaling map in a global weak formulation. Under monotonicity, Lipschitz continuity, and a coercivity condition on the flux $\kappa(x,\nabla u)$, the paper proves Theorem 1: $\|F^{ms}_1(U^{ms})-u\|_a \le CH + C_1(M)+C_2(M)$, with $C_1,C_2$ decaying geometrically in the number $M$ of oversampling layers, and $M\sim O(\log(H^{-1})+\log(C_\kappa))$ yields $\|F^{ms}_1(U^{ms})-u\|_a \le CH$. The numerical section claims this framework, with convolutional neural networks predicting coarse-grid transmissibilities, outperforms classical upscaling in relative $L^2$ error on two porous-media test problems.

Load-bearing premise

The learned transmissibilities that produce the reported 0.3–3.5% errors are trained on local fine-grid data extracted from the same global domain used as the reference solution, with no test on unseen media and no error bound connecting learning error to the final $L^2$ error; if those learned functions fail on coarse states outside their training set, the numerical accuracy claim collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For monotone elliptic problems, the coarse solution converges linearly in coarse-mesh size $H$ once oversampling grows logarithmically with $H^{-1}$ and the contrast $C_\kappa$.
  • The local downscaling maps are stable in the energy norm, so the same framework can be reused as a component in larger coarse systems without blowing up.
  • The two numerical tests show relative $L^2$ errors of about $0.3$–$3.5\%$ for the ML-based nonlinear NLMC solution, compared with roughly $12$–$14\%$ for classical upscaling at final time.
  • Because the local problems mirror the original global problem, the framework applies to time-dependent nonlinear models such as two-phase flow and transport, not just elliptic problems.
  • The machine-learned transmissibilities can be trained once from local fine-grid data and then used in the coarse solve, avoiding repeated expensive local solves during simulation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural test the paper does not run is cross-realization generalization: train the networks on local data from one permeability/fracture field and evaluate on a different field; if the reported accuracy degrades sharply, the method's practical value depends on training-data coverage rather than on the upscaling construction itself.
  • The analysis is for a monotone elliptic model with $p=2$; extending Theorem 1 to the degenerate parabolic two-phase flow case would require additional compactness or monotonicity structure, since the numerical tests do not carry an error bound.
  • One could combine the ML local solves with online corrections: when a coarse state falls outside the training distribution, fall back to a constrained local solve, which would make the approach more robust without abandoning the learned map.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a space-time nonlinear nonlocal multi-continuum upscaling framework for problems with multiscale coefficients. In the framework, test functions on each coarse space-time element define continua (macroscopic variables); a downscaling map is built by solving nonlinear local problems on oversampled regions subject to constraints set by the test functions; and coarse macroscopic variables are found from a variational formulation using the same test functions. Section 3.4 develops a convergence analysis for a monotone elliptic model (Eq. (11)) and states Theorem 1, an error bound of the form ||Fms_1(Ums)-u||_a <= CH + C1(M) + C2(M), with O(H) accuracy when M ~ O(log(H^-1) + log(C_kappa)). Section 4 replaces the expensive local solves with CNN-learned upscaled transmissibilities and reports relative L2 errors for an unsaturated flow problem (Test 1: e(uNL)=2.155% versus e(uUP)=11.773%) and a two-phase flow-transport problem (Test 2: e(pNL)=0.281% and e(sNL)=3.512% versus e(pUP)=14.063% and e(sUP)=13.354%).

Significance. If demonstrated as stated, the framework would be a useful extension of nonlocal multi-continuum methods to nonlinear and space-time heterogeneous problems. The paper's strengths include a conceptually clean construction based on test-function-defined continua, a self-contained error analysis for the model monotone elliptic problem, and a favorable numerical comparison against classical transmissibility upscaling on the two test problems. The numerical study is presented against a fine-grid reference, which is an appropriate benchmark. However, the analysis covers only a stationary monotone elliptic model, while the numerical claims are for time-dependent models solved with a machine-learned surrogate; the numerical protocol is in-sample, so the reported accuracy figures are not yet evidence of generalization to unseen media.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.4 vs Section 4] Theorem 1 analyzes only the monotone elliptic equation (11), but Section 4 tests the method on a time-dependent unsaturated flow problem and a two-phase flow problem using simplified local problems and CNN-fitted transmissibilities. No estimate in Section 3.4 connects the learned transmissibilities (Table 1) to the downscaling map Fms used in Theorem 1, so the reported relative L2 errors (e(uNL)=2.155% in Test 1; e(pNL)=0.281% and e(sNL)=3.512% in Test 2) are not consequences of the convergence analysis. Please add an error-propagation statement for the ML surrogate, or explicitly present the numerical results as heuristic evidence.
  2. [Section 4, training and validation protocol] The neural networks are trained on local patches extracted from fine-grid calculations on the same global domain Omega used to compute the reference solution, with an 80:20 train/validation split of those patches. Because the validation set is a random subset of patches from the same medium rather than an unseen medium, the claimed accuracy is in-sample: it does not test whether the learned transmissibilities generalize to new permeability or fracture configurations, which is the intended use of an upscaling method. Please provide an out-of-sample test (e.g., train on one realization or region and test on another) or provide a theoretical link between the Table 1 errors and the final coarse-grid errors.
  3. [Section 3.4, Assumptions 1-3] Theorem 1 and Lemmas 3-5 are conditional on three assumptions that are neither proved nor referenced for the continua used in this paper. Assumption 1, in particular, is a nontrivial simultaneous approximation bound comparing the s-norm and a-norm after projection, and it directly produces the O(H) term in Lemma 4. The paper should prove these assumptions for the chosen test functions or provide precise references before Theorem 1 can be considered established.
  4. [Section 3.4, Lemma 5] The decay bound in Lemma 5 uses the factor (1 - C^(-1) C_1^(-1) C_2), but the proof does not state that this factor lies in (0,1), which is needed for the powers (1 - ...)^M to be meaningful and decaying. From (12)-(13) one can expect C_2 <= C_1, so the point is probably fixable, but it should be written explicitly and the range of the constants should be verified.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.4, Lemma 4 proof] The expression 'C2||u-F(Pi u)||^2_a' in the proof of Lemma 4 is inconsistent with the statement; it should refer to F1(Uglo).
  2. [Section 3.4, Theorem 1 proof] The proof places the term (1/2)||Fms_1(Ums)-u||_a on the right-hand side and stops; the standard absorption argument should be stated so the final O(H) conclusion is explicit.
  3. [Section 4, error definitions] The quantity called MSE is defined as a sum of squared errors, not a mean squared error; either rename it or change the definition.
  4. [Section 3, notation] Notation in Section 3 is inconsistent: the downscaling map appears as Fms, Fms_1, Floc, Floc,K, and F1 across Section 3.4; standardize the notation.
  5. [General] There are several typos, including 'tis lemma' in the proof of Lemma 5 and 'RELU' for ReLU in Section 4; the error definition for u=(p,s) should also be written more carefully.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The theoretical nonlinear NLMC error analysis is self-contained, but the Section 4 ML accuracy figures are in-sample: the neural transmissibilities are trained on local fine-grid data from the same global domain used as the reference solution.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4, paragraph beginning 'For the training of the neural networks...' and Figure 4/Figure 5 error statements]
    "For the training of the neural networks, we use a global dataset, where we extract local information from the fine grid calculations on the global domain Ω ... Each dataset is divided into training and validation sets with 80 : 20 ratio. ... In Figure 4 ... We have e(uUP ) = 11.773% and e(uNL) = 2.155% at final time."

    The reported accuracy is evaluated on the same fine-grid solution that supplied the training data: the transmissibility networks are fitted to local samples X_l/Y_l extracted from 'fine grid calculations on the global domain Ω', and the final errors are computed against the reference fine-grid solution of that same domain. The 80:20 split separates local patches, not permeability fields, so it does not test the coarse model on unseen media or on coarse states absent from training. Consequently the values e(uNL)=2.155%, e(pNL)=0.281%, e(sNL)=3.512% are in-sample reconstructions of the reference through the fitted flux functions, rather than independent predictions; no bound connects Table 1's learning errors to these final relative L2 errors.

full rationale

The central theoretical derivation is not circular: Lemmas 4-5 and Theorem 1 prove an error bound for the nonlinear NLMC downscaling map Fms against the fine-grid solution, using hypotheses (12)-(13), Assumptions 1-3, and an explicit oversampling localization argument. The proof does not assume its own conclusion, and the coarse-grid error is measured against an external fine-grid benchmark. Self-citations to [16,17,18] provide background and motivation, but they are not the load-bearing theorem; in particular, the oversampling decay used in Theorem 1 is proven in Lemma 5 rather than imported as an unexamined uniqueness or convergence result. The concrete circularity is confined to the numerical demonstration: the learned transmissibility functions are fitted to local fine-grid data extracted from the same global domain Ω whose fine-grid solution is later used as the reference for the reported 0.3-3.5% relative L2 errors. An 80:20 train/validation split of local patches is not a held-out medium, and no estimate transfers the Table 1 learning errors to the final coarse-solution errors. This makes the numerical claims in-sample fit quality rather than independent prediction, but it does not undermine the analysis of the framework itself.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central proof relies on the three assumptions in Section 3.4; the numerical demonstration relies on the adequacy of simplified local problems and on CNN generalization. No free scalar parameters are fit to the target output; the ML weights are a surrogate approximation rather than a claimed physical law.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Monotonicity and Lipschitz continuity of the heterogeneous flux: kappa(x,0)=0, |kappa(x,z)-kappa(x,v)| <= C1 kappa(x)|z-v|, kappa(x,v)·v >= C2 kappa(x)|v|^2.
    Section 3.4, 'Assumption on kappa(x,v)'. These are standard assumptions for monotone nonlinear elliptic problems, but they do not hold for the degenerate two-phase flow problem in Section 4, so the analysis does not cover the headline application.
  • domain assumption Assumption 1: for all K in T_H, v in V(K), ||(I-Pi)v||_s <= C H ||v||_a.
    Stated in Section 3.4 without proof; it is a non-standard approximability condition on the chosen continua and is load-bearing for the O(H) error bound.
  • domain assumption Assumption 2: stable lifting for Vaux: for vaux in Vaux(K), there exists w in H^1_0(K) with ||vaux||^2_s(K) <= s_K(vaux,w) and ||w||_a <= C||vaux||_s(K).
    Stated in Section 3.4; needed for stability of the F2 Lagrange multiplier maps.
  • domain assumption Assumption 3: ||v||_s <= C_kappa ||v||_a for all v in V.
    Stated in Section 3.4; in high-contrast media C_kappa can be large, so the oversampling M needed in Theorem 1 grows with log(C_kappa).
  • ad hoc to paper The CNN trained on local samples from the global fine-grid solution generalizes to the coarse-grid solve trajectory.
    Implicit in Section 4; no out-of-sample test on unseen media or error propagation analysis is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper The simplified local problems are directly related to the fine-grid problems.
    Section 1 states this relationship and Section 4 uses simplified local problems without deriving their connection to the full local downscaling problem (5).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Space-Time Nonlinear Upscaling Framework Using Non-local Multi-continuum Approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ET43B2IC

@misc{pith2026190805582,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Space-Time Nonlinear Upscaling Framework Using Non-local Multi-continuum Approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ET43B2IC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05582}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we develop a space-time upscaling framework that can be used for many challenging porous media applications without scale separation and high contrast. Our main focus is on nonlinear differential equations with multiscale coefficients. The framework is built on nonlinear nonlocal multi-continuum upscaling concept and significantly extends the results in the proceeding paper. Our approach starts with a coarse space-time partition and identifies test functions for each partition, which plays a role of multi-continua. The test functions are defined via optimization and play a crucial role in nonlinear upscaling. In the second stage, we solve nonlinear local problems in oversampled regions with some constraints defined via test functions. These local solutions define a nonlinear map from macroscopic variables determined with the help of test functions to the fine-grid fields. This map can be thought as a downscaled map from macroscopic variables to the fine-grid solution. In the final stage, we seek macroscopic variables in the entire domain such that the downscaled field solves the global problem in a weak sense defined using the test functions. We present an analysis of our approach for an example nonlinear problem. Our unified framework plays an important role in designing various upscaled methods. Because local problems are directly related to the fine-grid problems, it simplifies the process of finding local solutions with appropriate constraints. Using machine learning (ML), we identify the complex map from macroscopic variables to fine-grid solution. We present numerical results for several porous media applications, including two-phase flow and transport.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05582 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic description of the method. overcome these difficulties, one needs a better understanding of nonlinear upscaling methods for space-time heterogeneous problems. Nonlinear upscaling methods for scale separation cases are rigorously treated in [43, 27]. Among these approaches, some deal with problems that have both space and time heterogeneities. Our proposed approaches take their origin in the Constraint Ener… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic of the coarse grid Ki , the oversampling region Ki,1 and the fine grids. scale solution satisfies the variational formulation that uses the test functions defined in Step 1. An example of test functions that we use is piecewise constant functions in each subregions (defined as channels). Then, the macroscale variables are average solutions defined in these subregions. The corresponding downscaled maps repr… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Coarse mesh with source term and fracture positions (left). Heterogeneous porous matrix perme [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Reference fine grid solution (u f ine), mean value on coarse grid of the fine grid solution (u f ine), coarse grid solution using upscaling method (u UP ) and coarse grid solution using nonlinear nonlocal machine learning method (u NL). Nonlinear flow problem (Test 1 )…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Reference fine grid solution (s f ine , p f ine), mean value on coarse grid of the fine grid solution (s f ine , p f ine), coarse grid solution using upscaling method (s UP , p UP ) and coarse grid solution using nonlinear nonlocal machine learning method (s NL, p NL).…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Adaptive reduced basis finite element heterogeneous multiscale method

    Assyr Abdulle and Yun Bai. Adaptive reduced basis finite element heterogeneous multiscale method. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. , 257:203–220, 2013

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    Allaire and R

    G. Allaire and R. Brizzi. A multiscale finite element method for numerical homogenization. SIAM J. Multiscale Modeling and Simulation , 4(3):790–812, 2005

    work page 2005

  3. [3]

    Arbogast

    T. Arbogast. Implementation of a locally conservative numerical subgrid upscaling scheme for two-phase Darcy flow. Comput. Geosci, 6:453–481, 2002

    work page 2002

  4. [4]

    Arbogast, G

    T. Arbogast, G. Pencheva, M.F. Wheeler, and I. Yotov. A multiscale mortar mixed finite element method. SIAM J. Multiscale Modeling and Simulation , 6(1):319–346, 2007

    work page 2007

  5. [5]

    Arbogast, G

    T. Arbogast, G. Pencheva, M.F. Wheeler, and I. Yotov. A multiscale mortar mixed finite element method. Multiscale Model. Simul., 6(1):319–346, 2007

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    Barker and S

    J.W. Barker and S. Thibeau. A critical review of the use of pseudorelative permeabilities for upscaling. SPE Reservoir Eng. , 12:138–143, 1997

    work page 1997

  7. [7]

    A Multiscale Method for Porous Microstructures

    Donald L Brown and Daniel Peterseim. A multiscale method for porous microstructures. arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.1944, 2014

    work page Pith review arXiv 1944

  8. [8]

    Y. Chen, L. Durlofsky, M. Gerritsen, and X. Wen. A coupled local-global upscaling approach for simulating flow in highly heterogeneous formations. Advances in Water Resources, 26:1041–1060, 2003

    work page 2003

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    Chung, Y

    E. Chung, Y. Efendiev, and S. Fu. Generalized multiscale finite element method for elasticity equations. International Journal on Geomathematics , 5(2):225–254, 2014

    2014

  2. [10]

    Chung, Y

    E. Chung, Y. Efendiev, and W. T. Leung. Generalized multiscale finite element method for wave propagation in heterogeneous media. SIAM Multicale Model. Simul. , 12:1691–1721, 2014

    2014

  3. [11]

    Chung and W

    E. Chung and W. T. Leung. A sub-grid structure enhanced discontinuous galerkin method for multiscale diffusion and convection-diffusion problems. Communications in Computational Physics , 14:370–392, 2013

    2013

  4. [12]

    E. T. Chung, Y. Efendiev, W.T. Leung, M. Vasilyeva, and Y. Wang. Online adaptive local multiscale model reduction for heterogeneous problems in perforated domains. Applicable Analysis, 96(12):2002– 2031, 2017

    2002

  5. [13]

    E. T. Chung, Y. Efendiev, and G. Li. An adaptive GMsFEM for high contrast flow problems. J. Comput. Phys., 273:54–76, 2014

    2014

  6. [14]

    Constraint energy minimizing generalized mul- tiscale finite element method in the mixed formulation

    Eric Chung, Yalchin Efendiev, and Wing Tat Leung. Constraint energy minimizing generalized mul- tiscale finite element method in the mixed formulation. Computational Geosciences, 22(3):677–693, 2018

    2018

  7. [15]

    A conservative local multiscale model reduction tech- nique for stokes flows in heterogeneous perforated domains

    Eric Chung, Maria Vasilyeva, and Yating Wang. A conservative local multiscale model reduction tech- nique for stokes flows in heterogeneous perforated domains. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 321:389–405, 2017

    2017

  8. [16]

    Non-local multi-continua upscaling for flows in heterogeneous fractured media

    Eric T Chung, Efendiev, Wing Tat Leung, Maria Vasilyeva, and Yating Wang. Non-local multi-continua upscaling for flows in heterogeneous fractured media. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.08379 , 2018

    2018 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Nonlinear nonlocal multicon- tinua upscaling framework and its applications

    Eric T Chung, Yalchin Efendiev, Wing T Leung, and Mary Wheeler. Nonlinear nonlocal multicon- tinua upscaling framework and its applications. International Journal for Multiscale Computational Engineering, 16(5), 2018

    2018

  10. [18]

    Constraint energy minimizing generalized multiscale finite element method

    Eric T Chung, Yalchin Efendiev, and Wing Tat Leung. Constraint energy minimizing generalized multiscale finite element method. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering , 339:298– 319, 2018. 19

    2018

  11. [19]

    Fast online generalized multiscale finite element method using constraint energy minimization

    Eric T Chung, Yalchin Efendiev, and Wing Tat Leung. Fast online generalized multiscale finite element method using constraint energy minimization. Journal of Computational Physics , 355:450–463, 2018

    2018

  12. [20]

    Reduced basis approximation for nonlinear parametrized evolution equations based on empirical operator interpolation

    Martin Drohmann, Bernard Haasdonk, and Mario Ohlberger. Reduced basis approximation for nonlinear parametrized evolution equations based on empirical operator interpolation. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. , 34(2):A937–A969, 2012

    2012

  13. [21]

    Durlofsky

    L.J. Durlofsky. Numerical calculation of equivalent grid block permeability tensors for heterogeneous porous media. Water Resour. Res., 27:699–708, 1991

    1991

  14. [22]

    W. E and B. Engquist. Heterogeneous multiscale methods. Comm. Math. Sci. , 1(1):87–132, 2003

    2003

  15. [23]

    Efendiev and L.J

    Y. Efendiev and L.J. Durlofsky. Numerical modeling of subgrid heterogeneity in two phase flow simu- lations. Water Resour. Res., 38(8):1128, 2002

    2002

  16. [24]

    Efendiev and L.J

    Y. Efendiev and L.J. Durlofsky. A generalized convection-diffusion model for subgrid transport in porous media. SIAM J. Multiscale Modeling and Simulation , 1(3):504–526, 2003

    2003

  17. [25]

    Efendiev, J

    Y. Efendiev, J. Galvis, and T. Y. Hou. Generalized multiscale finite element methods (gmsfem). Journal of Computational Physics , 251:116–135, 2013

    2013

  18. [26]

    Efendiev, J

    Y. Efendiev, J. Galvis, and X.H. Wu. Multiscale finite element methods for high-contrast problems using local spectral basis functions. Journal of Computational Physics , 230:937–955, 2011

    2011

  19. [27]

    Efendiev and A

    Y. Efendiev and A. Pankov. Numerical homogenization of nonlinear random parabolic operators. SIAM J. Multiscale Modeling and Simulation , 2(2):237–268, 2004

    2004

  20. [28]

    On the capability of generalized continuum theories to capture dispersion characteristics at the atomic scale

    DA Fafalis, SP Filopoulos, and GJ Tsamasphyros. On the capability of generalized continuum theories to capture dispersion characteristics at the atomic scale. European Journal of Mechanics-A/Solids , 36:25–37, 2012

    2012

  21. [29]

    Computational continua for linear elastic heterogeneous solids on unstructured finite element meshes

    Dimitrios Fafalis and Jacob Fish. Computational continua for linear elastic heterogeneous solids on unstructured finite element meshes. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering , 115(4):501–530, 2018

    2018

  22. [30]

    Practical multiscaling

    Jacob Fish. Practical multiscaling. John Wiley & Sons, 2013

    2013

  23. [31]

    Space–time multiscale model for wave propagation in heterogeneous media

    Jacob Fish and Wen Chen. Space–time multiscale model for wave propagation in heterogeneous media. Computer Methods in applied mechanics and engineering , 193(45):4837–4856, 2004

    2004

  24. [32]

    Mathematical homogenization of nonperiodic heterogeneous media subjected to large deformation transient loading

    Jacob Fish and Rong Fan. Mathematical homogenization of nonperiodic heterogeneous media subjected to large deformation transient loading. International Journal for numerical methods in engineering , 76(7):1044–1064, 2008

    2008

  25. [33]

    Computational continua revisited

    Jacob Fish, Vasilina Filonova, and Dimitrios Fafalis. Computational continua revisited. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering , 102(3-4):332–378, 2015

    2015

  26. [34]

    Reduced order computational continua

    Jacob Fish, Vasilina Filonova, and Zheng Yuan. Reduced order computational continua. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering , 221:104–116, 2012

    2012

  27. [35]

    Computational continua

    Jacob Fish and Sergey Kuznetsov. Computational continua. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 84(7):774–802, 2010

    2010

  28. [36]

    Computational plasticity for composite structures based on mathematical homogenization: Theory and practice

    Jacob Fish, Kamlun Shek, Muralidharan Pandheeradi, and Mark S Shephard. Computational plasticity for composite structures based on mathematical homogenization: Theory and practice. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering , 148(1-2):53–73, 1997

    1997

  29. [37]

    The heterogeneous multiscale finite element method for elliptic homogenization problems in perforated domains

    Patrick Henning and Mario Ohlberger. The heterogeneous multiscale finite element method for elliptic homogenization problems in perforated domains. Numerische Mathematik, 113(4):601–629, 2009. 20

    2009

  30. [38]

    Holden and B.F

    L. Holden and B.F. Nielsen. Global upscaling of permeability in heterogeneous reservoirs: the Output Least Squares (OLS method. Transport in Porous Media, 40:115–143, 2000

    2000

  31. [39]

    Kyte and D.W

    J.R. Kyte and D.W. Berry. New pseudofunctions to control numerical dispersion. Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, 15(4):269–276, 1975

    1975

  32. [40]

    Two-scale fem for homogenization problems

    Ana-Maria Matache and Christoph Schwab. Two-scale fem for homogenization problems. ESAIM: Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Analysis , 36(04):537–572, 2002

    2002

  33. [41]

    Eigendeformation-based reduced order homogenization for failure analysis of heterogeneous materials

    Caglar Oskay and Jacob Fish. Eigendeformation-based reduced order homogenization for failure analysis of heterogeneous materials. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering , 196(7):1216– 1243, 2007

    2007

  34. [42]

    Owhadi and L

    H. Owhadi and L. Zhang. Metric-based upscaling. Comm. Pure. Appl. Math. , 60:675–723, 2007

    2007

  35. [43]

    A. Pankov. G-convergence and homogenization of nonlinear partial differential operators . Kluwer Aca- demic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1997

    1997

  36. [44]

    Peszy´ nska, M

    M. Peszy´ nska, M. Wheeler, and I. Yotov. Mortar upscaling for multiphase flow in porous media.Comput. Geosci., 6(1):73–100, 2002

    2002

  37. [45]

    X.H. Wu, Y. Efendiev, and T.Y. Hou. Analysis of upscaling absolute permeability. Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems, Series B. , 2:158–204, 2002

    2002

  38. [46]

    Multiple scale eigendeformation-based reduced order homogenization

    Zheng Yuan and Jacob Fish. Multiple scale eigendeformation-based reduced order homogenization. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering , 198(21-26):2016–2038, 2009

    2016

  39. [47]

    An analysis of the NLMC upscaling method for high contrast problems

    Lina Zhao and Eric T Chung. An analysis of the NLMC upscaling method for high contrast problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.11124 , 2019. 21

    1904 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.