Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Sapphire++: A particle transport code combining a spherical harmonic expansion and the discontinuous Galerkin method

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read By rewriting the Vlasov–Fokker–Planck equation as a hyperbolic advection-reaction system and solving it with the discontinuous Galerkin method, Sapphire++ reproduces the analytic shock-acceleration spectrum $p^{-4}$ to within 0.15 percent.

desk verdict Solid open-source VFP solver with honest validation; the steady-state DSA benchmark is the strong part, the time-dependent benchmark is weaker but openly acknowledged. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.05110 v1 pith:VXFJZW7U submitted 2025-01-09 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.IMphysics.plasm-ph

Nils W. Schween , Florian Schulze , Brian Reville This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.IMphysics.plasm-ph MSC 65M6035Q8382C70 PACS 52.65.Ff
keywords numericalmethodsVlasov-Fokker-PlanckequationcosmicraysdiscontinuousGalerkinmethodsphericalharmonicsparticleaccelerationdiffusiveshockopen-sourcecode
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 presents Sapphire++, an open-source solver for the Vlasov–Fokker–Planck equation that tracks energetic charged particles (cosmic rays) through a background plasma by expanding the particle distribution in real spherical harmonics and evolving the expansion coefficients with the discontinuous Galerkin method. The central claim is that this combination is both flexible and accurate: the spherical-harmonic truncation order controls how well anisotropic distributions are resolved, while the dG discretization provides high-order spatial accuracy and a natural upwind treatment of the advection-reaction structure. The authors validate the code against analytic solutions in four settings, culminating in a simulation of diffusive shock acceleration at a parallel shock. The numerical spectrum at the shock reproduces the steady-state power law $p^{-4}$ with spectral-index error $1.5\times 10^{-3}$, the upstream spatial profile matches the exponential analytic form, and the time-dependent rise follows the approximate analytic expression. If correct, Sapphire++ gives the astrophysics community a noise-free, openly available kinetic tool for regimes where the standard diffusion approximation breaks down.

What carries the argument

The central object is the advection-reaction form of the Vlasov–Fokker–Planck system, $\partial_t f + (\beta\cdot\tilde\nabla)f + R f = 0$, in the reduced phase space $(x,p)$, where the vector $f$ collects the spherical-harmonic expansion coefficients $f_{lms}$ and the symmetric matrices $\beta$ encode spatial advection, momentum advection, gyration, and the elastic-scattering operator $\nu\, l(l+1)/2$. The dG method with tensor-product Lagrange polynomials of degree $k$ on each cell, together with an upwind numerical flux built from the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of $n\cdot\beta$, carries the discretization. The key algorithmic trick is that for faces normal to a spatial axis, $(n\cdot\beta) = U_x\mathbb{1} + V A_x$, so the eigenstructure of $A_x$ alone supplies the flux at all such faces, while momentum-direction faces need a numerical eigensolve.

What would settle it

Run the parallel-shock benchmark with a momentum-dependent scattering frequency (e.g., $\nu(p)\propto p^{-1/2}$) and compare the resulting spectrum and time-dependent rise against an independent Monte Carlo or PIC solution; if the spectrum deviates by more than the stated few-permille level, the validity claim would not survive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the Vlasov–Fokker–Planck equation for test particles in a prescribed plasma flow can be written as a linear hyperbolic advection-reaction system for the spherical-harmonic coefficients, and that this system is efficiently and accurately solvable with the discontinuous Galerkin method. Because the advection matrices are symmetric, the upwind flux at each spatial cell face can be built from a single eigendecomposition of the matrix $A_x$, computed once, rather than from a new eigenproblem at every interface and time step; only faces normal to the momentum direction require a full factorization. The validation that carries the claim is the parallel-shock test: with the expansion truncated at $l_{\max}=1$, a smoothed tanh velocity profile, and continuous downstream outflow, Sapphire++ yields a downstream spectrum whose index differs from the analytic test-particle value $-3r/(r-1)=-4$ by $1.5\times 10^{-3}$, an upstream exponential profile matching the analytic solution, and a time-dependent spectrum that tracks the approximate Drury (1991) formula. The paper also demonstrates expected dG convergence orders in space and time and shows that truncation artifacts (negative phase-space densities from insufficient $l_{\max}$) are controlled when either the expansion order or the scattering rate is high enough.

Load-bearing premise

The code's correctness is shown by comparison with analytic solutions whose assumptions—zero-inflow boundaries and smooth data for the dG convergence theory, an infinitesimally thin shock and momentum-independent diffusion for the shock benchmarks—the simulations only approximate, so the comparisons would be misleading if those idealizations mattered more than expected.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Because $l_{\max}$ is not fixed at 1, the code can in principle handle oblique shocks and strongly anisotropic distributions where the diffusion approximation fails.
  • Users can switch between explicit and implicit ($\Theta$-method) time stepping, giving control over stability versus wall-clock cost for stiff scattering or long integration times.
  • Momentum-dependent scattering frequencies are supported, so realistic cosmic-ray diffusion coefficients can be implemented, at the cost of longer acceleration times.
  • The locality of the dG method is expected to make adaptive mesh refinement straightforward in future releases.
  • Avoiding particle sampling removes Poisson noise that limits PIC and Monte Carlo approaches at high energies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the upwind-flux shortcut extends to higher $l_{\max}$ without loss of stability, the cost per cell in oblique-shock simulations would scale more gently than an $n\times n$ eigendecomposition at each interface; a test at $l_{\max}=3$ or $4$ with a perpendicular shock would show this directly.
  • The agreement in the shock test despite the finite-width velocity profile and continuous outflow boundary suggests the code is robust to mild regularization; a sharper benchmark would shrink the shock width toward the analytic discontinuity and verify that the spectral-index error shrinks accordingly.
  • The claimed flexibility also points toward applications the paper only mentions in passing: photon and neutrino transport could be tackled with the same code by swapping the scattering operator, and coupling to an MHD module would enable studies of cosmic-ray feedback on the background flow.
  • An immediate stress test is momentum-dependent $\nu(p)$: the paper validates against an analytic time-dependent solution that is exact only for momentum-independent diffusion, so agreement with a Monte Carlo reference in that regime remains unshown.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents Sapphire++, an open-source C++ code that solves the Vlasov–Fokker–Planck equation in a mixed-coordinate system by expanding the distribution function in real spherical harmonics and discretizing the resulting advection-reaction system with the discontinuous Galerkin method. The authors derive the system of PDEs, describe the dG formulation, the upwind numerical flux, boundary conditions, and time-stepping options (explicit and implicit), and validate the code with four examples: a convergence study against an analytic lmax=1 solution, advection in a constant magnetic field, a closure/angular-resolution study, and diffusive shock acceleration at a parallel shock compared with analytic steady-state and approximate time-dependent solutions. The shock simulation matches the steady-state power law with spectral index error 1.5e-3 and normalization offset 1.2%, and the code is released as open source with reproducible examples.

Significance. If the validation is accepted, Sapphire++ fills a useful niche: it combines a spherical-harmonic expansion with the discontinuous Galerkin method, giving flexible spatial and temporal accuracy for kinetic particle transport in astrophysical plasmas. The paper's strengths are the machine-checked convergence study (ERK4 -> O(dt^4), forward/backward Euler -> O(dt), Crank–Nicolson -> O(dt^2), and spatial order O(dx^(k+1))), the steady-state shock comparison to external analytic solutions with no fitted parameters, and the availability of the code and examples. The steady-state shock test is strong evidence of correctness for the spatial and momentum transport in that regime. However, the time-dependent shock validation is weaker, because the analytic benchmark is only approximate under the simulation's conditions, and the lmax>1 validation is mostly qualitative.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4.4, Eqs. (68)–(72), Fig. 11] The time-dependent validation is not a sharp test of the code's momentum-direction transport. The analytic expression (68)–(70) is exact only for momentum-independent diffusion coefficients satisfying κ1/U1^2 = κ2/U2^2, as the paper itself states. The simulation instead uses ν*=1, so κ(p)=p^2/[3(1+p^2)] varies by about 25% between the injection momentum p0*=2 and the comparison momentum p*=59.9, and κ1/U1^2 differs from κ2/U2^2 by a factor r^2=16. Because the two-cumulant formula is used as an approximation, a close visual match in Fig. 11 could hide errors in the p-direction advection or the p-upwind flux. Please either add a quantitative error metric for this comparison, or better, run a time-dependent test in a regime where the analytic solution is exact (e.g., momentum-independent κ with κ1/U1^2=κ2/U2^2), or demonstrate through a sensitivity study that the conclusion is robust to the violation of those conditions.
  2. [Section 4.2, Figs. 3–4] The validation of the code's distinguishing feature, the higher-order spherical-harmonic expansion, is only qualitative. The residual plots and the lmax=3 vs lmax=5 comparison show improvement, and the closure example with lmax=11 visually matches the analytic solution, but there is no quantitative error as a function of lmax. Since the central claim includes flexibility in the expansion order, a quantitative lmax-convergence test (e.g., L2 error versus lmax for a known anisotropic solution) would substantially strengthen the paper.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eq. (29)] The text says 'we introduce a novel way to compute the upwind flux at the cell interfaces,' but Eq. (29) is the standard upwind flux. The actual contribution is the reuse of the eigendecomposition of A_x through Eq. (31), which avoids solving an eigenproblem at every interface. Please reword to avoid overclaiming and to present the optimization as the new element.
  2. [Section 4.4, Fig. 10] The 1.2% normalization offset is attributed to the Gaussian source approximation, but this is presented as speculation. A short quantitative check, such as integrating the source profile over x and p, would make the explanation more convincing.
  3. [Section 3.4, Eq. (38)] The method is called 'Crank–Nicholson' in one place and 'Crank–Nicolson' elsewhere; the standard spelling is Crank–Nicolson.
  4. [Section 4.1, Eq. (52)] The CFL condition is quoted as an approximation with '≈'; please state the precise condition used in the code or clarify that it is an empirical stability limit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the code is validated against external analytic and semi-analytic benchmarks, and the self-citations to the companion paper are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central claim is that Sapphire++ correctly solves the Vlasov-Fokker-Planck equation by combining a spherical harmonic expansion with the discontinuous Galerkin method. The validation chain is not circular. In the convergence study, numerical results are compared with the exact solution of the reduced lmax=1 system (eqs. 43-49); this is a self-contained manufactured-solution test rather than a fit to the code's output. The advection-in-constant-field test checks return to the initial condition after a gyroperiod, a physically known property independent of the code. The closure test compares against the method-of-characteristics solution (eq. 57). The diffusive shock acceleration test compares the steady-state spectrum and spatial profile to the Drury (1983) analytic solutions (eqs. 65-67), and the time evolution to the Drury (1991) / Toptyghin approximate expression (eqs. 68-72). All simulation parameters (U1, r, nu, Q, p0) are physical inputs; none are inferred from the numerical results. The paper explicitly flags validation limitations, e.g. Section 4.4 states that the time-dependent analytic expression is exact only for momentum-independent diffusion satisfying kappa1/U1^2 = kappa2/U2^2 and that the setup 'does not match exactly the equations used to derive the analytical solution.' These are honest correctness and benchmark-fidelity concerns, not circular reasoning. The only self-citations are to the companion paper [2] for the operator-based derivation of the PDE system and for matrix eigenvalue properties; that derivation is independently published, explicitly stated, and not parameterized by the present numerical results. Therefore the self-citation is minor and not load-bearing. Score 2 reflects that minor self-citation while confirming that the central validation is self-contained against external benchmarks.

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

The code's central claim rests on standard VFP modeling assumptions and on external analytic benchmarks; no free parameters are fitted and no new physical entities are postulated. The mathematical derivation of the PDE system is taken from the authors' companion paper [2].

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Vlasov-Fokker-Planck equation in mixed coordinates, truncated to first order in U/c and then dropping the U.V'/c^2 time-derivative term, is the correct model.
    Eq. (1) to eq. (3); Appendix B acknowledges this is accurate only to zeroth order in U/c for time-dependent problems.
  • domain assumption Test-particle limit: the background velocity U and magnetic field B' are prescribed and there is no feedback from energetic particles to the plasma.
    Section 1: 'the test particle limit is assumed. This means that there is no energy exchange between the accelerated particles and the background plasma.'
  • domain assumption Collisions are elastic, isotropic scattering in the local fluid frame with rate nu(p), modeled by (nu/2) Delta_{theta',phi'}.
    Section 1, collision operator definition; the paper notes this limits application to astrophysical scattering and is too simple for laboratory plasmas (Section 5).
  • domain assumption Ideal MHD applies, so E' = -U' x B' = 0 in the local frame.
    Section 1: 'we assume for the remainder of this paper that the ideal MHD approximation applies.'
  • domain assumption The spherical harmonic truncation is made after computing the matrix elements, requiring matrices built for L = lmax+1 and then reduced.
    Section 2.1: 'the truncation of the spherical harmonic expansion (2) be made after determining the matrix elements.' This is an algorithmic assumption about the construction.
  • domain assumption The dG convergence and uniqueness results of Di Pietro and Ern (2012) apply to the SH-VFP system and to the boundary conditions used in the tests.
    Section 3.2 and 3.3; the proven results assume zero inflow and smooth solutions, while the tests use periodic or continuous boundaries.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sapphire++: A particle transport code combining a spherical harmonic expansion and the discontinuous Galerkin method." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VXFJZW7U

@misc{pith2026250105110,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sapphire++: A particle transport code combining a spherical harmonic expansion and the discontinuous Galerkin method},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VXFJZW7U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.05110}
}
read the original abstract

We present Sapphire++, an open-source code designed to numerically solve the Vlasov-Fokker-Planck equation for astrophysical applications. Sapphire++ employs a numerical algorithm based on a spherical harmonic expansion of the distribution function, expressing the Vlasov-Fokker-Planck equation as a system of partial differential equations governing the evolution of the expansion coefficients. The code utilises the discontinuous Galerkin method in conjunction with implicit and explicit time stepping methods to compute these coefficients, providing significant flexibility in its choice of spatial and temporal accuracy. We showcase the code's validity using examples. In particular, we simulate the acceleration of test particles at a parallel shock and compare the results to analytical predictions. The Sapphire++ code (https://github.com/sapphirepp/sapphirepp) is available as a free and open-source tool for the community.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.05110 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Two adjacent cells T1 and T2. The discrete representation of the solution fh is not continuous on the cell interface.[19, cf [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left: Convergence in ∆t ∗ for different time-stepping methods with ∆x ∗ = L ∗ /64 and k = 5. The CFL condition is violated for ∆t ∗ > tCFL ≈ 10−2 . Right: Convergence in ∆x ∗ for different polynomial degrees k with ERK4 and ∆t ∗ = 10−2 . Results. In this example we are interested in quantitatively comparing the numerical solution to the analytical solu￾tion. We restrict ourselves to the isotropic part f000 of the di… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. 8 If the initial condition would not belong to the Sobolev space H k+2 but only to H k+1 , the error would scale as ∆x k+1/2 . 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Time series showing the advection of the isotropic part of the distribution function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Residual for the different cases. Left: advection (U0 = 0.1) with lmax = 3, Middle: static (U ∗ 0 = 0) with lmax = 3, Right: static (U ∗ 0 = 0) with lmax = 5. Spatial resolution and time step are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Analytical velocity distribution of the particles at three di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Numerical velocity distribution of the particles at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A comparison of the velocity distribution at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: A parallel shock in the shock rest frame. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: A detail from the computational grid of the di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison between analytical solution and numerical solution. Left panel: A log-log plot of the particle spectrum at the shock. Right [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The plot shows the temporal evolution of the isotropic part of the particle spectrum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Ultra-High-Energy Particle Production in Binary Mergers Endowed with Magnetic Fields

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Using a magnetized Kerr spacetime, the authors compute that binary merger remnants can yield proton collision energies up to 10^20 eV, proposing them as UHECR sources.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [2]

    N. W. Schween, B. Reville, Using spherical harmonics to solve the Boltzmann equation: an operator based approach, MNRAS doi:10. 1093/mnras/stae596

    work page

  2. [1]

    Achterberg, C

    A. Achterberg, C. A. Norman, Relativistic theory of particles in a scattering flow - i. basic equations, di ffusion, and drift, MNRAS 479 (2) (2018) 1747–1770. doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1449

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1449 2018

  3. [3]

    Reville, A

    B. Reville, A. R. Bell, Universal behaviour of shock precursors in the presence e fficient cosmic ray acceleration, MNRAS 430 (4) (2013) 2873–2884. doi:10.1093/mnras/stt100. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stt100

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stt100 2013

  4. [4]

    A. R. Bell, K. M. Schure, B. Reville, Cosmic ray acceleration at oblique shocks, MNRAS 418 (2) (2011) 1208–1216. arXiv: https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/418/2/1208/3710802/mnras0418-1208.pdf , doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966. 2011.19571.x. URL https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19571.x

    work page arXiv 2011

  5. [5]

    V . L. Ginzburg, S. I. Syrovatskii, The Origin of Cosmic Rays, Pergamon Press Ltd., 1964

    work page 1964

  6. [6]

    E. N. Parker, The passage of energetic charged particles through interplanetary space, P&SS 13 (1) (1965) 9–49. doi:10.1016/ 0032-0633(65)90131-5

    work page 1965

  7. [7]

    Skilling, Cosmic ray streaming–i effect of alfv´en waves on particles, MNRAS 172 (3) (1975) 557–566.doi:10.1093/mnras/172.3.557

    J. Skilling, Cosmic ray streaming–i effect of alfv´en waves on particles, MNRAS 172 (3) (1975) 557–566.doi:10.1093/mnras/172.3.557. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/172.3.557

    doi:10.1093/mnras/172.3.557 1975

  8. [8]

    G. M. Webb, The di ffusion approximation and transport theory for cosmic rays in relativistic flows, The Astrophysical Journal 340 (1989)

    work page 1989

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    J. G. Kirk, R. Schlickeiser, P. Schneider, Cosmic-Ray Transport in Accelerating Flows, Astrophysical Journal 328 (1988) 269. doi:10. 1086/166290. 28

    1988

  2. [10]

    A. R. Bell, A. P. L. Robinson, M. Sherlock, R. J. Kingham, W. Rozmus., Fast electron transport in laser-produced plasmas and the kalos code for solution of the vlasov–fokker–planck equation, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 48 (3) (2006) R37. doi:10.1088/0741-3335/ 48/3/R0...

    2006 doi

  3. [11]

    R. J. Kingham, A. R. Bell, An implicit Vlasov-Fokker-Planck code to model non-local electron transport in 2-D with magnetic fields, Journal of Computational Physics 194 (1) (2004) 1–34. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2003.08.017

    2004 doi

  4. [12]

    Tzoufras, A

    M. Tzoufras, A. Bell, P. Norreys, F. Tsung, A vlasov–fokker–planck code for high energy density physics, Journal of Computational Physics 230 (17) (2011) 6475–6494. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2011.04.034. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2011.04.034

    2011 doi

  5. [13]

    S. T. Zhang, X. M. Li, D. J. Liu, X. X. Li, R. J. Cheng, S. Y . Lv, Z. M. Huang, B. Qiao, Z. J. Liu, L. H. Cao, C. Y . Zheng, X. T. He, Vlasov- Fokker-Planck-Maxwell simulations for plasmas in inertial confinement fusion, Computer Physics Communications 294 (2024) 108932. doi:...

    2024

  6. [14]

    A. R. Bell, M. Sherlock, The fastVFP code for solution of the Vlasov–Fokker–Planck equation, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 66 (3) (2024) 035014. doi:10.1088/1361-6587/ad2278

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    Hakim, J

    A. Hakim, J. Juno, Alias-free, matrix-free, and quadrature-free discontinuous galerkin algorithms for (plasma) kinetic equations, in: SC20: International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, 2020, pp. 1–15. doi:10.1109/SC41405. 2020.00077

    2020

  8. [16]

    Arndt, W

    D. Arndt, W. Bangerth, D. Davydov, T. Heister, L. Heltai, M. Kronbichler, M. Maier, J.-P. Pelteret, B. Turcksin, D. Wells, The deal.II finite element library: Design, features, and insights, Computers & Mathematics with Applications 81 (2021) 407–422. doi:10.1016/j.camwa. 2020...

    2021 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Arndt, W

    D. Arndt, W. Bangerth, M. Bergbauer, M. Feder, M. Fehling, J. Heinz, T. Heister, L. Heltai, M. Kronbichler, M. Maier, P. Munch, J.-P. Pelteret, B. Turcksin, D. Wells, S. Zampini, The deal.II library, version 9.5, Journal of Numerical Mathematics 31 (3) (2023) 231–246. doi:10.1...

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    C. H. Choi, J. Ivanic, M. S. Gordon, K. Ruedenberg, Rapid and stable determination of rotation matrices between spherical harmonics by direct recursion, The Journal of Chemical Physics 111 (19) (1999) 8825–8831. doi:10.1063/1.480229. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.480229

    1999 doi

  11. [19]

    D. A. Di Pietro, A. Ern, Mathematical Aspects of Discontinuous Galerkin Methods, V ol. 69 of Math ´ematiques et Applications, Springer- Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 2012. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-22980-0 . URL https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01820185

    2012 doi

  12. [20]

    R. J. LeVeque, Finite V olume Methods for Hyperbolic Problems, Cambridge University Press, 2002. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511791253

    2002 doi

  13. [21]

    Shu, High order weighted essentially nonoscillatory schemes for convection dominated problems, SIAM Review 51 (1) (2009) 82–126

    C.-W. Shu, High order weighted essentially nonoscillatory schemes for convection dominated problems, SIAM Review 51 (1) (2009) 82–126. doi:10.1137/070679065. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1137/070679065

    2009 doi

  14. [22]

    Munch, K

    P. Munch, K. Kormann, M. Kronbichler, hyper.deal: An e fficient, matrix-free finite-element library for high-dimensional partial di fferential equations. URL https://github.com/hyperdeal/hyperdeal

  15. [23]

    Milton, I

    A. Milton, I. A. Stegun, Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas Graphs and Mathematical Tables, 10th Edition, U.S. Dept. of Commerce National Bureau of Standards, 1964

    1964

  16. [24]

    J. S. Hesthaven, T. Warburton, Nodal Discontinuous Galerkin Methods, 1st Edition, V ol. 54 of Texts in Applied Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, New York, 2008. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-72067-8

    2008 doi

  17. [25]

    Hairer, G

    E. Hairer, G. Wanner, S. P. Nørsett, Solving Ordinary Di fferential Equations I, 2nd Edition, V ol. 8 of Springer Series in Computational Mathematics, Springer-Verlag Berlin, Heidelberg, 1993. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-78862-1

    1993 doi

  18. [26]

    Cockburn, An introduction to the Discontinuous Galerkin method for convection-dominated problems, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1998, pp

    B. Cockburn, An introduction to the Discontinuous Galerkin method for convection-dominated problems, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1998, pp. 150–268. doi:10.1007/BFb0096353

    1998 doi

  19. [27]

    L. O. Drury, An introduction to the theory of di ffusive shock acceleration of energetic particles in tenuous plasmas, Reports on Progress in Physics 46 (8) (1983) 973–1027. doi:10.1088/0034-4885/46/8/002

    1983 doi

  20. [28]

    L. O. Drury, Time-dependent di ffusive acceleration of test particles at shocks, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 251 (2) (1991) 340–350. doi:10.1093/mnras/251.2.340. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/251.2.340

    1991 doi

  21. [29]

    I. N. Toptyghin, Acceleration of particles by shocks in a cosmic plasma, Space Science Reviews 26 (2) (1980) 157–213. doi:10.1007/ bf00167370. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf00167370

    1980 doi

  22. [30]

    M. A. Forman, L. O. Drury, Time-dependent shock acceleration: Approximations and exact solutions, in: Proceedings from the 18th Interna- tional Cosmic Ray Conference, V ol. 2, 1983, pp. 267–270

    1983

  23. [31]

    L. O. Drury, W. I. Axford, D. Summers, Particle acceleration in modified shocks, MNRAS 198 (1982) 833–841. doi:10.1093/mnras/ 198.3.833

    1982 doi

  24. [32]

    Achterberg, K

    A. Achterberg, K. M. Schure, A more accurate numerical scheme for di ffusive shock acceleration, MNRAS 411 (4) (2011) 2628–2636. arXiv:1103.3049, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17868.x

    2011 arXiv

  25. [33]

    C. K. Birdsall, A. B. Langdon, Plasma Physics via Computer Simulation, Taylor & Francis, 1991

    1991

  26. [34]

    Blandford, D

    R. Blandford, D. Eichler, Particle acceleration at astrophysical shocks: A theory of cosmic ray origin, Phys. Rep. 154 (1) (1987) 1–75. doi:10.1016/0370-1573(87)90134-7

    1987 doi

  27. [35]

    F. C. Jones, D. C. Ellison, The plasma physics of shock acceleration, Space Science Reviews 58 (1) (1991) 259–346. doi:10.1007/ BF01206003. 29

    1991

  28. [36]

    J. G. Kirk, Particle acceleration, in: A. O. Benz, T. J.-L. Courvoisier (Eds.), Plasma Astrophysics, 1st Edition, V ol. 24 of Saas-Fee Advanced Course, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1994, Ch. 3, pp. 225–314. doi:10.1007/3-540-31627-2_3

    1994 doi

  29. [37]

    Takamoto, J

    M. Takamoto, J. G. Kirk, Rapid Cosmic-ray Acceleration at Perpendicular Shocks in Supernova Remnants, ApJ 809 (1) (2015) 29. arXiv: 1506.04354, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/29

    2015 arXiv

  30. [38]

    A. R. Bell, K. M. Schure, B. Reville, G. Giacinti, Cosmic-ray acceleration and escape from supernova remnants, MNRAS 431 (1) (2013) 415–429. arXiv:1301.7264, doi:10.1093/mnras/stt179

    2013 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Thomas, M

    A. Thomas, M. Tzoufras, A. Robinson, R. Kingham, C. Ridgers, M. Sherlock, A. Bell, A review of vlasov–fokker–planck numerical modeling of inertial confinement fusion plasma, Journal of Computational Physics 231 (3) (2012) 1051–1079. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2011.09.028. URL http://dx...

    2012 doi

  32. [1112]

    URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/167462

    doi:10.1086/167462. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/167462

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.