Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Bound preserving {P}oint-{A}verage-{M}oment {P}olynomi{A}l-interpreted ({PAMPA}) on polygonal meshes

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper shows that the PAMPA discretization on polygonal meshes is bound preserving: scalar solutions stay in the initial range, and Euler solutions keep positive density and internal energy.

desk verdict Useful extension of bound-preserving PAMPA to polygons, but the Euler proof is missing the key spectral-radius derivation and the printed matrices don't match the forms they claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.10069 v1 pith:VMRZXOVR submitted 2025-02-14 math.NA cs.NA

Rémi Abgrall , Yongle Liu , Walter Boscheri This is my paper
classification math.NAcs.NA MSC 65M0865M6065M12
keywords hyperbolicconservationlawsboundpreservinginvariantdomainpolygonalmeshesactivefluxPAMPAEulerequationsconvexlimiting
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 proposes a high-order discretization for hyperbolic conservation laws, named PAMPA, that works on general polygonal meshes and is provably bound preserving for scalar problems and the Euler equations. The central move is to update cell averages and edge point values with a convex blend of a high-order flux or residual and a low-order local Lax-Friedrichs one, so that each Euler step can be rewritten as a convex combination of previous values and intermediate states. If those intermediate states lie in the invariant domain and a time-step restriction holds, the updated solution automatically stays in the domain. A sympathetic reader would care because this gives high-order accuracy and shock robustness without an expensive stabilization loop, and it works on the flexible polygonal meshes used for local refinement.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing construction is the convex blending of high-order and low-order updates. For a point value $\sigma$ in polygon $P$, the residual is $\Phi^P_\sigma = \Phi^{LO}_\sigma + \theta^P_\sigma \Delta \Phi^P_\sigma$, and for a face $f$ the numerical flux is $\hat{f} = \hat{f}^{LO} + \theta_f \Delta \hat{f}$; the $\theta$'s are limited coefficients. Because the low-order terms are chosen with a local Lax-Friedrichs structure and a wave-speed bound $\alpha$, the update $u^{n+1}$ can be rewritten as a convex combination of $u^n$ and intermediate states $u^\star$; if $u^\star \in D$ and the CFL condition $\Delta t \sum |f| \alpha_f / |E| \le 1$ holds, then $u^{n+1} \in D$ follows by convexity. For the Euler equations, the invariant domain is represented through geometric quasilinearization as $\{ u : u^T \psi(w) > 0 \}$ with $\psi(w) = (\|w\|^2/2, -w, 1)$, and the optimal $\theta$ is obtained by minimizing a ratio $u^{\star T}\psi(w) / |\Delta \Phi^T \psi(w)|$, which reduces to the generalized eigenvalue problem $\rho(A^{-1/2}BA^{-1/2})$ for two symmetric matrices. The paper states a closed-form expression for this spectral radius in terms of $\lambda_\pm$, which is what turns the bound-preserving condition into a computable formula.

What would settle it

Take any admissible intermediate state in $\mathbb{R}^4$, form the Section 6 matrices $A$ and $B$, compute the largest eigenvalue of $A^{-1/2}BA^{-1/2}$ with a standard symmetric eigensolver, and compare it with $\max(|\beta_0|/\alpha_0, |\lambda_+|, |\lambda_-|)$; one mismatch would disprove the Euler bound-preserving proof. A complementary test is to run the KT two-dimensional Riemann problem on a Voronoi polygonal mesh at the stated CFL and monitor $\min \rho$ and $\min e$: any negative value would falsify the method's claimed invariant-domain preservation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the PAMPA scheme, a globally continuous approximation that stores cell averages and point values at Gauss-Lobatto nodes on element boundaries, can be made invariant-domain preserving on polygonal meshes without any polynomial reconstruction. For scalar conservation laws, the preserved set is the range of the initial data; for the Euler equations, it is the set of states with positive density and positive internal energy. The proof rewrites the forward-Euler update of every degree of freedom as a convex combination of the old value and intermediate states built from low-order fluxes, and it shows that each intermediate state is in the invariant domain under a standard CFL condition. The blending coefficients are then chosen, through convex limiting, so that the convex combination remains in the domain; for the Euler equations, the coefficients come from a generalized eigenvalue problem derived from the geometric quasilinearization of the invariant domain. Numerical tests on the Zalesak and KT cases show the expected third-order accuracy on smooth problems and cleaner shock resolution than the earlier MOOD-based version.

Load-bearing premise

For the Euler equations, the proof leans on a stated-but-unproved closed-form formula for the largest eigenvalue of $A^{-1/2}BA^{-1/2}$ and on the assertion that $A$ is positive definite whenever the intermediate state is admissible; if either is wrong, the chosen blending coefficients may fail to keep density and internal energy positive.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A high-order, globally continuous scheme on polygonal meshes can be made invariant-domain preserving by convex blending alone, with no MOOD-type fallback for the tested shock cases.
  • The same analysis converts the bound-preserving question into checking intermediate states and computing local blending coefficients, so adding new physics mainly means re-solving a small eigenvalue problem.
  • Combined with SSP Runge-Kutta time stepping, the forward-Euler bound-preservation property carries over to the full time step.
  • The polygonal setting supports local refinement more naturally, since the approximation space is defined through virtual-element degrees of freedom on polygons rather than mapped quadrilaterals.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next experiment is to verify the Section 6 closed-form eigenvalue formula against a dense eigensolver for random intermediate states; this would isolate the one unproved algebraic step in the Euler proof.
  • The convex-blending-plus-geometric-quasilinearization construction should extend to other hyperbolic systems, such as shallow water or ideal MHD, whenever their invariant domain is described by finitely many quadratic inequalities; the main new task is the corresponding generalized eigenvalue problem.
  • Because the limiting uses only the stored degrees of freedom, the bound-preserving mechanism is likely to carry over to higher-order VEM-like extensions and to hanging-node refinements without changing the convexity argument.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents the PAMPA discretization for hyperbolic conservation laws on polygonal meshes, a globally continuous active-flux-type scheme whose degrees of freedom are cell averages and boundary point values of a virtual-element-type quadratic space. The average DoFs are updated via the conservative form with a high-order quadrature flux blended against a low-order local Lax-Friedrichs flux, and the point values via the non-conservative form with blended residuals; the blending coefficients are chosen so that each Euler-forward update is a convex combination of admissible states, which under SSP-RK3 time stepping yields an invariant-domain-preserving scheme. A bound-preserving proof is sketched for scalar problems and, for the Euler equations, via the GQL characterization of Wu and Shu together with a claimed closed-form upper bound on the spectral radius of a symmetric-definite pencil. Numerical results are shown for the Zalesak rotation test and the four-shock (KT) interaction, both on triangular meshes, and the paper states that it is a summary of the companion article [1].

Significance. If correct, the scheme would be a valuable object: a third-order, globally continuous method on general polygons with few boundary degrees of freedom and a provable invariant-domain property. The convex-blending formulation is elegant, and the reduction of the whole analysis to per-intermediate-state admissibility is a clean and usable framework; the scalar analysis follows a standard and sound template, and the reported KT result is visually cleaner than the earlier MOOD variant. However, the Euler half of the central claim is not established: Section 6's closed-form spectral-radius formula is not only unproved but demonstrably incorrect in the generic two-dimensional case, and the printed matrices do not match the quadratic forms they are supposed to represent. Since the Euler blending coefficients are chosen from that formula, the abstract's claim that the scheme is 'provably bound preserving ... for the Euler equations' is unsupported by the manuscript as it stands.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 6, closed-form spectral-radius formula] The formula rho(A^{-1/2}BA^{-1/2}) = max(|beta0|/alpha0, |lambda+|, |lambda-|) is not merely asserted without derivation; it is wrong for the generic two-dimensional case. The expression corresponds to the generalized eigenproblem of the printed pencil restricted to the two-dimensional subspace spanned by (a,0) and (0,1), which is exact only when b is collinear with a. For the Euler equations, the vector a in the denominator is determined by the momentum of the intermediate state, while b is determined by momentum-flux differences (Delta(rho v tensor v + pI)); these are not proportional in general. A direct calculation in d = 2 with alpha0 = 3, a = (1,2), alpha_{d+1} = 4, beta0 = 2, b = (1,0), beta_{d+1} = 3 gives, for the printed matrices, det(B - lambda A) = (2 - 3lambda)(20lambda^2 - 26lambda + 8), so rho(A^{-1/2}BA^{-1/2}) = 0.8, whereas the printed formula yields lambda+ = (13 + sqrt(137))/(-4), hence max(|beta0|/alpha0, |lambda+|, |lambda-|) = (13 + sqrt(137))/4 = 6.18, an overestimate by a factor of about 7.7. Because the Euler positivity proof consists entirely of choosing theta from this value, the bound-preserving property for the two-dimensional Euler equations does not follow from the manuscript as written. The authors should replace the closed form by a correct evaluation of rho(A^{-1/2}BA^{-1/2}) (for instance the iterative symmetric eigensolver that the text itself mentions) or derive a correct formula with its exact validity conditions stated.
  2. [Section 6, definition of A and B] The matrices A and B printed in Section 6 do not represent the quadratic forms displayed immediately above them. The denominator alpha0/2 ||w||^2 - a0^T w w_{d+1} + beta0 w_{d+1}^2 equals (1/2) z^T A~ z with A~ = [[alpha0 I_d, -a0],[-a0^T, 2 beta0]], whereas the printed A has off-diagonal block -2a and lower-right block 2 alpha_{d+1}; the analogous discrepancy holds for B, whose entries should be built from the numerator coefficients (alpha1, a1, beta1) of the flux difference, not from (beta0, b, beta_{d+1}). The symbols a, alpha_{d+1}, b, and beta_{d+1} are never defined in terms of the intermediate state u^{fl,*}, the residual Delta Phi, or the flux difference Delta f-hat. Consequently, the assertion that positive definiteness of A is equivalent to the displayed denominator being positive for all nonzero z cannot be checked, and the reduction to the Rayleigh quotient is broken as printed. The section must be rewritten with a consistent notation that ties every entry of A and B to the coefficients of u^{fl,*} psi(w)^T and (Delta f-hat^{fl})^T psi(w).
  3. [Section 4, Eqs. (14), (15), (18)] The scalar bound-preserving argument is standard in outline, but as printed it cannot be checked. In Eq. (18) the added term is (alpha_E/|E|_sigma)(u^n_sigma - u^n_sigma), which is identically zero, so the displayed identity leading to the convex combination is algebraically false; the intended difference, presumably between u^n_sigma and the relevant edge or cell state, must be stated. The low-order residual in Eq. (14) defines u^E_{i-1,i} = (u_sigma_i + u_sigma_{i-1} + u_E)/6 but u^E_{i,i+1} with weight 1/3, has a missing closing parenthesis, and writes u^P_{i-1,i} in the first line versus u^E_{i,i+1} in the second; the later derivation of u^{E,*}_sigma as a convex combination of thirds is not consistent with these definitions as printed. Since the claim that u^{E,*}_sigma lies in D, and hence the whole scalar bound-preserving result, depends on these displays, the derivation needs to be written out cleanly and self-contained rather than reconstructed from [16].
  4. [Sections 3-5, deferred components of the central claim] Several load-bearing definitional and stability statements are deferred rather than proven or even stated precisely. The high-order residual in Eq. (17) uses the projector pi^perp, which is never defined in this paper; the non-degeneracy of N_sigma K^+_{sigma,E} is asserted with a reference to [16]; boundary treatment is skipped with a pointer to [1]; and the formal third-order accuracy and linear stability are cited from [12,13], which concern related but not identical schemes. For a summary paper this would be acceptable for secondary points, but for the abstract's central claim the manuscript should state explicitly which components the bound-preserving proof relies on and which are imported from the companion papers. In particular, 'provably bound preserving ... for the Euler equations' cannot be verified from the present text because of the issues in Section 6 described above.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4, Eqs. (18)-(22)] The symbols |E|_sigma, |E_sigma|, |mathcal E|_sigma, and |C_sigma| are used for what appears to be the same area associated with the point value sigma; the notation should be unified.
  2. [Section 6] The sentence 'the problem reduces to study the Rayleigh quotient max_{z in R^{d+1}} z^T B z / |z^T B z|' has identical numerator and denominator up to the absolute value and is therefore identically plus or minus one; it should read max_z |z^T B z| / (z^T A z) or the equivalent.
  3. [Section 2.1] The text refers to 'a function of V^2_k(P)', but only V_2(P) has been defined; this is presumably a typo.
  4. [Eq. (17)] The projector pi^perp appears without any definition in this paper; the high-order residual is only understandable by consulting [16].
  5. [Section 7] Despite the abstract and title, all numerical examples are on triangular meshes; the conclusion itself acknowledges this. The paper also reports no quantitative confirmation of the bound-preserving property, such as the min and max of the scalar solution for Zalesak or the minimum density and internal energy for the KT case, which would be the most direct numerical evidence for the central claim.
  6. [Abstract and Section 8] The abstract contains a grammar error ('Several cases demonstrates'), and the conclusion's phrase 'rigorously bound preserving' is stronger than what Section 6 as printed supports; the wording should be aligned with the actual content.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the bound-preserving property is enforced by constructively chosen blending coefficients, not fitted to data; the main caveats are auxiliary self-citations and an unverified spectral formula that is a correctness gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The central claim is that the PAMPA scheme is bound preserving on polygonal meshes. The derivation in Sections 4-6 is constructive: the low-order residuals and fluxes are defined with dissipation rates chosen as wave-speed bounds, the intermediate states are shown to be convex combinations when the CFL condition holds, and the blending parameters theta are then chosen by formulas such as Eq. (21) and the Euler positivity quotients precisely to keep the updated state in the invariant domain. This is a conventional convex-limiting argument and is not equivalent to its inputs: the invariant domain is an external constraint from Kruzhkov theory or from the GQL characterization [19], and the theta values are selected to enforce it, not tuned to match a known output. The paper does rely on the authors' own prior work: it is announced as a summary of [1], the VEM/PAMPA notation and the low-order sub-triangle construction follow [16], and the 1D version is [20,25]. These citations supply notation, stability analysis, smooth-case accuracy, and omitted boundary details; they are not the load-bearing step in the bound-preserving proof, which appears in the present text. The genuinely fragile point is Section 6: the reduction of the Euler positivity condition to the spectral radius of A^{-1/2}BA^{-1/2} and the closed form max(|beta0|/alpha0, |lambda+|, |lambda-|) are asserted 'after some easy calculations' and never derived, and the printed A and B do not obviously match the displayed quadratic forms. This is an unsupported algebraic claim, hence a correctness risk, not a circularity: the formula is not assumed as an input, and the bound-preserving conclusion does not reduce to the formula by construction. No step in the derivation fits the patterns of fitted input renamed as prediction, definitional equivalence, or load-bearing self-citation, so the circularity score is low.

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

The scheme has no fitted parameters. The blending coefficients θ are computed at each step from the local solution to enforce the invariant domain (Eqs 21 and 26c), and the wave-speed coefficients α are upper bounds calculated from the Riemann problem, not fitted numbers. The only user-chosen quantity in the experiments is the CFL number (0.4), which is a standard time-step restriction, not a parameter of the scheme. The listed axioms are the unproved or background results on which the BP proofs rest; the eigenvalue formula is particularly load-bearing and is unverified.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Each mesh element P is star-shaped with respect to a point yP, and the sub-triangulation of P is defined from yP.
    Section 2 states this assumption and the low-order residual construction in Section 4 uses the sub-triangulation. It restricts the class of admissible meshes.
  • standard math The VEM projector π^∇: V_2(P) → P_2(P) exists and is computable from the degrees of freedom.
    Invoked in Section 2.1, following [26]. The paper relies on the existence and properties of this projector without reproducing the proof.
  • domain assumption The low-order residual scheme (Eqs 13-15) is invariant domain preserving when α_E is chosen larger than the maximum wave speed.
    Stated in Eq (16) and used as the foundation of the bound-preservation argument for point values. The proof is sketched informally ('we see that').
  • domain assumption For the Euler system, the matrix A in the Rayleigh quotient is positive definite (equivalently, the intermediate state is in the invariant domain, D).
    In Section 6, the reduction of max_z z^T B z / z^T A z to ρ(A^{-1/2} B A^{-1/2}) requires A positive definite, which is asserted to follow from the hypothesis that the intermediate state lies in D.
  • ad hoc to paper The closed-form eigenvalue formula for ρ(A^{-1/2} B A^{-1/2}) given by λ± is correct.
    Stated without derivation in Section 6; the entire Euler positivity selection of θ depends on this formula. It is not a standard result but a new calculation claimed by the authors.
  • standard math The third-order SSP Runge-Kutta time stepping preserves the invariant domain if each Euler stage is BP.
    The paper states it uses a standard third-order SSP RK scheme; the BP property of the full step follows from the convexity of the invariant domain.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bound preserving {P}oint-{A}verage-{M}oment {P}olynomi{A}l-interpreted ({PAMPA}) on polygonal meshes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VMRZXOVR

@misc{pith2026250210069,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bound preserving Point-Average-Moment PolynomiAl-interpreted (PAMPA) on polygonal meshes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VMRZXOVR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.10069}
}
read the original abstract

We present a novel discretisation strategy, strongly inspired from Roe's Active Flux scheme. It can use polygonal meshes and is provably bound preserving for scalar problems and the Euler equations. Several cases demonstrates the quality of the method, and improvements with respect to previous work of the authors. This paper is a summary of \cite{BPPampa}.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.10069 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Sub-triangulation that is used to define a low order scheme. The point values on the boundary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Definition of e ± and n ± σ : (a) case of a vertex, (b) case of a non vertex. We use nσ = n + σ + n − σ . nσ = n + σ + n − σ , Jσ = J(uσ) K+ σ,E = Jσ · nσ, N−1 σ = X E,σ∈E K+ σ,E and αP is an upper bound of the eigen-speeds of J. It is shown in [16] that NσK+ σ is always defined. The sum in (17) is a form of dissipation inspired by the VEM litterature, it does not spoil the formal accuracy. The scalar αP is an estim… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Zalesak test case, after 1 rotation. 20 isolines of (a): the point values (b):the average, and (d): the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: 30 equi-spaced isolines of the density as in Figure 6, cfl=0.4 on a 100 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: 30 equi-spaced isolines of the density as in Figure 6, cfl=0.4 on a 400 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: 30 isolines ρ ∈ [0.130, 1.785], High order scheme (17)-(25) with MOOD stabilisation, see [16]. Conference, 2011. [5] T. A. Eyman. Active flux. PhD thesis, University of Michigan, 2013. [6] P.L. Roe. Is discontinuous reconstruction really a good idea? Journal of Scienti…

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. Construction of entropy satisfying Active Flux-type methods

    math.NA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Entropy stability of Active Flux-type schemes reduces to an inequality on cell averages alone; a Tadmor-style blend of high- and low-order fluxes enforces it while retaining bound preservation and oscillation control.

  2. A Fully Discrete Truly Multidimensional Active Flux Method For The Two-Dimensional Euler Equations

    math.NA 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    The paper constructs a third-order fully discrete Active Flux scheme for the 2D Euler equations with positivity-preserving limiting and reflecting boundary conditions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Bound preserving virtual finite element and hyperbolic problems: the PAMPA algorithm

    R´ emi Abgrall, Yongle Liu, and Walter Boscheri. Bound preserving virtual finite element and hyperbolic problems: the PAMPA algorithm. in preparation, 2025. 12 (a) (b) Figure 4: 30 equi-spaced isolines of the density as in Figure 6, cfl=0.4 on a 100 × 100 mesh. (a): averaged values, (b): point values. (a) (b) Figure 5: 30 equi-spaced isolines of the densi...

    work page 2025

  2. [16]

    Virtual finite element and hyperbolic problems: the PAMPA algorithm, 2024

    R´ emi Abgrall, Yongle Liu, and Walter Boscheri. Virtual finite element and hyperbolic problems: the PAMPA algorithm, 2024. arXiv:2412.01341

    arXiv 2024

  3. [2]

    The notion of conservation for residual distribution schemes (or fluctuation splitting schemes), with some applications

    R´ emi Abgrall. The notion of conservation for residual distribution schemes (or fluctuation splitting schemes), with some applications. Commun. Appl. Math. Comput. , 2(3):341–368, 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [3]

    T. A. Eyman and P. L. Roe. Active flux. 49th AIAA Aerospace Science Meeting, 2011

    work page 2011

  5. [4]

    T. A. Eyman and P. L. Roe. Active flux for systems. 20 th AIAA Computational Fluid Dynamics 13 Figure 6: 30 isolines ρ ∈ [0.130, 1.785], High order scheme (17)-(25) with MOOD stabilisation, see [16]. Conference, 2011

    work page 2011

  6. [5]

    T. A. Eyman. Active flux. PhD thesis, University of Michigan, 2013

    work page 2013

  7. [6]

    P.L. Roe. Is discontinuous reconstruction really a good idea? Journal of Scientific Computing , 73:1094–1114, 2017

    work page 2017

  8. [7]

    van Leer

    B. van Leer. Towards the ultimate conservative difference scheme. V. A second-order sequel to Godunov’s method. J. Comput. Phys. , 32(1):101–136, 1979

    work page 1979

Show all 28 references
  1. [8]

    Fanchen He and P.L. Roe. A new treatment of conservation laws for a family of arbitrary-order fully- discrete numerical schemes based on the active flux method. Journal of Scientific Computing , 2022. submitted

    2022

  2. [9]

    Helzel, D

    C. Helzel, D. Kerkmann, and L. Scandurra. A new ADER method inspired by the active flux method. J. Sci. Comput. , 80:35–61, 2019

    2019

  3. [10]

    Active flux methods for hyperbolic systems using the method of bicharacteristics

    Erik Chudzik, Christiane Helzel, and M´ aria Luk´ aˇ cov´ a-Medviˇdov´ a. Active flux methods for hyperbolic systems using the method of bicharacteristics. J. Sci. Comput. , 99(1):39, 2024. Id/No 16

    2024

  4. [11]

    The Cartesian grid active flux method with adaptive mesh refinement

    Donna Calhoun, Erik Chudzik, and Christiane Helzel. The Cartesian grid active flux method with adaptive mesh refinement. J. Sci. Comput. , 94(3):31, 2023. Id/No 54

    2023

  5. [12]

    R. Abgrall. A combination of Residual Distribution and the Active Flux formulations or a new class of schemes that can combine several writings of the same hyperbolic problem: application to the 1D Euler equation. Commun. Appl. Math. Comput. , 5:370–402, 2023

    2023

  6. [13]

    Abgrall and W

    R. Abgrall and W. Barsukow. Extensions of Active Flux to arbitrary order of accuracy. ESAIM: Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Analysis , 57:991–1027, 2023

    2023

  7. [14]

    A generalized active flux method of arbitrarily high order in two dimensions, 2025

    Wasilij Barsukow, Praveen Chandrashekar, Christian Klingenberg, and Lisa Lechner. A generalized active flux method of arbitrarily high order in two dimensions, 2025. arXiv 2502.05101

    2025

  8. [15]

    Stationarity preservation properties of the active flux scheme on Cartesian grids

    Wasilij Barsukow. Stationarity preservation properties of the active flux scheme on Cartesian grids. Commun. Appl. Math. Comput. , 5(2):638–652, 2023. 14

    2023

  9. [17]

    Active flux for triangular meshes for compressible flows problems

    R´ emi Abgrall, Jianfang Lin, and Yongle Liu. Active flux for triangular meshes for compressible flows problems. Beijing Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics , in press, 2025. arXiv 2312.11271

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Clain, S

    S. Clain, S. Diot, and R. Loub` ere. A high-order finite volume method for systems of conservation laws—Multi-dimensional Optimal Order Detection (MOOD). J. Comput. Phys. , 230(10):4028–4050, 2011

    2011

  11. [19]

    Geometric quasilinearization framework for analysis and design of bound-preserving schemes

    Kailiang Wu and Chi-Wang Shu. Geometric quasilinearization framework for analysis and design of bound-preserving schemes. SIAM Review, 65(4):1031–1073, 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Bound preserving point-average-moment polynomial-interpreted (PAMPA) scheme: one-dimensional case, 2024

    R´ emi Abgrall, Miaosen Jiao, Yongle Liu, and Kailiang Wu. Bound preserving point-average-moment polynomial-interpreted (PAMPA) scheme: one-dimensional case, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    D. Kuzmin. Monolithic convex limiting for continuous finite element discretizations of hyperbolic con- servation laws. Comput. Method. Appl. M. , 361:112804, 2020

    2020

  14. [22]

    Zhang, Y

    X. Zhang, Y. Xia, and C.-W. Shu. Maximum-principle-satisfying and positivity-preservinghigh order discontinuous galerkin schemes for conservation laws on triangular meshes. J. Sci. Comput. , 50:29–62, 2012

    2012

  15. [23]

    Guermond, B

    J.-L. Guermond, B. B. Popov, and I. Tomas. Invariant domain preserving discretization independent schemes and convex limiting for hyperbolic systems. Comput. Method. Appl. M. , 347:143–175, 2019

    2019

  16. [24]

    J. Duan, W. Barsukow, and C. Klingenberg. Active flux methods for hyperbolic conservation laws–flux vector splitting and bound-preservation: One-dimensional case, 2024. arXiv 2405.02447

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Abgrall, M

    R. Abgrall, M. Jiao, Y. Liu, and K. Wu. Bound preserving Point-Average-Moment PolynomiAl- interpreted (PAMPA) scheme: one-dimensional case, 2024. arXiv:2410.14292

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Beir˜ ao da Veiga, Franco Brezzi, L

    L. Beir˜ ao da Veiga, Franco Brezzi, L. D. Marini, and A. Russo. The Hitchhiker’s guide to the virtual element method. Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci. , 24(8):1541–1573, 2014

    2014

  19. [27]

    Fast estimation from above of the maximum wave speed in the Riemann problem for the Euler equations

    Jean-Luc Guermond and Bojan Popov. Fast estimation from above of the maximum wave speed in the Riemann problem for the Euler equations. J. Comput. Phys. , 321:908–926, 2016

    2016

  20. [28]

    Wissocq, Y

    G. Wissocq, Y. Liu, and R. Abgrall. A positive- and bound-preserving vectorial lattice boltzmann method in two dimensions. SIAM J. Sci. Computing , 2025. accepted. 15

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.