Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Error estimates for full discretization by an almost mass conservation technique for Cahn--Hilliard systems with dynamic boundary conditions

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A fully discrete scheme for the bulk–surface Cahn–Hilliard system with dynamic boundary conditions is proven to converge with optimal-order error bounds for BDF orders 1 through 5.

desk verdict The paper has a good new idea but the main stability proof tests the Galerkin equation with a nonlinear function not in the finite element space, so Theorem 5.1 is not established as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.03847 v2 pith:QOYGAT2Q submitted 2025-02-06 math.NA cs.NA

Nils Bullerjahn This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NAcs.NA MSC 65M6065M1535K5565M12
keywords Cahn–Hilliardequationdynamicboundaryconditionsbulk–surfacefiniteelementslinearlyimplicitbackwarddifferenceformulaalmostmassconservationPoincaré-typeinequalityfullydiscreteerrorestimatesevolvingsurfaces
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 establishes that a fully discrete scheme—linear bulk–surface finite elements in space and linearly implicit backward difference time stepping of orders 1 through 5—converges at the optimal rate $h^2+\tau^q$ for the bulk–surface Cahn–Hilliard system with dynamic boundary conditions, across essentially the full parameter range of transmission and reaction rates. The central claim is Theorem 5.1: the $L^2$ and $H^1$ errors of the phase fields and chemical potentials are bounded by $C(h^2+\tau^q)$ under the mild step restriction $\tau^q\le C_0 h^2$ and sufficiently accurate starting values. This matters because no fully discrete error estimates existed for the general parameter range; the only prior fully discrete result was restricted to the GMS model $K=L=0$ and used an anti-symmetric structure that does not extend. The new tool is a discrete Poincaré-type inequality derived from the almost mass conservation of the error equations, and the same technique is shown to yield optimal-order estimates for the Cahn–Hilliard equation on evolving surfaces.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the combination of an energy estimate for the error equations with a bulk–surface Poincaré–Wirtinger inequality (Lemma 6.1) fed by an almost mass conservation of the error. Because the system conserves the combined bulk–surface mass $\beta\int_\Omega u + \int_\Gamma \psi$, testing the error equation with the constant pair $(\beta,1)$ shows that the combined mean of the error is controlled by the defect terms and the starting errors; Lemma 6.1 then bounds the full $V_{K,\alpha}$-norm by the $a_{K,\alpha}$-seminorm plus that combined mean, under the condition $\alpha\beta|\Omega|+|\Gamma|\neq 0$. Higher-order BDF stability is transferred from the continuous energy estimate through Dahlquist's G-stability and the Nevanlinna–Odeh multiplier technique, which supply the discrete product-rule and positivity estimates for orders 1 to 5.

What would settle it

Compute, for a sequence of quasi-uniform triangulations of a fixed curved domain with $\alpha\beta|\Omega|+|\Gamma|\neq 0$, the smallest eigenvalue of the discrete generalized eigenvalue problem for the pair $(a_{K,\alpha,h},\|\cdot\|_{V_{K,\alpha,h}})$; if this eigenvalue tends to $0$ as $h\to 0$, the $h$-independent discrete Poincaré-type inequality used in Part D is false and Theorem 5.1 would not follow. A manufactured-solution run with BDF2 at fixed small $\tau$ showing an $L^2$ error growing faster than $h^2$ as $h\to 0$ would equally refute the spatial rate.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is an optimal-order convergence theorem for a fully discrete approximation of a diffuse-interface system with dynamic boundary conditions. For BDF order $q=1,\ldots,5$, linear bulk–surface finite elements, and a sufficiently smooth exact solution, the scheme's error satisfies $\|(u_h^n)^\ell-u(t_n)\|_{L^2(\Omega)} + \|(\psi_h^n)^\ell-\psi(t_n)\|_{L^2(\Gamma)} + h(\|(u_h^n)^\ell-u(t_n)\|_{H^1(\Omega)} + \|(\psi_h^n)^\ell-\psi(t_n)\|_{H^1(\Gamma)}) \le C(h^2+\tau^q)$, with a similar bound for the chemical potentials, for all $h\le h_0$ and $\tau^q\le C_0 h^2$, provided the starting values have error $O((\tau^q+h^2)^2)$. The result covers the parameter range in assumption (A): $K\in[0,\infty)$ and $L\in(0,\infty)$ with $\alpha\beta|\Omega|+|\Gamma|\neq 0$, the case $K\in(0,\infty)$, $L=\infty$ with $\alpha\neq 0$, and the case $K=L=0$, thereby including transmission-rate and reaction-rate dependent dynamic boundary conditions as well as the classical GMS and LW models. The proof splits the error into Ritz projection error and scheme error, obtains stability by the almost-mass-conservation/Poincaré argument, and gets consistency from geometric approximation, Ritz-map, and BDF Peano-kernel estimates; only locally Lipschitz potentials are needed because the step restriction enables an $L^\infty$ bootstrap.

Load-bearing premise

The proof assumes that the bulk–surface Poincaré–Wirtinger inequality (Lemma 6.1, imported from [45, Lemma A.1]) controls the full norm by the energy seminorm whenever $\alpha\beta|\Omega|+|\Gamma|\neq 0$, and that this control carries over to the finite-element spaces with a constant independent of $h$; if that discrete control fails, the stability estimate and Theorem 5.1 collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For BDF orders $q=1,\ldots,5$, the fully discrete bulk–surface finite element scheme converges with the optimal rates $O(h^2+\tau^q)$ in $L^2$ and $H^1$ for phase fields and chemical potentials, for all parameters covered by assumption (A).
  • The transmission-rate and reaction-rate dependent dynamic boundary conditions are handled uniformly, excluding only the degenerate combination $\alpha\beta|\Omega|+|\Gamma|=0$ and the formally dashed limit lines in the parameter square.
  • The same stability strategy yields optimal-order fully discrete estimates for the Cahn–Hilliard equation on evolving surfaces (Theorem 11.1), with the same BDF orders and the same mild step restriction.
  • Only local Lipschitz continuity of $F_\Omega$ and $F_\Gamma$ and their first three derivatives is required, so the commonly used double-well potentials are admissible.
  • Starting values need only be accurate to order $O((\tau^q+h^2)^2)$, and no shift by initial data is needed in the error analysis.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: the almost-mass-conservation/Poincaré template should apply to any BDF-discretized conserved gradient flow, such as the Allen–Cahn equation with homogeneous Neumann conditions, and should yield optimal-order $h^2+\tau^q$ bounds there without needing anti-symmetric structure.
  • Inference: the excluded condition $\alpha\beta|\Omega|+|\Gamma|=0$ marks a genuine degeneracy in the combined mass; at that parameter combination a proof would need separate bulk and surface mass controls or a different norm.
  • Inference: since the stability proposition works under the weaker restriction $\tau^q\le C_0 h^\kappa$ with $\kappa>3/2$, the $h^2$ restriction in the theorem may be an artifact of the inverse-estimate bootstrap; a numerical test of the rates under the weaker restriction would settle whether it is removable.
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 paper claims optimal-order fully discrete error estimates for the bulk--surface Cahn--Hilliard system with dynamic boundary conditions, using linear bulk--surface finite elements in space and linearly implicit backward difference formulae of order 1 to 5 in time. The central result, Theorem 5.1, states that the error in the phase fields and chemical potentials is bounded by C(h^2 + tau^q) under a mild step-size restriction, for the parameter range K in [0, infinity) and L in (0, infinity), with extensions to K in (0, infinity), L = infinity and K = L = 0. The proof introduces a stability framework based on an 'almost mass conservation' of the error equations, combined with a bulk--surface Poincare--Wirtinger inequality, in place of the anti-symmetric structure used in prior work [13]. The manuscript also sketches an extension to the Cahn--Hilliard equation on evolving surfaces and presents numerical experiments.

Significance. If the proof were correct, this would be a significant contribution: it would supply the first fully discrete optimal-order error estimates for the general bulk--surface Cahn--Hilliard system with dynamic boundary conditions for BDF methods up to order 5. The almost-mass-conservation technique is a genuinely novel stability tool that plausibly transfers to other mass-conserving phase-field problems. The paper also includes instructive numerical experiments. However, the main stability proof contains a serious technical gap that prevents Theorem 5.1 from being established as written.

major comments (3)
  1. [§8.4, Eq. (34)] The displayed equality in (34) is inadmissible. The error equation (20a) is a Galerkin equation that holds only for test functions in V_{L,beta}^h = V_h × S_h. The function r^k_Omega h = F'_Omega(~u^k_h) − F'_Omega(~u^k_*) is the pointwise difference of the nonlinearity evaluated at piecewise-linear functions. For a nonlinear potential such as the double-well potential, this function is not piecewise linear and does not belong to V_h; similarly for r^k_Gamma h. Hence one cannot test (20a) with (r^k_Omega h, r^k_Gamma h) as stated. Consequently the equality in (34) is not justified, and the norm ||(r^k_Omega h, r^k_Gamma h)||_{V_{K,alpha}^h} is not a well-defined discrete norm for this argument. This step is the essential device used to bound term (III) and to proceed to (37) and the stability estimate (45). Without an additional argument, for example testing with an interpolation of r into V_h and bounding the resulting consistency error, Proposition 8.3 and Theorem 5.1 are not established.
  2. [§6, Lemma 6.1] Lemma 6.1 is a load-bearing ingredient in Part D of the stability proof (Eqs. (38)–(40) and (43)), but its proof is delegated to a reference with the sentence 'The original proof in [45, Lemma A.1] suffices here up to the mean zero transformations.' The lemma is stated for the combined spaces V_{J,lambda} with the a_{J,lambda}-seminorm and a generalized mean M_{lambda,upsilon}; the needed discrete analogue, applied after geometric transfer, is asserted without a detailed derivation. The author should provide a complete proof of Lemma 6.1 and explicitly justify the h-independent discrete version used in (40) and (43).
  3. [§11, Theorem 11.1] The abstract states that the paper 'proves optimal-order fully discrete error estimates for the Cahn–Hilliard equation on evolving surfaces,' but Section 11 gives only a proof sketch: Parts A–D are described in several paragraphs with references to techniques in [53] and [33], and the consistency part says the defects are 'estimated similar to Section 9.' Theorem 11.1 is stated as a result, yet the accompanying argument is not a complete proof. Either the full details should be supplied, or the claim should be softened to an outline of a possible extension.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.2] The list of starting values reads '(u^0_h, psi^0_h), ..., (u^{q-1}_h, psi^0_h)'; the final component should presumably be psi^{q-1}_h.
  2. [§8.4, Eq. (42)] In the reformulation (42), the quantities s_j are used but not defined in the text; they should be specified.
  3. [§8.4, Eq. (36)] In the last sum of (36), the expression mixes \partial_\tau and \partial_\tau^q: it reads c\tau \sum_{i=1}^{q-1} \|(\partial_\tau d^i_3, \partial_\tau^q d^i_4)\|^2_{*,K,\alpha}, which is likely a typo; both discrete derivatives should be of the same type.
  4. [§12.2] The phrase 'The second required initial data (u^1, psi^1)' is grammatically incorrect; it should be 'The second required initial data set' or 'The initial data (u^1, psi^1)'.
  5. [References] Reference [2] has an incomplete author name: 'J., D.' should be replaced with the full name of the author.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the error estimate is derived from the discrete error equations and a derived almost-mass-conservation bound; the self-references to [13] are transparent and non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The claimed error estimates are obtained by a standard consistency-plus-stability decomposition. The error equations (20) are derived, not assumed, from the fully discrete scheme (9) and the Ritz projections; the stability estimate (45) follows from the energy identity (29), the G-stability/multiplier bounds (30)-(36), and the Poincaré-type inequalities (38)-(39). The 'almost mass conservation' is not an input: equation (41) is the identity obtained by testing (20a) with the constant (β,1), so the discrete combined mass of the phase-field error is controlled by the defect d^n, and Lemma 6.1 then converts the a-seminorm back to the full norm. The starting-value condition in Theorem 5.1 is a standard multistep hypothesis, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction; the final bound is C(I_h^{q-1}+D_h^n) with D_h^n supplied by the separately proved consistency bounds in Proposition 9.5. The self-references to [13] (Sections 4.2, 8.3, 9.2, and the GMS subcase K=L=0) are explicit and concern preparatory technique or a previously proved subcase; the new K∈[0,∞), L∈(0,∞) stability proof and the discrete Poincaré technique are written out in this paper. The skeptical objection that equation (34) tests with a nonlinear residual not belonging to the finite element space is a mathematical correctness concern about the written proof, not an instance of the claimed result reducing by construction to its input; under the circularity rules it does not raise the circularity score. Lemma 6.1 is imported from an external source [45] as a mathematical tool, not from the paper's own conclusions, and the proof does not fit any parameter to data. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained apart from minor, transparent reuse of the author's prior work, corresponding to a low non-circularity score.

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

There are no fitted parameters: all model parameters are part of the problem statement, and generic constants in estimates are not free. The proof relies on standard functional inequalities, G-stability theory, geometric approximation estimates, and the stated regularity assumptions; the novel 'almost mass conservation' is a derived identity, not an input. The strongest point is that no ad hoc numbers are introduced; the main caveat is that several key technical ingredients are imported from the author's companion paper [13] and from [29], rather than re-proven.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Bulk-surface Poincare-Wirtinger inequality (Lemma 6.1)
    Cited from [45, Lemma A.1] and used to estimate full V norms by a-seminorm plus controlled mean, under condition alpha beta |Omega| + |Gamma| != 0. The proof is not reproduced.
  • standard math G-stability and multiplier theorems for BDF (Lemmas 8.1-8.2)
    G-stability by Dahlquist [25] and Nevanlinna-Odeh multipliers [26] are used to transfer energy estimates to the fully discrete BDF1-5 setting; no proof included.
  • standard math Zero-stability reformulation of the BDF mass derivative (Eq. (42))
    Used in Part D to bound the discrete time derivative of the error mass; taken from [29, Eq. (10.14)].
  • domain assumption Geometric approximation error estimates (Lemma 9.1)
    Requires quasi-uniform triangulation with vertices on the smooth boundary; used throughout consistency analysis to bound discrepancies between integrals on Omega/Omega_h and Gamma/Gamma_h.
  • domain assumption Regularity assumptions (10)-(11) and compatibility condition F'_Omega(alpha .) = beta F'_Gamma(.) for K=L=0
    The theorem assumes these to ensure Lipschitz control and consistency order; for K=L=0, testing with nonlinear terms requires the stated compatibility.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Error estimates for full discretization by an almost mass conservation technique for Cahn--Hilliard systems with dynamic boundary conditions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QOYGAT2Q

@misc{pith2026250203847,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Error estimates for full discretization by an almost mass conservation technique for Cahn--Hilliard systems with dynamic boundary conditions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QOYGAT2Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.03847}
}
read the original abstract

A proof of optimal-order error estimates is given for the full discretization of the bulk--surface Cahn--Hilliard system with dynamic boundary conditions in a smooth domain. The numerical method combines a linear bulk--surface finite element discretization in space and linearly implicit backward difference formulae of order one to five in time. The error estimates are obtained by a consistency and stability analysis, based on an energy estimate and the novel approach of exploiting the almost mass conservation of the error equations to derive a Poincar\'e-type inequality. We demonstrate how this approach can be generalized to other almost mass conserving problems. To this end we prove optimal-order fully discrete error estimates for the Cahn--Hilliard equation on evolving surfaces. We illustrate and complement our findings by numerical experiments.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Regularity of a bulk-surface Cahn-Hilliard model driven by Leray velocity fields

    math.AP 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The authors prove well-posedness and new regularity results for a convective bulk-surface Cahn-Hilliard system under Leray-type velocity fields, using a new elliptic regularity theory for singular nonlinearities.

  2. Error estimates for $A$-stable backward difference full discretizations of Willmore flow of closed surfaces

    math.NA 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Proof of optimal H1-norm error estimates for A-stable BDF1/BDF2 full discretizations of Willmore flow using surface finite elements of degree at least 2.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [13]

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2407

    Bullerjahn, N., Kov´ acs, B.: Error estimates for full discretization of Cahn–Hilliard equation with dynamic boundary conditions (2024). https://arxiv.org/abs/2407. 20698

    work page 2024

  2. [53]

    Dziuk, G., Lubich, C., Mansour, D.: Runge-Kutta time discretizat ion of parabolic differential equations on evolving surfaces. IMA J. Numer. Anal. 32(2), 394–416 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1093/imanum/drr017 47

    work page doi:10.1093/imanum/drr017 2012

  3. [33]

    A fully discrete evolving surface finite element method for the Cahn-Hilliard equation with a regular potential

    Elliott, C.M., Sales, T.: A fully discrete evolving surface finite elemen t method for the Cahn-Hilliard equation with a regular potential (2024). https://arxiv.org/ abs/2405.11984

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  4. [1]

    Cahn, J.W., Hilliard, J.E.: Free Energy of a Nonuniform Sys- tem. I. Interfacial Free Energy. The Journal of Chemical Physics 28(2), 258–267 (1958) https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1744102 https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jcp/article-pdf/28/2/258/18813541/258 1 online.pdf

    doi:10.1063/1.1744102 1958

  5. [2]

    J., D.: Contact-line dynamics of a diffuse fluid interface. J. Fluid Mec h. 402, 57–88 (2000) https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112099006874

    doi:10.1017/s0022112099006874 2000

  6. [3]

    Fischer, H., Maass, P., Dieterich, W.: Novel surface modes in spino dal decomposi- tion. Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 893–896 (1997) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett. 79.893

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett 1997

  7. [4]

    Goldstein, G.R., Miranville, A., Schimperna, G.: A Cahn-Hilliard model in a domain with non-permeable walls. Phys. D 240(8), 754–766 (2011) https://doi. org/10.1016/j.physd.2010.12.007

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physd.2010.12.007 2011

  8. [5]

    Liu, C., Wu, H.: An energetic variational approach for the Cahn-H illiard equation with dynamic boundary condition: model derivation and mathematica l analy- sis. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 233(1), 167–247 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00205-019-01356-x

    work page 2019

Show all 53 references
  1. [6]

    Nonlinearity 33(8), 4191–4235 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6544/ab8351

    Knopf, P., Lam, K.F.: Convergence of a Robin boundary approxima tion for a Cahn-Hilliard system with dynamic boundary conditions. Nonlinearity 33(8), 4191–4235 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6544/ab8351

    2020 doi

  2. [7]

    ESAIM Math

    Knopf, P., Lam, K.F., Liu, C., Metzger, S.: Phase-field dynamics with transfer of materials: the Cahn-Hillard equation with reaction rate dependen t dynamic boundary conditions. ESAIM Math. Model. Numer. Anal. 55(1), 229–282 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1051/m2an/2020090

    2021

  3. [8]

    NoDEA Nonlinear Different ial Equations Appl

    Knopf, P., Stange, J.: Well-posedness of a bulk-surface convec tive Cahn-Hilliard system with dynamic boundary conditions. NoDEA Nonlinear Different ial Equations Appl. 31(5), 82–48 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1007/s00030-024-00970- 3

    2024 doi

  4. [9]

    Electron

    Wu, H.: A review on the Cahn-Hilliard equation: classical results and recent advances in dynamic boundary conditions. Electron. Res. Arch. 30(8), 2788–2832 (2022) https://doi.org/10.3934/era.2022143

    2022 doi

  5. [10]

    Discrete Contin

    Cherfils, L., Petcu, M., Pierre, M.: A numerical analysis of the Cah n-Hilliard equation with dynamic boundary conditions. Discrete Contin. Dyn. S yst. 27(4), 1511–1533 (2010) https://doi.org/10.3934/dcds.2010.27.1511

    2010 doi

  6. [11]

    Cherfils, L., Petcu, M.: A numerical analysis of the Cahn-Hilliard eq uation with non-permeable walls. Numer. Math. 128(3), 517–549 (2014) https://doi.org/10. 43 1007/s00211-014-0618-0

    2014

  7. [12]

    Harder, P., Kov´ acs, B.: Error estimates for the Cahn-Hilliard e quation with dynamic boundary conditions. IMA J. Numer. Anal. 42(3), 2589–2620 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1093/imanum/drab045

    2022 doi

  8. [14]

    Metzger, S.: An efficient and convergent finite element scheme f or Cahn-Hilliard equations with dynamic boundary conditions. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 59(1), 219– 248 (2021)

    2021

  9. [15]

    Metzger, S.: A convergent SA V scheme for Cahn-Hilliard equatio ns with dynamic boundary conditions. IMA J. Numer. Anal. 43(6), 3593–3627 (2023)

    2023

  10. [16]

    Bao, X., Zhang, H.: Numerical approximations and error analysis of the Cahn- Hilliard equation with reaction rate dependent dynamic boundary con ditions. J. Sci. Comput. 87(3), 72–32 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10915-021-01475-2

    2021 doi

  11. [17]

    Meng, X., Bao, X., Zhang, Z.: Second order stabilized semi-implicit s cheme for the Cahn-Hilliard model with dynamic boundary conditions. J. Comput . Appl. Math. 428, 115145–22 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2023.115145

    2023

  12. [18]

    Liu, X., Shen, J., Zheng, N.: Efficient energy stable numerical sch emes for Cahn- Hilliard equations with dynamical boundary conditions. J. Comput. Ph ys. 509, 113037–18 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2024.113037

    2024

  13. [19]

    Altmann, R., Zimmer, C.: Dissipation-preserving discretization of the Cahn- Hilliard equation with dynamic boundary conditions. Appl. Numer. Math . 190, 254–269 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnum.2023.04.012

    2023 doi

  14. [20]

    Discrete Contin

    Okumura, M., Fukao, T.: Structure-preserving schemes for C ahn-Hilliard equations with dynamic boundary conditions. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. Ser. S 17(1), 362–394 (2024) https://doi.org/10.3934/dcdss.2023207

    2024 doi

  15. [21]

    Elliott, C.M., Ranner, T.: Finite element analysis for a coupled bulk-s urface par- tial differential equation. IMA J. Numer. Anal. 33(2), 377–402 (2013) https:// doi.org/10.1093/imanum/drs022

    2013 doi

  16. [22]

    Elliott, C.M., Ranner, T.: A unified theory for continuous-in-time e volving finite element space approximations to partial differential equation s in evolving domains. IMA J. Numer. Anal. 41(3), 1696–1845 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1093/ imanum/draa062

    2021

  17. [23]

    Kov´ acs, B., Lubich, C.: Numerical analysis of parabolic problems with dynamic 44 boundary conditions. IMA J. Numer. Anal. 37(1), 1–39 (2017) https://doi.org/ 10.1093/imanum/drw015

    2017 doi

  18. [24]

    Fairweather, G.: On the approximate solution of a diffusion proble m by Galerkin methods. J. Inst. Math. Appl. 24(2), 121–137 (1979)

    1979

  19. [25]

    BIT 18(4), 384–401 (1978) https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01932018

    Dahlquist, G.: G-stability is equivalent to A-stability. BIT 18(4), 384–401 (1978) https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01932018

    1978 doi

  20. [26]

    Nevanlinna, O., Odeh, F.: Multiplier techniques for linear multistep m eth- ods. Numer. Funct. Anal. Optim. 3(4), 377–423 (1981) https://doi.org/10.1080/ 01630568108816097

    1981

  21. [27]

    Lubich, C., Mansour, D., Venkataraman, C.: Backward differenc e time discretiza- tion of parabolic differential equations on evolving surfaces. IMA J. Numer. Anal. 33(4), 1365–1385 (2013) https://doi.org/10.1093/imanum/drs044

    2013 doi

  22. [28]

    Akrivis, G., Lubich, C.: Fully implicit, linearly implicit and implicit-explicit backward difference formulae for quasi-linear parabolic equations. Numer. Math. 131(4), 713–735 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1007/s00211-015-0702-0

    2015 doi

  23. [29]

    Kov´ acs, B., Li, B., Lubich, C.: A convergent evolving finite elemen t algorithm for mean curvature flow of closed surfaces. Numer. Math. 143(4), 797–853 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1007/s00211-019-01074-2

    2019 doi

  24. [30]

    Acta Metallurgica 27(6), 1085–1095 (1979) https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6160(79)90196-2

    Allen, S.M., Cahn, J.W.: A microscopic theory for antiphase bounda ry motion and its application to antiphase domain coarsening. Acta Metallurgica 27(6), 1085–1095 (1979) https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6160(79)90196-2

    1979 doi

  25. [31]

    Olshanskii, M., Xu, X., Yushutin, V.: A finite element method for Allen -Cahn equation on deforming surface. Comput. Math. Appl. 90, 148–158 (2021) https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.camwa.2021.03.018

    2021 doi

  26. [32]

    European J

    Caetano, D., Elliott, C.M.: Cahn-Hilliard equations on an evolving sur face. European J. Appl. Math. 32(5), 937–1000 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0956792521000176

    2021

  27. [34]

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2411

    Elliott, C.M., Sales, T.: An evolving surface finite element method fo r the Cahn- Hilliard equation with a logarithmic potential (2024). https://arxiv.org/abs/2411. 05650

    2024

  28. [35]

    A cta Numer

    Dziuk, G., Elliott, C.M.: Finite element methods for surface PDEs. A cta Numer. 22, 289–396 (2013) https://doi.org/10.1017/S0962492913000056 45

    2013 doi

  29. [36]

    Graduate Studies in Mathematics, vol

    Evans, L.C.: Partial Differential Equations. Graduate Studies in Mathematics, vol. 19, p. 662. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, ? ?? (1998). https://doi.org/10.1090/gsm/019 . https://doi.org/10.1090/gsm/019

    1998 doi

  30. [37]

    Texts in Applied Mathematics, vol

    Brenner, S.C., Scott, L.R.: The Mathematical Theory of Finite Ele ment Methods, 3rd edn. Texts in Applied Mathematics, vol. 15, p. 397. Springer, ?? ? (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-75934-0 . https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387- 75934-0

    2008 doi

  31. [38]

    I I, 2nd edn

    Hairer, E., Wanner, G.: Solving Ordinary Differential Equations. I I, 2nd edn. Springer Series in Computational Mathematics, vol. 14, p. 614. Spr inger, ??? (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-05221-7 . Stiff and differential- algebraic problems. https://doi.org/10.1007/978...

    1996 doi

  32. [39]

    BIT 60(1), 93–99 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10543-019- 00768-1

    Akrivis, G., Katsoprinakis, E.: Maximum angles of A( ϑ)-stability of backward dif- ference formulae. BIT 60(1), 93–99 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10543-019- 00768-1

    2020 doi

  33. [40]

    Akrivis, G., Feischl, M., Kov´ acs, B., Lubich, C.: Higher-order linearly implicit full discretization of the Landau–Lifshitz–Gilbert equation. Math. Com p. 90(329), 995–1038 (2021)

    2021

  34. [41]

    Contri, A., Kov´ acs, B., Massing, A.: Error analysis of BDF 1-6 tim e-stepping methods for the transient Stokes problem: velocity and pressure estimates (2023)

    2023

  35. [42]

    Bartels, S., Kov´ acs, B., Wang, Z.: Error analysis for the numer ical approximation of the harmonic map heat flow with nodal constraints. IMA J. Numer . Anal. 44(2), 633–653 (2024)

    2024

  36. [43]

    Kov´ acs, B., Li, B., Lubich, C.: A convergent evolving finite elemen t algorithm for Willmore flow of closed surfaces. Numer. Math. 149(3), 595–643 (2021) https:// doi.org/10.1007/s00211-021-01238-z

    2021 doi

  37. [44]

    Beschle, C.A., Kov´ acs, B.: Stability and error estimates for non -linear Cahn- Hilliard-type equations on evolving surfaces. Numer. Math. 151(1), 1–48 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1007/s00211-022-01280-5

    2022 doi

  38. [45]

    Interfaces Free Bound

    Knopf, P., Liu, C.: On second-order and fourth-order elliptic sy stems consisting of bulk and surface PDEs: well-posedness, regularity theory and e igenvalue prob- lems. Interfaces Free Bound. 23(4), 507–533 (2021) https://doi.org/10.4171/ifb/ 463

    2021 doi

  39. [46]

    Nonlinear Anal

    Colli, P., Fukao, T.: Equation and dynamic boundary condition of Ca hn-Hilliard type with singular potentials. Nonlinear Anal. 127, 413–433 (2015) https://doi. org/10.1016/j.na.2015.07.011

    2015 doi

  40. [47]

    Demlow, A.: Higher-order finite element methods and pointwise er ror estimates 46 for elliptic problems on surfaces. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 47(2), 805–827 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1137/070708135

    2009 doi

  41. [48]

    Akrivis, G., Katsoprinakis, E.: Backward difference formulae: Ne w multipliers and stability properties for parabolic equations. Math. Comp. 85(301), 2195–2216 (2015)

    2015

  42. [49]

    Akrivis, G., Chen, M., Yu, F., Zhou, Z.: The energy technique for t he six-step BDF method. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 59(5), 2449–2472 (2021) https://doi.org/ 10.1137/21M1392656

    2021 doi

  43. [50]

    Elliott, C.M., Ranner, T.: Evolving surface finite element method fo r the Cahn- Hilliard equation. Numer. Math. 129(3), 483–534 (2015) https://doi.org/10. 1007/s00211-014-0644-y

    2015

  44. [51]

    I, 2nd edn

    Hairer, E., Nø rsett, S.P., Wanner, G.: Solving Ordinary Differentia l Equations. I, 2nd edn. Springer Series in Computational Mathematics, vol. 8, p. 5 28. Springer, ??? (1993). Nonstiff problems

    1993

  45. [52]

    Springer Series in Computational Mathematics, vol

    Thom´ ee, V.: Galerkin Finite Element Methods for Parabolic Proble ms, 2nd edn. Springer Series in Computational Mathematics, vol. 25, p. 370. Spr inger, ??? (2006)

    2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.