Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 47 references

Quasi-Monte Carlo methods for uncertainty quantification of tumor growth modeled by a parametric semi-linear parabolic reaction-diffusion equation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For a tumor-growth reaction-diffusion model with random coefficients, quasi-Monte Carlo lattice rules compute expected quantities of interest at near-linear error $O(N^{-1+\delta})$, beating Monte Carlo.

desk verdict First rigorous QMC rate for a semilinear parabolic PDE, with a novel regularity proof; the QMC error bound itself is too reliant on a sketched adaptation of Guth et al. and needs expansion before the claims are fully supported. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.25753 v3 pith:23YWCOQ2 submitted 2025-09-30 math.NA cs.CEcs.NAstat.CO

Alexander D. Gilbert , Frances Y. Kuo , Dirk Nuyens , Graham Pash , Ian H. Sloan , Karen E. Willcox This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NAcs.CEcs.NAstat.CO MSC 65D3065D3292B0592C5035K58
keywords quasi-MonteCarlouncertaintyquantificationtumorgrowthmodelsemi-linearparabolicPDEparametricregularityrandomfieldslatticerulesreaction-diffusion
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 studies uncertainty propagation through a semi-linear parabolic reaction-diffusion model of tumor growth, where the diffusion and proliferation coefficients are random fields. It establishes well-posedness of the model, proves a parametric regularity bound for solutions when the randomness is uniform, and uses it to show that a randomly shifted lattice rule computes expectations of bounded linear quantities of interest with error $O(N^{-1+\delta})$ for any $\delta>0$, a near-linear rate that beats Monte Carlo's $O(N^{-1/2})$. The rate is dimension-independent under a summability condition on the coefficient fluctuations, and a numerical experiment on a square domain confirms the slope $-1.01$. A second experiment with lognormal random fields on a realistic brain slice shows faster-than-Monte-Carlo convergence, motivating further theory.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the parametric regularity bound of Theorem 3.1, proved inductively through a recursion that keeps all norms quadratic by using sharp space-time norm inequalities and the falling factorial $[1/2]_n = |\tfrac12(\tfrac12-1)\cdots(\tfrac12-n+1)|$, whose convolution property bounds sums of products of derivative norms. This bound transfers the general QMC estimates for linear parabolic problems to the semi-linear setting when combined with the cutoff-based well-posedness argument of Theorem 2.1 and with interleaved affine expansions for the two random fields (odd-index terms for diffusion, even-index terms for proliferation). The result is a dimension-independent near-linear QMC rate for expectations of bounded linear functionals of the solution.

What would settle it

Compute the leading eigenpairs of the covariance operators of the diffusion and proliferation random fields on a realistic brain mesh, form the induced $\beta_j$ sequence, and check whether $\sum_j \beta_j^p$ converges for some $p<1$. If the sum diverges for every $p<1$, the predicted $O(N^{-1+\delta})$ rate should not hold, and the numerical QMC slope should level off toward $-1/2$ as $N$ grows. A direct test would run the same randomly shifted lattice rule with such slowly decaying fluctuations and compare the empirical convergence slope to the theoretical prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the non-monotone logistic term $u(1-u)$ does not prevent fast quasi-Monte Carlo integration. By reparametrizing the PDE and truncating the reaction term outside the invariant interval $[0,1]$ through a cutoff argument, the authors prove existence, uniqueness, and $0\le u\le 1$ for the tumor-volume fraction. They then prove parametric regularity: every mixed derivative $\partial_y^\nu u$ is bounded in the space-time norm by constants times $(\rho\beta)^\nu [1/2]_{|\nu|}$, with the falling-factorial factor replacing the factorial used in linear problems. Feeding this bound into the general QMC theory for affine uniform parameters yields a dimension-truncation error $O(s^{-2/p+1})$ and a QMC root-mean-square error $O(N^{-1+\delta})$ whenever $\sum_j \beta_j^p < \infty$ for some $p\in(0,1)$. The numerical test measures slope $-1.01$ for QMC against $-0.50$ for Monte Carlo.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the coefficient fluctuations $\beta_j = \max(\|\psi_j\|_\infty, \|\xi_j\|_\infty)$ are $p$-summable for some $p\in(0,1)$ and that the adaptation of the general QMC error theorems to the semi-linear case, carried out by splitting tail sums and replacing $|\nu|!$ with the falling factorial $[1/2]_{|\nu|}$, is sound; the paper states this adaptation rather than proving it in full.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Expectations of clinically relevant quantities such as total tumor cellularity at the final time can be computed with error $O(N^{-1+\delta})$, so far fewer PDE solves are needed than with Monte Carlo for the same accuracy.
  • The dimension truncation error decays algebraically in the number of stochastic dimensions, so the method remains effective in high-dimensional parameter spaces under the $\beta_j$ summability condition.
  • The parametric regularity estimates are of independent use for other approximation schemes, since sparse grids and stochastic collocation rely on the same type of derivative bounds.
  • For lognormal random fields on an unstructured brain geometry, the method achieves a measured slope of about $-0.87$, outperforming Monte Carlo's $-0.51$ and suggesting that the theory may extend beyond the uniform case.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the same cutoff-and-regularity route should transfer to any semi-linear parabolic model whose solution stays in an invariant interval, such as other logistic-type population or epidemic models, as long as the nonlinearity is quadratic in the state.
  • The uniform-field experiment may be limited by the PDE discretization (time step $\Delta t=1/8$ day, mesh size $h=1$ mm) rather than by the QMC rule; repeating the convergence test at smaller $\Delta t$ and $h$ would reveal whether the measured slope saturates at the QMC prediction or at the discretization error.
  • A testable extension is to estimate the fluctuation sequence $\beta_j$ directly from patient-calibrated covariance eigendata and check the summability condition $\sum_j \beta_j^p<\infty$; if it fails, the dimension-independent near-linear rate cannot be expected in that clinical setting.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops and analyzes quasi-Monte Carlo (QMC) integration for the expectation of quantities of interest depending on the solution of a semilinear parabolic reaction-diffusion model of tumor growth with random coefficients. After a reparameterization u=e^{lambda t} w, the authors prove existence, uniqueness, and boundedness of weak solutions (Theorem 2.1), an a priori bound with explicit constants (Theorem 2.2), and a parametric regularity bound with falling-factorial factors [1/2]_|nu| for affine uniform random fields (Theorem 3.1). These results are then used to state dimension-truncation and QMC error bounds (Theorems 4.1 and 4.2) by adapting general theorems from Guth et al. [21]. Numerical experiments in Section 5 report near O(N^{-1}) convergence for uniform random fields and O(N^{-0.87}) for lognormal random fields, using a realistic brain geometry and treatment schedule.

Significance. The well-posedness and parametric regularity results are substantial and carefully proved. The regularity estimate with explicit constants and falling-factorial factors is a genuine contribution that is of independent interest for other parametric approximation methods. If the QMC error bound is fully justified, the paper would be the first QMC analysis for a semilinear parabolic PDE and would demonstrate practical value for computational oncology. The numerical experiments include a reproducible code link and an unstructured brain mesh, which strengthens the paper's practical relevance. The manuscript is also honest about the heuristic nature of the lognormal results, which are explicitly presented as motivation for future work.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Theorem 4.2] The proof of the central QMC error bound is given in two sentences: 'adapt [21, Theorem 6.6], with |u|! replaced by [1/2]_|u|' and 'follow [21, Theorem 6.8]'. This is load-bearing because the boundedness of C_{s,gamma,lambda} independently of s, and hence the claimed rate O(N^{-min(1-delta,1/p-1/2)}), depends on the precise interplay between the falling-factorial factors and the summability of (rho beta_j)^p. Replacing |u|! by [1/2]_|u| changes the subset-sum estimates, and the interleaved sequence is not the ordered sequence assumed in [21]. The manuscript does not reproduce the subset-sum constants or verify that they stay bounded under sum_j beta_j^p < infinity. As written, a reader cannot independently verify the theorem; it is an assertion about an unshown adaptation rather than a demonstrated result.
  2. [Section 4, Theorem 4.1] The dimension-truncation proof says that '[21, Theorem 6.2]' applies after 'a simple modification of the proof by splitting tail sums into separate and ordered sums of odd and even terms'. However, the interleaved sequence beta_j = max(||psi_j||_infinity, ||xi_j||_infinity) is not monotone even when the odd and even subsequences are separately ordered. Since [21, Theorem 6.2] is stated for an ordered sequence, the asserted s^{-2/p+1} bound requires an actual argument showing how the tail splitting preserves the rate. This is not a purely cosmetic issue; it is part of the proof of the dimension-truncation claim.
  3. [Section 5.1 and Theorem 4.2] The numerical experiment uses an off-the-shelf embedded lattice rule with product weights tailored to a 1/j^2 spectral decay, whereas Theorem 4.2 analyzes the non-product weight gamma_u displayed after the theorem and a generating vector constructed for that weight. Therefore Figure 1 does not literally verify the analyzed algorithm; it is a heuristic experiment with a different, product-weight lattice. The paper should either construct a lattice for the analyzed weights or clearly state that the numerical experiment is only an exploratory verification of the convergence rate, not a validation of the analyzed rule.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.4, Theorem 2.2] The displayed constant C_y is garbled; it should be (1 + a_max + lambda + f_max) / sqrt(2 min(a_min, lambda - kappa_max)).
  2. [Section 4, Theorem 4.2] If the formula for lambda is literally 1/2 - 2 delta, it violates the requirement lambda in (1/2,1]. The intended formula is presumably 1/(2 - 2 delta) with delta in (0,1/2); please correct the typesetting and restrict the range of delta accordingly.
  3. [Section 3.2, base case of the induction] The step from Phi(2 beta_k C ||w_0|| + theta_1^2 theta_2 e^{lambda T} beta_k C^2 ||w_0||^2) to D beta_k / 2 uses ||w_0||_{L^2(Omega)} <= 1; this should be stated explicitly since it is used to replace ||w_0||^2 by ||w_0||.
  4. [Section 5.2, Figure 3 caption] The caption contains a typo: 'compared to the theoretical rate accompanied' should read 'compared to the theoretical rate indicated' or similar. Also, the text says 'the square-root of the eigenvalues decay like k^{-1.17}' while the figure slope is -2.34; clarify whether the slope applies to eigenvalues or their square roots.
  5. [Section 6, Conclusions] The conclusion states that 'a rigorous analysis of the dimension truncation error' is future work, but Theorem 4.1 already addresses dimension truncation for uniform fields. Rephrase to refer to the lognormal case or to the combination of dimension truncation with numerical discretization.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: parametric regularity is proved in-paper, and the QMC error theorem is an externally supported general result, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's chain is: well-posedness (Theorem 2.1) and a priori bounds (Theorem 2.2) are proved in full with elementary arguments; parametric regularity (Theorem 3.1) is proved by induction in Section 3 using only a cited combinatorial inequality [7, Lemma 2.3] and the falling-factorial notation from [6,7], none of which are products of this paper or fitted to its experiments. The QMC error bounds in Theorems 4.1 and 4.2 are, by the paper's own statement, applications of the general Banach-valued lattice-rule theory in Guth et al. [21], a published, problem-independent parameter-free framework; although the author list overlaps with the present paper, the cited theorems do not assume the tumor-growth result and are not calibrated to the numerical outputs, so the citation counts as independent support rather than circularity. The numerical 'verification' measures the empirical RMSE slope and compares it with the theoretical O(N^{-1}) rate without fitting constants. The one legitimate flag is that Theorem 4.2's proof is only sketched ('First we adapt [21, Theorem 6.6], with |u|! replaced by [1/2]_|u| ... Then we follow [21, Theorem 6.8]'), and Theorem 4.1's interleaving argument is similarly condensed; this is a proof-completeness or correctness risk, not a circular reduction, because no quantity in the theorem is defined in terms of the conclusion and no fitted input is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on standard functional-analytic and QMC theorems (Troeltzsch, Guth et al.), on biologically motivated bounds for the coefficients and initial condition, and on summability of the random-field expansions. Two auxiliary parameters are chosen by the authors: lambda to force a positive linear reaction term, and the QMC weights gamma_u to optimize the bound. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • lambda (reparameterization shift) = unspecified in the paper; any lambda > kappa_max
    Introduced in Section 2.3 to ensure c = lambda + f - kappa > 0. Affects the constants C, rho, and the QMC error bound, but not the convergence rate. It is an ad hoc mathematical device, not a physical parameter.
  • QMC weight parameters gamma_u = gamma_u = ([1/2]_|u| * product_{j in u} rho*beta_j / sqrt(2*zeta(2*lambda)/(2*pi^2)^lambda))^(2/(1+lambda))
    Chosen analytically in Theorem 4.2 to optimize the QMC error bound constant. Not fitted to data. Listed as a hand-chosen set of parameters in the QMC construction.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math For PDE III with the monotone cutoff d(w), Troeltzsch [45, Assumptions 5.1 and 5.2, Lemmas 5.3 and 7.10] guarantees a unique weak solution with a priori bound.
    Used in Theorem 2.1 existence step; the authors verify the assumptions for d(w) but rely on the published theorem for the conclusion.
  • standard math Sobolev embedding bounds: ||v||_{H^1*} <= ||v||_{L^2} <= ||v||_{H^1}, ||v||_{L^4} <= theta1 ||v||_{H^1}, and ||v||_{C(I;L^2)} <= theta2 ||v||_X.
    Used throughout Section 3, for example in inequality (3.13), to control products of derivatives.
  • domain assumption The initial condition satisfies 0 <= u0(x) <= 1 on Omega.
    Biologically motivated as a tumor volume fraction; the invariant-interval proof for the non-monotone nonlinearity requires it. Entered in (2.2) and Theorem 2.1.
  • domain assumption The random diffusion and proliferation coefficients are bounded uniformly: 0 < a_min <= a^y <= a_max < infinity, 0 <= kappa_min <= kappa^y <= kappa_max < infinity, and 0 <= f <= f_max < infinity.
    Assumption (2.5); needed for well-posedness and for the a priori and regularity bounds.
  • domain assumption For the uniform-field analysis, the affine expansions (3.1)-(3.2) converge absolutely, preserve uniform ellipticity, and satisfy sum_j beta_j^p < infinity for some p in (0,1), with monotone decay of the odd and even subsequences.
    Stated in Section 3.1 and Theorem 4.1; without it the dimension-truncation bound and dimension-independent QMC rate fail.
  • standard math The general Banach-space QMC error theorems of Guth et al. [21, Theorems 6.2, 6.6, 6.8] remain valid when the factorial |u|! is replaced by the falling factorial [1/2]_|u| and when the interleaved coefficient sequence is split into ordered odd and even parts.
    The paper asserts this in the proofs of Theorems 4.1 and 4.2 without reproducing the full arguments.
  • ad hoc to paper For the lognormal experiments, applying the inverse normal CDF to QMC points yields the desired Gaussian parameter distribution, and the uniform-field theory is assumed to carry over heuristically.
    Section 5.2 explicitly states no theoretical justification is provided; the convergence study is empirical.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quasi-Monte Carlo methods for uncertainty quantification of tumor growth modeled by a parametric semi-linear parabolic reaction-diffusion equation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/23YWCOQ2

@misc{pith2026250925753,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quasi-Monte Carlo methods for uncertainty quantification of tumor growth modeled by a parametric semi-linear parabolic reaction-diffusion equation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/23YWCOQ2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.25753}
}
read the original abstract

We study the application of a quasi-Monte Carlo (QMC) method to a class of semi-linear parabolic reaction-diffusion partial differential equations used to model tumor growth. Mathematical models of tumor growth are largely phenomenological in nature, capturing infiltration of the tumor into surrounding healthy tissue, proliferation of the existing tumor, and patient response to therapies, such as chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Considerable inter-patient variability, inherent heterogeneity of the disease, sparse and noisy data collection, and model inadequacy all contribute to significant uncertainty in the model parameters. It is crucial that these uncertainties can be efficiently propagated through the model to compute quantities of interest (QoIs), which in turn may be used to inform clinical decisions. We show that QMC methods can be successful in computing expectations of meaningful QoIs. Well-posedness results are developed for the model and used to show a theoretical error bound for the case of uniform random fields. The theoretical linear error rate, which is superior to that of standard Monte Carlo, is verified numerically. Encouraging computational results are also provided for lognormal random fields, prompting further theoretical development.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.25753 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The approximate root-mean-square error (5.1) of the randomized QMC approximation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left: Visualization of anatomy and slice of the left-hemisphere. Center: The compu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left: The empirical spectral decay of the two Gaussian random fields compared to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_3.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [21]

    P. A. Guth, V. Kaarnioja, F. Y. Kuo, C. Schillings, and I. H. Sloan , Parabolic PDE -constrained optimal control under uncertainty with entropic risk measure using quasi- M onte C arlo integration , Numer. Math., 156 (2024), pp. 565--608

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    Alfonso, K

    J. Alfonso, K. Talkenberger, M. Seifert, B. Klink, A. Hawkins-Daarud, K. Swanson, H. Hatzikirou, and A. Deutsch , The biology and mathematical modelling of glioma invasion: a review , Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 14 (2017), p. 20170490

    work page 2017

  3. [2]

    X. An, J. Dick, M. Feischl, A. Scaglioni, and T. Tran , Sparse Grid Approximation of Nonlinear SPDEs: The Landau--Lifshitz--Gilbert Equation , SIAM/ASA J. Uncertain. Quantif., 13 (2025), pp. 472--517

    work page 2025

  4. [3]

    Borasi and A

    G. Borasi and A. Nahum , Modelling the radiotherapy effect in the reaction-diffusion equation , Physica Medica, 32 (2016), pp. 1175--1179

    work page 2016

  5. [4]

    Cavalleri, P

    G. Cavalleri, P. Colli, A. Miranville, and E. Rocca , On a brain tumor growth model with lactate metabolism, viscoelastic effects, and tissue damage , Nonlinear Anal. Real World Appl., 87 (2026), p. 104419

    work page 2026

  6. [5]

    Chaplain , Avascular growth, angiogenesis and vascular growth in solid tumours: The mathematical modelling of the stages of tumour development , Math

    M. Chaplain , Avascular growth, angiogenesis and vascular growth in solid tumours: The mathematical modelling of the stages of tumour development , Math. Comput. Model., 23 (1996), pp. 47--87

    work page 1996

  7. [6]

    Chernov and T

    A. Chernov and T. L \^e , Analytic and G evrey class regularity for parametric elliptic eigenvalue problems and applications , SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 62 (2024), pp. 1874--1900

    work page 2024

  8. [7]

    Chernov and T

    A. Chernov and T. L \^e , Analytic and G evrey class regularity for parametric semilinear reaction-diffusion problems and applications in uncertainty quantification , Comput. Math. Appl., 164 (2024), pp. 116--130

    work page 2024

Show all 47 references
  1. [8]

    Chernov and T

    A. Chernov and T. L\^e , Gevrey class regularity for steady-state incompressible N avier- S tokes equations in parametric domains and related models , arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.13753, (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Clatz, M

    O. Clatz, M. Sermesant, P.-Y. Bondiau, H. Delingette, S. K. Warfield, G. Malandain, and N. Ayache , Realistic simulation of the 3- D growth of brain tumors in MR images coupling diffusion with biomechanical deformation , IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging, 24 (2005), pp. 1334--1346

    2005

  3. [10]

    Colli, H

    P. Colli, H. Gomez, G. Lorenzo, G. Marinoschi, A. Reali, and E. Rocca , Mathematical analysis and simulation study of a phase-field model of prostate cancer growth with chemotherapy and antiangiogenic therapy effects , Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci., 30 (2020), pp. 1253--1295

    2020

  4. [11]

    Cools, F

    R. Cools, F. Y. Kuo, and D. Nuyens , Constructing embedded lattice rules for multivariate integration , SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 28 (2006), pp. 2162--2188

    2006

  5. [12]

    J. Dick, F. Y. Kuo, Q. T. Le Gia, D. Nuyens, and C. Schwab , Higher order QMC P etrov-- G alerkin discretization for affine parametric operator equations with random field inputs , SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 52 (2014), pp. 2676--2702

    2014

  6. [13]

    L. C. Evans , Partial Differential Equations , vol. 19, American Mathematical Society, 2022

    2022

  7. [14]

    R. A. Fisher , The wave of advance of advantageous genes , Annals of Eugenics, 7 (1937), pp. 355--369

    1937

  8. [15]

    R. N. Gantner, L. Herrmann, and C. Schwab , Quasi--Monte Carlo Integration for Affine-Parametric, Elliptic PDEs: Local Supports and Product Weights , SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 56 (2018), pp. 111--135

    2018

  9. [16]

    Gilbarg and N

    D. Gilbarg and N. S. Trudinger , Elliptic Partial Differential Equations of Second Order , vol. 224, Springer, 1977

    1977

  10. [17]

    A. D. Gilbert, I. G. Graham, F. Y. Kuo, I. H. Sloan, and R. Scheichl , Analysis of quasi- M onte C arlo methods for elliptic eigenvalue problems with stochastic coefficients , Numer. Math., 142 (2019), pp. 863--915

    2019

  11. [18]

    I. G. Graham, F. Y. Kuo, J. A. Nichols, R. Scheichl, C. Schwab, and I. H. Sloan , Quasi- M onte C arlo finite element methods for elliptic PDE s with lognormal random coefficients , Numer. Math., 131 (2015), pp. 329--368

    2015

  12. [19]

    I. G. Graham, F. Y. Kuo, D. Nuyens, R. Scheichl, and I. H. Sloan , Circulant embedding with QMC : analysis for elliptic PDE with lognormal coefficients , Numer. Math., 140 (2018), pp. 479--511

    2018

  13. [20]

    P. A. Guth, V. Kaarnioja, F. Y. Kuo, C. Schillings, and I. H. Sloan , A quasi- M onte C arlo method for optimal control under uncertainty , SIAM/ASA J. Uncertain. Quantif., 9 (2021), pp. 354--383

    2021

  14. [22]

    Hakula, H

    H. Hakula, H. Harbrecht, V. Kaarnioja, F. Y. Kuo, and I. H. Sloan , Uncertainty quantification for random domains using periodic random variables , Numer. Math., 156 (2024), pp. 273--317

    2024

  15. [23]

    Harbrecht, M

    H. Harbrecht, M. Schmidlin, and C. Schwab , The Gevrey class implicit mapping theorem with application to UQ of semilinear elliptic PDEs , Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci., 34 (2024), pp. 881--917

    2024

  16. [24]

    He and C

    Y. He and C. Schwab , Analytic regularity and solution approximation for a semilinear elliptic partial differential equation in a polygon , Calcolo, 61 (2024), p. 11

    2024

  17. [25]

    D. A. Hormuth, K. A. Al Feghali, A. M. Elliott, T. E. Yankeelov, and C. Chung , Image-based personalization of computational models for predicting response of high-grade glioma to chemoradiation , Scientific Reports, 11 (2021), p. 8520

    2021

  18. [26]

    D. A. Hormuth II, J. A. Weis, S. L. Barnes, M. I. Miga, E. C. Rericha, V. Quaranta, and T. E. Yankeelov , Predicting in vivo glioma growth with the reaction diffusion equation constrained by quantitative magnetic resonance imaging data , Physical Biology, 12 (2015), p. 046006

    2015

  19. [27]

    A. M. Jarrett, A. S. Kazerouni, C. Wu, J. Virostko, A. G. Sorace, J. C. DiCarlo, D. A. Hormuth, D. A. Ekrut, D. Patt, B. Goodgame, S. Avery, and T. E. Yankeelov , Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging and tumor forecasting of breast cancer patients in the community setting ,...

    2021

  20. [28]

    Kolmogoroff, I

    A. Kolmogoroff, I. Petrovsky, and N. Piscounoff , Study of the diffusion equation with growth of the quantity of matter and its application to a biology problem , in Dynamics of Curved Fronts, Elsevier, 1988, pp. 105--130

    1988

  21. [29]

    F. Y. Kuo, C. Schwab, and I. H. Sloan , Quasi- M onte C arlo finite element methods for a class of elliptic partial differential equations with random coefficients , SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 50 (2012), pp. 3351--3374

    2012

  22. [30]

    Liang, J

    B. Liang, J. Tan, L. Lozenski, D. A. Hormuth, T. E. Yankeelov, U. Villa, and D. Faghihi , Bayesian inference of tissue heterogeneity for individualized prediction of glioma growth , IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging, 42 (2023), pp. 2865--2875

    2023

  23. [31]

    Lindgren, H

    F. Lindgren, H. Rue, and J. Lindstr \"o m , An explicit link between G aussian fields and G aussian M arkov random fields: the stochastic partial differential equation approach , J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B. Stat. Methodol., 73 (2011), pp. 423--498

    2011

  24. [32]

    Lo \`e ve , Probability Theory II , vol

    M. Lo \`e ve , Probability Theory II , vol. 46 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Springer, New York, 4 ed., 1978

    1978

  25. [33]

    Lorenzo, T

    G. Lorenzo, T. J. Hughes, P. Dominguez-Frojan, A. Reali, and H. Gomez , Computer simulations suggest that prostate enlargement due to benign prostatic hyperplasia mechanically impedes prostate cancer growth , Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 116 (2019), pp. 1152--1161

    2019

  26. [34]

    Mardal, M

    K.-A. Mardal, M. E. Rognes, T. B. Thompson, and L. M. Valnes , Mathematical Modeling of the Human Brain: From Magnetic Resonance Images to Finite Element Simulation , vol. 10, Springer Nature, 2022

    2022

  27. [35]

    S. J. McMahon , The linear quadratic model: usage, interpretation and challenges , Physics in Medicine & Biology, 64 (2018), p. 01TR01

    2018

  28. [36]

    J. D. Murray , Mathematical B iology II : S patial M odels and B iomedical A pplications , vol. 18, Springer Science & Business Media, 2003

    2003

  29. [37]

    V. K. Nguyen , Analyticity of parametric elliptic eigenvalue problems and applications to quasi- M onte C arlo methods , Complex Var. Elliptic Equ., 69 (2024), pp. 1--21

    2024

  30. [38]

    G. Pash, U. Villa, D. A. Hormuth II, T. E. Yankeelov, and K. Willcox , Predictive digital twins with quantified uncertainty for patient-specific decision making in oncology , arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.08927, (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Perthame , Parabolic Equations in Biology , Springer, 2015

    B. Perthame , Parabolic Equations in Biology , Springer, 2015

    2015

  32. [40]

    Rockne, E

    R. Rockne, E. Alvord Jr, J. K. Rockhill, and K. R. Swanson , A mathematical model for brain tumor response to radiation therapy , J. Math. Biol., 58 (2009), pp. 561--578

    2009

  33. [41]

    Stanzione, J

    D. Stanzione, J. West, R. T. Evans, T. Minyard, O. Ghattas, and D. K. Panda , Frontera: T he E volution of L eadership C omputing at the N ational S cience F oundation , in Practice and Experience in Advanced Research Computing 2020: Catch the Wave, New York, NY, USA, 2020, As...

    2020

  34. [42]

    A. M. Stuart , Inverse problems: A B ayesian perspective , Acta Numer., 19 (2010), pp. 451--559

    2010

  35. [43]

    Stupp, W

    R. Stupp, W. P. Mason, M. J. Van Den Bent, M. Weller, B. Fisher, M. J. Taphoorn, K. Belanger, A. A. Brandes, C. Marosi, U. Bogdahn, et al. , Radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide for glioblastoma , New England Journal of Medicine, 352 (2005), pp. 987--996

    2005

  36. [44]

    K. R. Swanson, E. C. Alvord Jr, and J. D. Murray , A quantitative model for differential motility of gliomas in grey and white matter , Cell Proliferation, 33 (2000), pp. 317--329

    2000

  37. [45]

    Tr \"o ltzsch , Optimal Control of Partial Differential Equations: Theory, Methods, and Applications , vol

    F. Tr \"o ltzsch , Optimal Control of Partial Differential Equations: Theory, Methods, and Applications , vol. 112, American Mathematical Society, 2010

    2010

  38. [46]

    Villa and T

    U. Villa and T. O'Leary-Roseberry , A note on the relationship between PDE -based precision operators and M at\'ern covariances , arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.00471, (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Villa, N

    U. Villa, N. Petra, and O. Ghattas , HIPPYlib : an extensible software framework for large-scale inverse problems governed by PDEs : P art I : deterministic inversion and linearized B ayesian inference , ACM Trans. Math. Software, 47 (2021), pp. 1--34

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.