Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 68 references

An Auto-Stabilized Weak Galerkin Method for Elasticity Interface Problems on Nonconvex Meshes

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper builds an auto-stabilized weak Galerkin method for elasticity interface problems whose bubble-enriched weak operators remove the need for stabilizers and yield optimal-order convergence on nonconvex polytopal meshes.

desk verdict Stabilizer-free WG for elasticity interfaces has a new error analysis, but the decisive stability lemma comes from an unpublished companion and the numerics test a different degree regime. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13822 v1 pith:PHPLQBS7 submitted 2025-01-23 math.NA cs.NA

Chunmei Wang , Shangyou Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NAcs.NA MSC 65N3065N1565N1274N2035B4535J5035J35
keywords weakGalerkinauto-stabilizedbubblefunctionselasticityinterfaceproblemsnonconvexpolytopalmeshesstraintensoroptimal-ordererrorestimatesfiniteelementmethods
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 introduces a weak Galerkin finite element scheme for elasticity interface problems that needs no stabilizer term, the usual extra penalty in WG methods, and works on polygonal or polyhedral meshes whose elements may be nonconvex. Auto-stabilization comes from computing the discrete weak strain tensor and discrete weak divergence with polynomials of degree $r_1=r_2=2N+k-1$, where $N$ is the number of faces of the element, so bubble functions provide the stability that stabilizers previously supplied. The central result is that the scheme has a unique solution and satisfies the optimal-order error estimate $\vert\vert\vert u-u_h\vert\vert\vert \le C h^k (\sum_i \|u\|^2_{k+1,\Omega_i})^{1/2}$ in the discrete energy norm. The payoff is a simpler, symmetric, positive definite scheme that extends WG to nonconvex polytopal meshes, and the numerical experiments on nonconvex polygonal grids confirm the predicted convergence orders.

What carries the argument

The central objects are the element-based bubble function $\Phi_B=\prod_{i=1}^N l_i^2(x)$, which vanishes on the boundary of a polytopal element and stays bounded below on an interior subdomain, and the edge/face-based bubble functions $\varphi_{e_i}$, which vanish on all but one face and control the boundary mismatch $v_b-v_0$. These functions replace stabilizers through the discrete weak strain tensor $\epsilon_{w,r_1,T}$ and discrete weak divergence $\nabla_{w,r_2,T}\cdot$, computed with $r_1=r_2=2N+k-1$ on nonconvex elements. The load-bearing mechanism is Lemma 4.7's norm equivalence, $C_1\|v\|_{1,h}\le\vert\vert\vert v\vert\vert\vert\le C_2\|v\|_{1,h}$, which converts the energy norm into a norm that sees both the strain of the interior value and the boundary discrepancy, enabling uniqueness and the optimal error bound.

What would settle it

On a nonconvex polygonal element like the 5-edge cells of the paper's type-2 grids, set $v_0=0$ and choose a nonzero boundary polynomial $v_b$, compute the ratio $\|v\|_{1,h}/\vert\vert\vert v\vert\vert\vert$ on a sequence of meshes refined toward that element, and check whether the ratio stays bounded as $h\to0$; unbounded growth would falsify Lemma 4.7 and with it the stability proof.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's claim is that Algorithm 3.1 — the space $V_h$ of interior polynomials $[P_k(T)]^d$ together with boundary values from $[P_{k-1}(e)]^d$ plus rigid motions, paired with the bilinear form $a(u,v)=\sum_T (2\mu\epsilon_w u,\epsilon_w v)_T+(\lambda\nabla_w\cdot u,\nabla_w\cdot v)_T$ and the interface jump data — defines a symmetric, positive definite linear system with a unique solution. The error analysis shows that, whenever the exact solution lies in $\prod_{i=1}^N [H^{k+1}(\Omega_i)]^d$, the discrete energy error obeys $\vert\vert\vert u-u_h\vert\vert\vert \le C h^k (\sum_i \|u\|^2_{k+1,\Omega_i})^{1/2}$. The proof runs through the error equation of Lemma 5.2, the approximation estimates of Lemma 6.2, and the norm equivalence Lemma 4.7, which the paper takes from reference [63]; the theory is corroborated by $P_1$, $P_2$, and $P_3$ computations on two families of nonconvex polygonal meshes.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's existence, uniqueness, and error estimates all rest on Lemma 4.7, imported from reference [63] without proof: on nonconvex polytopal elements the discrete energy norm and the companion norm that sees interior strain plus boundary mismatch must remain equivalent with constants independent of the mesh size.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On any shape-regular polytopal mesh, including nonconvex elements, the $P_k$ auto-stabilized scheme converges in the discrete energy norm at the optimal rate $O(h^k)$ whenever the exact solution is piecewise $H^{k+1}$.
  • Implementations of weak Galerkin elasticity solvers can drop the stabilizer terms entirely, reducing code complexity while keeping a symmetric positive definite system.
  • Because the operators, bubble functions, and norm equivalence are formulated for $d=2,3$, the same construction carries over to polyhedral meshes in three dimensions.
  • The global number of unknowns and the sparsity pattern are unchanged from stabilizer-based WG; only the polynomial degrees $r_1=r_2$ used in computing weak operators are raised.
  • The theory requires $u\in\prod_{i=1}^N [H^{k+1}(\Omega_i)]^d$, so optimal order is guaranteed for smooth material regions and interfaces, not for interface singularities below that regularity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not explore whether the same bubble-enriched weak operators eliminate stabilizers for other interface problems, such as Stokes flow, Maxwell equations, or biharmonic equations; the self-stabilization mechanism described here suggests a testable extension in those settings.
  • The superconvergent rates observed on grids that mix triangles with nonconvex polygons indicate that on such special meshes the actual error may be better than $O(h^k)$; identifying which mesh features produce the extra order would require a refined analysis beyond this paper.
  • Because the bubble degree $r_1=r_2=2N+k-1$ grows with face count, the practical trade-off between the simpler formulation and the higher-degree weak-operator computation on high-face-count polyhedra remains to be quantified; a cost comparison with stabilizer-based WG would settle it.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces an auto-stabilized weak Galerkin (WG) finite element method for elasticity interface problems on polytopal meshes without convexity constraints. The method replaces the traditional stabilizer with bubble functions, leading to a symmetric positive-definite formulation. The paper claims optimal-order error estimates in the discrete H1-norm under sufficient smoothness of the exact solution, and reports numerical experiments on nonconvex polygonal grids that show optimal convergence rates.

Significance. If the central stability and approximation lemmas were established, the method would be a meaningful contribution: it removes the stabilizer from WG methods for elasticity while allowing nonconvex polytopal meshes, which is of practical and theoretical interest. The manuscript contains a clear derivation of the error equation and a standard error-estimate argument. Its main weaknesses are that the decisive lemmas are imported without proof from the authors' own unpublished preprint [63], and the numerical experiments use lower weak-derivative degrees than the analysis requires, so the computations do not validate the analyzed scheme. The self-referential chain of preprints [41,42,63] also makes the paper not self-contained.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4, Lemmas 4.2–4.7 and §5, Lemma 5.1] These lemmas are stated as coming from [63] with proofs omitted. Since [63] is an arXiv preprint by the same authors (arXiv:2411.17879) and not a published source, the uniqueness proof (Theorem 4.9) and the main error estimate (Theorem 6.3) rest on unverifiable imported results. In particular, Lemma 4.7 (the norm equivalence) is load-bearing: if it fails, the method is not stable and both Theorem 4.9 and Theorem 6.3 collapse. The manuscript should provide complete proofs for these lemmas in an appendix or cite a peer-reviewed source.
  2. [§7.2–§7.6, Tables 7.1–7.8] The numerical experiments do not test the analyzed method. The text states that the computations use r1 = r2 = k+1 on the grids of Figure 7.1 and r1 = r2 = k+2 on the 7-edge nonconvex polygons of Figure 7.3, whereas Definition 4.1 and Lemma 4.7 for nonconvex elements require r1 = r2 = 2N + k − 1. The observed optimal rates are therefore not evidence for Theorem 6.3 in the nonconvex setting. The authors should rerun the experiments with the analyzed parameter choice, or extend the analysis to cover the lower-degree regime actually used.
  3. [Definition 4.1 and Lemmas 4.5–4.7] For a nonconvex polytope, the bubble function Φ_B = ∏ l_i^2 can vanish on codimension-one subsets passing through the interior (for example, a line through a reentrant vertex and another edge), so the assertion that Φ_B ≥ ρ0 on a subdomain T̂ is not obvious and may be false. The edge-based bubble φ_{e_i} has the same issue. Since Lemmas 4.5–4.7 rely on these bubble functions, the geometric claim must be proved or an additional assumption on the polytopes must be imposed.
  4. [Lemmas 4.5–4.6 and Lemma 6.2] The estimates (4.5) and (4.6) compare a boundary quantity involving vb with an L2 norm over T, but the extension of vb from ∂T to T is not defined. The proof of Lemma 6.2 likewise uses boundary traces of Q0u − Qbu without specifying the polynomial extension into the element. This gap is part of the imported lemmas, but because it is essential to the error analysis, it should be addressed explicitly in the revision.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§7.2–§7.6] The phrase 'where where' appears in Examples 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, and 7.6; it should be corrected.
  2. [Key words] The word 'ploytopal' should be 'polytopal'.
  3. [Algorithm 3.1] The heading 'Auto-Stablized' should be 'Auto-Stabilized'.
  4. [§7.2, first sentence] The sentence describing r1 and r2 for Figure 7.1 contains a duplication ('r1 = r2 = k + 1 and r1 = r2 = k + 1'); it should be clarified which value applies to triangles and which to nonconvex polygons.
  5. [§4, inequality (4.2)] The trace inequality for polynomials is quoted with an unspecified constant; since r1 and r2 depend on the number of edges N, the constant may depend on N, and this dependence is not discussed.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Central Lemma 4.7 is imported without proof from the authors' own companion preprint [63], making the stability input load-bearing self-citation; the remaining error analysis is independent.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 4, Lemma 4.7 and its use in Theorems 4.9 and 6.3]
    "For completeness, we present Lemmas 4.2, 4.3, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7 in this paper. However, the proofs of these lemmas are omitted to avoid redundancy, as they can be found in detail in [63]."

    The uniqueness proof in Theorem 4.9 and the optimal-order error proof in Theorem 6.3 both use Lemma 4.7, the norm equivalence C1||v||_{1,h} <= |||v||| <= C2||v||_{1,h}, to convert the energy bilinear form into control of the discrete H1 norm. The manuscript does not prove Lemma 4.7; it is cited from [63], an arXiv preprint by the same two authors, and Remarks 4.2-4.3 defer the nonconvex case to the same authors' [41,42,63]. Thus the central stability input that makes the auto-stabilized scheme well-posed and yields the final bound is not an independent mathematical fact but an imported claim from the authors' own unpublished companion work.

full rationale

The method is not circular by construction: the error equation (5.4), the approximation estimate in Lemma 6.2, and the interface handling are derived within the paper, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. However, the proof of the central stability result, Lemma 4.7, is not supplied here. It is the two-sided norm equivalence that lets Theorem 4.9 conclude w = 0 and lets Theorem 6.3 convert ||v||_{1,h} into the energy norm |||v||| on the right-hand side of the error equation. Because the only support offered for this lemma is a citation to the same authors' unpublished companion preprint, the most load-bearing step in the derivation reduces to a self-citation chain rather than to a proof available in this manuscript. This is real but limited circularity: once Lemma 4.7 is granted, the subsequent finite-element analysis is standard and independent. Separately, the numerical experiments use r1 = r2 = k+1 or k+2 on nonconvex grids, whereas the nonconvex analysis is stated for r1 = r2 = 2N+k-1, so the numerical section does not exercise the proven configuration; this is a correctness and reproducibility concern but not itself a circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method and its error estimate rest on unproved bubble-function lemmas taken from the authors' own arXiv preprint [63], which are not independently verified here. The approximation theory is otherwise standard: second Korn's inequality, trace inequalities, and projection estimates from [57]. No physical entities are invented, and no constants are fitted to data; the only hand-chosen parameters are the weak-derivative polynomial degrees r1 and r2, which the theory sets to 2N+k-1 but the numerics set to k+1 or k+2.

free parameters (1)
  • weak-derivative degrees r1, r2 = theory: 2N+k-1; experiments: k+1 or k+2
    Chosen ad hoc to make the bubble-function proof work for nonconvex polytopes; the numerical tests use different values, creating a theory-experiment gap.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper Bubble-function norm equivalence and projection lemmas (4.2, 4.3, 4.5-4.7, 5.1) from [63] hold as stated for nonconvex polytopes with r1=r2=2N+k-1.
    These lemmas are tailored to the auto-stabilized WG technique and are imported from the authors' own unpublished preprint; proofs are omitted in this paper.
  • standard math Second Korn's inequality (4.8) applies on the domain.
    Standard result used in the uniqueness proof, Theorem 4.9.
  • domain assumption The mesh sequence is shape-regular in the sense of [57], enabling trace inequalities (4.1) and (4.2).
    Trace inequalities are used throughout the error analysis.
  • standard math Projection and trace inequalities in Lemma 6.1 hold for the chosen polynomial degrees.
    Quoted from [57], a published source.
  • domain assumption The exact solution lies in H^{k+1}(Omega_i) on each subdomain.
    Assumed in Theorem 6.3; this excludes the interface singularities that motivate interface problems.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An Auto-Stabilized Weak Galerkin Method for Elasticity Interface Problems on Nonconvex Meshes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PHPLQBS7

@misc{pith2026250113822,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An Auto-Stabilized Weak Galerkin Method for Elasticity Interface Problems on Nonconvex Meshes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PHPLQBS7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13822}
}
abstract

This paper introduces an auto-stabilized weak Galerkin (WG) finite element method for elasticity interface problems on general polygonal and polyhedral meshes, without requiring convexity constraints. The method utilizes bubble functions as key analytical tools, eliminating the need for stabilizers typically used in traditional WG methods and leading to a more streamlined formulation. The proposed method is symmetric, positive definite, and easy to implement. Optimal-order error estimates are derived for the WG approximations in the discrete $H^1$-norm, assuming the exact solution has sufficient smoothness. Numerical experiments validate the accuracy and efficiency of the auto-stabilized WG method.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.13822 by the authors.

Figure 7.1
Figure 7.1. The solution is plotted in Figure 7.2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_7.png]
Figure 7.7
Figure 7.7. Figure 7.7: ( 1.0, 1.0, -27.304445267) ( 0.0, 0.0, 15.369802475) y= 1.0 x= 1.0 ( 1.0, 1.0, -61.479209900) ( 0.0, 0.0, 109.217781067) y= 1.0 x= 1.0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_7_7.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_7.png]
Figure 7.1
Figure 7.1. Figure 7.1: The results are listed in Table 7.8, where we can see all solutions converge [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_7_1.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

  1. [63]

    Simplified Weak Galerkin Methods for Linear Elasticity on Nonconvex Domains

    C. Wang and S. Zhang, Simplified Weak Galerkin Methods for Linear Elasticity on Nonconvex Domains, arXiv:2411.17879

    work page Pith review arXiv

  2. [1]

    Anandarajah, Computational Methods in Elasticity and Plasticity: Solids and Porous Me- dia,Springer, 2010

    A. Anandarajah, Computational Methods in Elasticity and Plasticity: Solids and Porous Me- dia,Springer, 2010

    work page 2010

  3. [2]

    Becker, E

    R. Becker, E. Burman, P. Hansbo, A Nitsche extended finite element method for incompressible elasticity with discontinuous modulus of elasticity , Comput.Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 198(2009)3352–3360

    work page 2009

  4. [3]

    Chang, Adaptive finite element method for elasticity interface problems , J.Comput.Math.30(2012)629–642

    Y. Chang, Adaptive finite element method for elasticity interface problems , J.Comput.Math.30(2012)629–642

    work page 2012

  5. [4]

    W. Cao, C. W ang and J. W ang, An Lp-Primal-Dual Weak Galerkin Method for div-curl Systems, Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, vol. 422, 114881, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [5]

    W. Cao, C. W ang and J. W ang, An Lp-Primal-Dual Weak Galerkin Method for Convection- Diffusion Equations, Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, vol. 419, 114698, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [6]

    W. Cao, C. W ang and J. W ang, A New Primal-Dual Weak Galerkin Method for Elliptic Interface Problems with Low Regularity Assumptions , Journal of Computational Physics, vol. 470, 111538, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [7]

    S. Cao, C. W ang and J. W ang, A new numerical method for div-curl Systems with Low Regularity Assumptions , Computers and Mathematics with Applications, vol. 144, pp. 47-59, 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 68 references
  1. [8]

    Cao and C

    W. Cao and C. W ang, New Primal-Dual Weak Galerkin Finite Element Methods for Convection-Diffusion Problems , Applied Numerical Mathematics, vol. 162, pp. 171-191, 2021

    2021

  2. [9]

    Dvorak, Micromechanics of Composite Materials , Springer, 2013

    G. Dvorak, Micromechanics of Composite Materials , Springer, 2013

    2013

  3. [10]

    Y. Gong, Z. Li, Immersed interface finite element methods for elasticity inter face problems with non-homogeneous jump conditions, Numer.Math.Theory Methods Appl.3(2010)23–39

    2010

  4. [11]

    Fries, T.Belyschko, The extended/generalized finite element method:an overview of the method and its applications , Internat

    T. Fries, T.Belyschko, The extended/generalized finite element method:an overview of the method and its applications , Internat. J. Numer. Methods Engrg. 84(2010)253–304

    2010

  5. [12]

    Hansbo, P

    A. Hansbo, P. Hansbo, An unfitted finite element method , Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg.191(2002)5537–5552

    2002

  6. [13]

    S. Hou, Z. Li, L. Wang, W. Wang, A numerical method for solving elasticity equations with sharp-edged interfaces, Commun. Comput. Phys. 12 (2012) 595–612

    2012

  7. [14]

    D. Li, Y. Nie, and C. W ang, Superconvergence of Numerical Gradient for Weak Galerkin Finite Element Methods on Nonuniform Cartesian Partitions in Three Dimensions , Com- puters and Mathematics with Applications, vol 78(3), pp. 905-928, 2019. 23

    2019

  8. [15]

    D. Li, C. W ang and J. W ang, An Extension of the Morley Element on General Polytopal Partitions Using Weak Galerkin Methods , Journal of Scientific Computing, 100, vol 27, 2024

    2024

  9. [16]

    D. Li, C. W ang and S. Zhang, Weak Galerkin methods for elliptic interface problems on curved polygonal partitions , Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, pp. 115995, 2024

    2024

  10. [17]

    D. Li, C. W ang, J. W ang and X. Ye, Generalized weak Galerkin finite element methods for second order elliptic problems , Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, vol. 445, pp. 115833, 2024

    2024

  11. [18]

    D. Li, C. W ang, J. W ang and S. Zhang, High Order Morley Elements for Biharmonic Equations on Polytopal Partitions , Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 443, pp. 115757, 2024

    2024

  12. [19]

    D. Li, C. W ang and J. W ang, Curved Elements in Weak Galerkin Finite Element Methods , Computers and Mathematics with Applications, Vol. 153, pp. 20-32, 2024

    2024

  13. [20]

    D. Li, C. W ang and J. W ang, Generalized Weak Galerkin Finite Element Methods for Bihar- monic Equations , Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, vol. 434, 115353, 2023

    2023

  14. [21]

    D. Li, C. W ang and J. W ang, An Lp-primal-dual finite element method for first-order trans- port problems, Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, vol. 434, 115345, 2023

    2023

  15. [22]

    Li and C

    D. Li and C. W ang, A simplified primal-dual weak Galerkin finite element method for Fokker- Planck type equations , Journal of Numerical Methods for Partial Differential Equations, vol 39, pp. 3942-3963, 2023

    2023

  16. [23]

    D. Li, C. W ang and J. W ang, Primal-Dual Weak Galerkin Finite Element Methods for Transport Equations in Non-Divergence Form , Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, vol. 412, 114313, 2022

    2022

  17. [24]

    D. Li, C. W ang, and J. W ang, Superconvergence of the Gradient Approximation for Weak Galerkin Finite Element Methods on Rectangular Partitions , Applied Numerical Mathe- matics, vol. 150, pp. 396-417, 2020

    2020

  18. [25]

    Lin, D.W

    T. Lin, D.W. Sheen, X. Zhang, A locking-free immersed finite element method for planar elasticity interface problems , J. Comput. Phys. 247 (2013) 228–247

    2013

  19. [26]

    Z. Li, X. Yang, An immersed fem for elasticity equations with interfaces , AMS Contemp. Math.383(2005)285–298

    2005

  20. [27]

    T. Lin, X. Zhang, Linear and bilinear immersed finite elements for planar elasticity interface problems, J. Comput. Appl. Math. 236 (2012) 4681–4699

    2012

  21. [28]

    LeVeque, Z

    R. LeVeque, Z. Li, The immersed inter face method for elliptic equations with discontinuous coefficients and singular sources , SIAM J.Numer.Anal.31(1994)1019–1044

    1994

  22. [29]

    Mergheim, Computational modeling of strong and weak discontinuities (Ph.D.thesis) , Tech- nical University of Kaisers lautern,2006

    J. Mergheim, Computational modeling of strong and weak discontinuities (Ph.D.thesis) , Tech- nical University of Kaisers lautern,2006

    2006

  23. [30]

    Michaeli, F

    M. Michaeli, F. Assous, A. Golubchik, An nitche type method for stress fields calculation in dissimilar material with inter facec rack , Appl. Numer.Math.67(2013)187–203

    2013

  24. [31]

    Sukumar, D

    N. Sukumar, D. Chopp, N.Moes, T.Belytschko, Modeling holes and inclusions by level sets in the extended finite-element method , Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 190(2001)6180–6200

    2001

  25. [32]

    Shearer, Introduction to Seismology, Cambridge University Press,1999

    P. Shearer, Introduction to Seismology, Cambridge University Press,1999

    1999

  26. [33]

    Stolarska, D

    M. Stolarska, D. Chopp, N. Moes, T. Belytschko, Modelling crack growth by level sets in the extended finite element method , Internat. J. Numer. Methods Engrg.51(2001)943–960

    2001

  27. [34]

    Theillard, L.F.Djodom, J.L.Vie, F

    M. Theillard, L.F.Djodom, J.L.Vie, F. Gibou, A second-order sharp numerical method for solving the linear elasticity equations on irregular domains and adaptive grids—application to shape optimization , J.Comput. Phys. 233(2013)430–448

    2013

  28. [35]

    Wei, Differential geometry based multiscale models , Bull.Math

    G. Wei, Differential geometry based multiscale models , Bull.Math. Biol., 72(2010)1562–1622

    2010

  29. [36]

    Wei, Multiscale, multi physics and multi domain models I: basic theory , J.Theor

    G. Wei, Multiscale, multi physics and multi domain models I: basic theory , J.Theor. Comput. Chem.12(8)(2013)1341006

    2013

  30. [37]

    C. Wu, Y. Guo, E. Askari, Numerical modeling of composite solids using an immersed meshfree Galerkin method, Composites B 45 (2013) 1397–1413

    2013

  31. [38]

    W ang, New Discretization Schemes for Time-Harmonic Maxwell Equations by Weak Galerkin Finite Element Methods , Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, Vol

    C. W ang, New Discretization Schemes for Time-Harmonic Maxwell Equations by Weak Galerkin Finite Element Methods , Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 341, pp. 127-143, 2018

    2018

  32. [39]

    W ang, Low Regularity Primal-Dual Weak Galerkin Finite Element Methods for Ill-Posed Elliptic Cauchy Problems , Int

    C. W ang, Low Regularity Primal-Dual Weak Galerkin Finite Element Methods for Ill-Posed Elliptic Cauchy Problems , Int. J. Numer. Anal. Mod., vol. 19(1), pp. 33-51, 2022

    2022

  33. [40]

    W ang, A Modified Primal-Dual Weak Galerkin Finite Element Method for Second Order Elliptic Equations in Non-Divergence Form , Int

    C. W ang, A Modified Primal-Dual Weak Galerkin Finite Element Method for Second Order Elliptic Equations in Non-Divergence Form , Int. J. Numer. Anal. Mod., vol. 18(4), pp. 500-523, 2021. 24

    2021

  34. [41]

    W ang, Auto-Stabilized Weak Galerkin Finite Element Methods on Polytopal Meshes without Convexity Constraints, arXiv:2408.11927

    C. W ang, Auto-Stabilized Weak Galerkin Finite Element Methods on Polytopal Meshes without Convexity Constraints, arXiv:2408.11927

    arXiv

  35. [42]

    W ang, Auto-Stabilized Weak Galerkin Finite Element Methods for Biharmonic Equations on Polytopal Meshes without Convexity Assumptions , arXiv:2409.05887

    C. W ang, Auto-Stabilized Weak Galerkin Finite Element Methods for Biharmonic Equations on Polytopal Meshes without Convexity Assumptions , arXiv:2409.05887

    arXiv

  36. [43]

    W ang, A New Primal-Dual Weak Galerkin Finite Element Method for Ill-posed Elliptic Cauchy Problems , Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, vol 371, 112629, 2020

    C. W ang, A New Primal-Dual Weak Galerkin Finite Element Method for Ill-posed Elliptic Cauchy Problems , Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, vol 371, 112629, 2020

    2020

  37. [44]

    W ang and J

    C. W ang and J. W ang, A Primal-Dual Weak Galerkin Finite Element Method for Fokker- Planck Type Equations, SIAM Numerical Analysis, vol. 58(5), pp. 2632-2661, 2020

    2020

  38. [45]

    W ang and J

    C. W ang and J. W ang, A Primal-Dual Finite Element Method for First-Order Transport Problems, Journal of Computational Physics, Vol. 417, 109571, 2020

    2020

  39. [46]

    W ang and J

    C. W ang and J. W ang, Primal-Dual Weak Galerkin Finite Element Methods for Elliptic Cauchy Problems, Computers and Mathematics with Applications, vol 79(3), pp. 746-763, 2020

    2020

  40. [47]

    W ang and J

    C. W ang and J. W ang, A Primal-Dual Weak Galerkin Finite Element Method for Second Order Elliptic Equations in Non-Divergence form , Mathematics of Computation, Vol. 87, pp. 515-545, 2018

    2018

  41. [48]

    W ang and J

    C. W ang and J. W ang, Discretization of Div-Curl Systems by Weak Galerkin Finite Element Methods on Polyhedral Partitions, Journal of Scientific Computing, Vol. 68, pp. 1144-1171, 2016

    2016

  42. [49]

    W ang and J

    C. W ang and J. W ang, A Hybridized Formulation for Weak Galerkin Finite Element Methods for Biharmonic Equation on Polygonal or Polyhedral Meshes , International Journal of Numerical Analysis and Modeling, Vol. 12, pp. 302-317, 2015

    2015

  43. [50]

    W ang and C

    J. W ang and C. W ang, Weak Galerkin Finite Element Methods for Elliptic PDEs , Science China, Vol. 45, pp. 1061-1092, 2015

    2015

  44. [51]

    W ang and J

    C. W ang and J. W ang, An Efficient Numerical Scheme for the Biharmonic Equation by Weak Galerkin Finite Element Methods on Polygonal or Polyhedral Meshes , Journal of Computers and Mathematics with Applications, Vol. 68, 12, pp. 2314-2330, 2014

    2014

  45. [52]

    W ang, J

    C. W ang, J. W ang, R. W ang and R. Zhang, A Locking-Free Weak Galerkin Finite Element Method for Elasticity Problems in the Primal Formulation , Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 307, pp. 346-366, 2016

    2016

  46. [53]

    W ang, J

    C. W ang, J. W ang, X. Ye and S. Zhang, De Rham Complexes for Weak Galerkin Finite Element Spaces, Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, vol. 397, pp. 113645, 2021

    2021

  47. [54]

    W ang, J

    C. W ang, J. W ang and S. Zhang, Weak Galerkin Finite Element Methods for Optimal Control Problems Governed by Second Order Elliptic Partial Differential Equations , Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, in press, 2024

    2024

  48. [55]

    W ang, J

    C. W ang, J. W ang and S. Zhang, A parallel iterative procedure for weak Galerkin methods for second order elliptic problems , International Journal of Numerical Analysis and Modeling, vol. 21(1), pp. 1-19, 2023

    2023

  49. [56]

    W ang, J

    C. W ang, J. W ang and S. Zhang, Weak Galerkin Finite Element Methods for Quad-Curl Problems, Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, vol. 428, pp. 115186, 2023

    2023

  50. [57]

    W ang, and X

    J. W ang, and X. Ye, A weak Galerkin mixed finite element method for second-order elliptic problems, Math. Comp., vol. 83, pp. 2101-2126, 2014

    2014

  51. [58]

    W ang, X

    C. W ang, X. Ye and S. Zhang, A Modified weak Galerkin finite element method for the Maxwell equations on polyhedral meshes , Journal of Computational and Applied Mathe- matics, vol. 448, pp. 115918, 2024

    2024

  52. [59]

    X. Wang, L. Zhang, W. Liu, On computational issues of immersed finite element methods , J.Comput.Phys.228(2009)2535–2551

    2009

  53. [60]

    W ang and S

    C. W ang and S. Zhang, A Weak Galerkin Method for Elasticity Interface Problems , Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, vol. 419, 114726, 2023

    2023

  54. [61]

    W ang and L

    C. W ang and L. Zikatanov, Low Regularity Primal-Dual Weak Galerkin Finite Element Methods for Convection-Diffusion Equations , Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, vol 394, 113543, 2021

    2021

  55. [62]

    W ang and H

    C. W ang and H. Zhou, A Weak Galerkin Finite Element Method for a Type of Fourth Order Problem arising from Fluorescence Tomography , Journal of Scientific Computing, Vol. 71(3), pp. 897-918, 2017

    2017

  56. [64]

    H. Xie, Z. Li, Z. Qiao, A finite element method for elasticity interface problems with locally modified triangulations, Int.J.Numer.Anal.Model., 8(2011)189–200

    2011

  57. [65]

    K. Xia, K. Opron, G. Wei, Multiscale multiphysics and multidomain models -flexibility and 25 rigidity, J.Chem.Phys.139(2013)194109

    2013

  58. [66]

    X. Yang, B. Li, Z. Li, The immersed interface method for elasticity problems with interface , Dyn. Contin. Discrete Impuls. Syst. Ser. A Math. Anal. 10(2003)783–808

    2003

  59. [67]

    Yi, Nonconforming mixed finite element methods for linear elasticity using rectangular elements in two and three dimensions

    S. Yi, Nonconforming mixed finite element methods for linear elasticity using rectangular elements in two and three dimensions . Calcolo 42(2), 115–133 (2005)

    2005

  60. [68]

    Yi, A new nonconforming mixed finite element method for linear Elasticity

    S. Yi, A new nonconforming mixed finite element method for linear Elasticity . Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences 16(07), 979–999 (2006)

    2006

Pith tools

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