Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 34 references

Convergence Analysis of Virtual Element Methods for the Sobolev Equation with Convection

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 A conforming virtual element method with a new intermediate projection achieves optimal convergence for the Sobolev equation with convection.

desk verdict Solid incremental VEM result with a genuinely missing term in the fully discrete proof; repairable, worth a real referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.03751 v1 pith:LDMAQNLZ submitted 2025-06-04 math.NA cs.NA

Ankit Kumar , Sarvesh Kumar , Sangita Yadav This is my paper
classification math.NAcs.NA MSC 65N3065N1565N12
keywords virtualelementmethodSobolevequationconvectiontermbackwardEulererrorestimatespolygonalmeshesintermediateprojectionvariablecoefficients
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 claims that a conforming virtual element method, combined with backward Euler time stepping, solves the Sobolev equation with a convection term and variable coefficients at optimal rates: order $k+1$ in the $L^2$ norm and order $k$ in the energy norm on general polygonal meshes. The obstruction to $L^2$-optimality is that the usual elliptic projection loses one power of $h$, and the paper's fix is a new intermediate projection operator tied to the full spatial operator, including convection and dispersion. If the analysis is correct, it covers a case that earlier virtual element treatments of the Sobolev equation left open, namely a general convection term with variable coefficients. The claim is supported by numerical experiments on Voronoi, distorted-square, and concave meshes for polynomial degrees $k=1,2,3$.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the intermediate projection operator $R_h: H^1_0(\Omega) \to W_h$ defined by $A_h(R_h w, v_h) = A(w, v_h)$ for all $v_h \in W_h$, where $A(w,v) = m_2(w_t,v) + a(w,v) + b(w,v)$ and $A_h$ is its discrete counterpart. This operator differs from the elliptic projection $P^\nabla$ by being aligned with the full spatial operator, including the convection term $b(\cdot,\cdot)$, and that alignment is what restores the extra power of $h$ in the $L^2$ estimate. Theorem 4.2 establishes $\|R_h u - u\| \le C h^{k+1}(\cdot)$ and $|R_h u - u|_1 \le C h^k(\cdot)$, and these bounds feed directly into the semi-discrete and fully discrete error decompositions. The whole optimality argument therefore rests on this projection and on the dual regularity estimate (4.12) that closes the $L^2$ duality proof.

What would settle it

One concrete test: on a convex polygonal domain, take coefficients $\mu,\epsilon$ satisfying A1-A3 but discontinuous (so they are in $L^\infty$ but not smoother), choose a smooth right-hand side $\rho_h$, solve the adjoint problem (4.11) numerically, and check whether the ratio $\|\psi\|_{H^1(H^2)}/\|\rho_h\|_{L^2(L^2)}$ stays bounded; a growing ratio falsifies (4.12) and breaks the $L^2$-optimality proof. A second, easier check is to run the fully discrete scheme on such a problem and see whether the measured $L^2$ order drops below $k+1$ on the finest meshes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central assertion is Theorem 5.1: for the fully discrete backward Euler virtual element scheme (5.1), the error satisfies $\|U^n - u^n\| + h|U^n - u^n|_1 \le C h^{k+1}(\|f\|_{L^\infty(H^{k+1})} + \|u\|_{L^2(H^{k+1})} + \|u_t\|_{L^2(H^{k+1})} + |u_0|_{k+1}) + C\tau\|u_{tt}\|_{L^1(L^2)}$. In the semi-discrete case (Theorem 4.3) the same optimal spatial order is obtained without an exponential-in-time estimate. The paper's route to this result is the new intermediate projection $R_h$, whose approximation properties in Theorem 4.2 make the duality argument return the full $h^{k+1}$. The time error is first order in $\tau$, consistent with backward Euler, and the constants are independent of mesh size. Numerical experiments with $k=1,2,3$ on three mesh families show the predicted orders.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the asserted regularity estimate (4.12) — on a convex domain the backward adjoint problem has a solution $\psi$ with $\|\psi\|_{H^1(H^2)} \le C\|\rho_h\|_{L^2(L^2)}$ — which is stated without proof and requires more than the $L^\infty$ coefficient assumptions A1-A3 if it is to hold in general.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The method inherits VEM's ability to handle polygonal, non-convex, and hanging-node meshes without constructing local shape functions; the concave-mesh experiments are the direct evidence.
  • Adding a convection term to the Sobolev equation does not lower the convergence order, because the skew-symmetric part of convection ($b(w,w)=0$) is absorbed by the same intermediate projection.
  • For the fully discrete scheme, users can balance the two error sources as $\tau \sim h^{k+1}$ to keep the spatial error dominant and still measure the optimal $L^2$ and energy rates.
  • The semi-discrete error bound does not need an exponential-in-time estimate, so the constants stay controlled on long time intervals; the fully discrete bound still relies on the discrete summation inequality.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves the regularity estimate (4.12) as an assertion; the natural next check is whether $H^1(H^2)$ regularity for the adjoint holds when $\mu,\epsilon$ are only $L^\infty$ (as allowed by assumptions A1-A3), since elliptic regularity for such problems usually needs smoother coefficients or extra assumptions on the domain.
  • A testable extension, consistent with the paper's stated future work, is the nonconforming VEM version: the same intermediate-projection idea would need to be rebuilt for the nonconforming discrete space, and its $L^2$ behaviour is not determined by the present analysis.
  • If the rates hold as stated, the method should extend to convection terms with mild time dependence, because the analysis only uses the boundedness of $\beta$ and the skew-symmetry of $b(\cdot,\cdot)$.
  • The numerical validation uses smooth manufactured solutions; a sharper test of the theory would run a solution with limited spatial regularity and watch whether the $L^2$ order drops exactly when the $H^{k+1}$ assumptions in Theorems 4.3 and 5.1 are violated.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a conforming virtual element method (VEM) for a linear Sobolev equation with a convection term and variable coefficients. A backward Euler scheme is used for time discretization, and a new intermediate projection operator R_h is introduced, defined through the combined bilinear form A(w,v)=m2(w_t,v)+a(w,v)+b(w,v). The authors derive semi-discrete error estimates claiming optimal O(h^{k+1}) convergence in L2 and O(h^k) in the energy norm, and a fully discrete estimate of the same spatial order plus first-order time accuracy. The numerical experiments on Voronoi, distorted-square, and concave meshes for k=1,2,3 support the claimed spatial rates, and an adaptive refinement example is included.

Significance. Optimal-order VEM for Sobolev equations with convection is a natural and useful extension of existing VEM analyses for Sobolev equations without convection. The intermediate projection is a well-chosen device for the coupled structure of the problem, and the semi-discrete analysis is largely coherent and avoids Gronwall's lemma. The numerical study is broad and provides credible evidence that the claimed spatial rates are achievable. However, the fully discrete proof contains two load-bearing gaps, and the L2 duality argument rests on an unproved regularity assertion, so the central convergence claims are not yet established as written.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5, Eq. (5.3)] The derivation of the theta^j error equation drops a temporal consistency term involving m2_h. Starting from (5.1), (2.3), and (4.5), the right-hand side contains, in addition to the displayed (f_h^j - f^j, v_h) + m1(u_t^j, v_h) - m1_h((R_h u^j - R_h u^{j-1})/tau, v_h), the term m2_h((R_h u)_t(t_j) - (R_h u^j - R_h u^{j-1})/tau, v_h). Since m2_h is an H^1-type bilinear form, testing with v_h = theta^j requires a temporal consistency estimate in H^1, typically involving ||u_tt||_{L1(H^1)} or a corresponding bound on (R_h u)_tt in H^1. Theorem 5.1 assumes only u_tt in L1(L2), so the claimed O(tau) contribution to the energy component of (5.2) is not established by the given proof.
  2. [Section 5, Eqs. (5.6)-(5.7)] The discrete Gronwall step is not justified as written. After multiplying (5.6) by tau, the left-hand side contains tau a_h(theta^j, theta^j), but this term is dropped and the subsequent Young inequality is applied without the tau factor. Consequently (5.7) has the form y_n <= A + C sum_{j=1}^{n-1} y_j with no tau in the sum, and it also includes |theta^j|_1^2 in the sum although only ||theta^j||^2 was produced by the Young step. Discrete Gronwall applied to this recurrence would give growth of order (1+C)^{n-1}, not a tau-independent bound. The argument may be repairable by retaining tau a_h and using tau-weighted Young, but as written the fully discrete theorem is not proven.
  3. [Section 4, Eq. (4.12)] The dual regularity estimate is asserted without proof. Under Assumptions A1-A3 the coefficients mu, epsilon, beta, and gamma are only L^infty (with div beta in L^infty). H^2 regularity for the variable-coefficient adjoint problem (4.11) on a convex polygon generally requires smoother coefficients, for example W^{1,infty}, and the presence of the mixed time-space term requires appropriate compatibility conditions as well. Since (4.12) is the only mechanism that converts the H^1 consistency bound into the L2-optimal bound (4.7), this is load-bearing. Please provide a proof or a precise reference under the stated assumptions, or strengthen Assumptions A1-A3 accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5, first paragraph of proof of Theorem 5.1] The notation U^j - u^j = (U^j - R_h u^j) + (R_h u^j - u^j) = theta^j - rho^j is inconsistent with the sign convention used in Theorem 4.3, where rho = R_h u - u; with that convention one should have theta^j + rho^j.
  2. [Theorems 4.2 and 4.3] The hypotheses assume only u, u_t in L2(H^{k+1}), but the estimates (4.6), (4.7), and (4.24) contain pointwise-in-time seminorms such as |u(t)|_{k+1}. Functions in L2(H^{k+1}) are not necessarily in L^infty(H^{k+1}); please add u in L^infty(H^{k+1}) or reformulate the estimates using integral norms.
  3. [Table 6.3, first data row] The entry '50420e-2' appears to be a typo; it should likely read '5.0420e-2'.
  4. [Section 6, Examples 1 and 2] All three examples use exact solutions that are linear in t, so u_tt = 0 and the experiments do not exercise the O(tau) temporal rate claimed in Theorem 5.1; a time-refinement test with a genuine u_tt would strengthen the validation.
  5. [Section 6, adaptive refinement example] The adaptive refinement experiment (Figures 6.8-6.10) does not specify the error estimator or marking strategy used to drive the refinement; please provide these details so the experiment is reproducible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the error analysis is a standard a priori projection-and-error-equation derivation, and the numerical rates are validated against manufactured solutions rather than fitted.

full rationale

The claimed convergence rates are obtained by a standard a priori chain: the intermediate projection R_h is defined abstractly by A_h(R_h w, v_h) = A(w, v_h) in (4.5), its approximation properties are proved using VEM consistency and coercivity plus an elliptic-regularity duality argument, and then the error θ = u_h - R_h u is bounded through bilinear-form estimates. The fully discrete argument follows the same pattern with a backward-Euler error equation and standard Gronwall and temporal-consistency bounds. No parameter is fitted to the data whose rate is then reported, and the numerical experiments compare approximate solutions with the given exact solutions in Tables 6.1-6.6, so the rates are confirmed rather than determined by construction. The only self-citation, reference [32] by Yadav, Suthar, and Kumar, is contextual (a prior VEM application to parabolic integro-differential equations) and is not load-bearing for any theorem here; the external references [11], [25], [28], [33], and [34] provide the standard VEM machinery. Consequently, the derivation does not reduce to its inputs. Two caveats belong to correctness risk rather than circularity: when the intermediate-projection definition is substituted in Section 5, equation (5.3) appears to drop an m2_h temporal-consistency term, and the dual regularity bound (4.12) is asserted without proof under only L∞ coefficients; either could affect the details of Theorem 4.2 or Theorem 5.1, but neither is a definition-forced or self-citation-forced step.

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

The ledger shows the central claim rests mainly on standard VEM machinery and one unproven regularity assertion (dual regularity at (4.12)). No free parameters are fitted to data, and no new physical or mathematical entities are introduced.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Polygonal mesh regularity: every K is star-shaped w.r.t. a disk of radius delta h_K and every edge length >= delta h_K, with delta uniform.
    Invoked in Section 3.1 to construct the VEM space and to guarantee interpolation and stability estimates such as (4.1) and (3.2). This excludes badly degenerate meshes and is needed for the h-optimal rates.
  • ad hoc to paper Dual problem regularity: for Omega convex, the adjoint Sobolev problem (4.11) satisfies ||psi||_{H^1(H^2)} <= C||rho_h||_{L2(L2)}.
    Stated at (4.12) and used to close the L2 estimate in Theorem 4.2. It is not derived and requires more coefficient smoothness than A1 gives; this is the weakest link in the L2 analysis.
  • standard math Approximation properties of the P^nabla projection from Lemma 3.1, cited from [25].
    Used throughout: ||P^nabla u - u|| + h|P^nabla u - u|_1 <= C h^{k+1}|u|_{k+1}. The paper relies on the cited proof in [25] rather than re-deriving it.
  • standard math Existence and positivity for the auxiliary ODE defining R_h in (4.5).
    R_h is defined via a linear time-dependent equation in W_h; m_{2,h} is coercive on W_h by (3.5), so ODE theory gives existence and uniqueness. The paper does not state this explicitly.
  • domain assumption Regularity of the exact solution: u, u_t, u_tt in L2(H^{k+1}(Omega)), f in L2 or L^infty(H^{k+1}), and sigma >= 0 as in A3.
    These are the smoothness hypotheses stated in Theorems 4.2, 4.3, and 5.1. They are stronger than the minimal energy regularity but standard in FEM and VEM a priori analysis.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Convergence Analysis of Virtual Element Methods for the Sobolev Equation with Convection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LDMAQNLZ

@misc{pith2026250603751,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Convergence Analysis of Virtual Element Methods for the Sobolev Equation with Convection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LDMAQNLZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.03751}
}
read the original abstract

We explore the potential applications of virtual elements for solving the Sobolev equation with a convective term. A conforming virtual element method is employed for spatial discretization, while an implicit Euler scheme is used to approximate the time derivative. To establish the optimal rate of convergence, a novel intermediate projection operator is introduced. We discuss and analyze both the semi-discrete and fully discrete schemes, deriving optimal error estimates for both the energy norm and L2-norm. Several numerical experiments are conducted to validate the theoretical findings and assess the computational efficiency of the proposed numerical methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.03751 by the authors.

Figure 3.1
Figure 3.1. Degrees of freedom for a polygonal element [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6.1
Figure 6.1. Polygonal meshes Example 1: We consider the problem (2.1a)-(2.1c) in Ω × I, have an analytical solution as follows: u(x, y, t) = tsin(πx) sin(πy), with coefficients µ =  x + y + 1 0 0 x + y + 1 , ϵ =  x 2 + y 0 0 x 2 + y  , β =  x y  and γ = x + y. k h E0,h EOC E1,h EOC 1 3.184e-1 2.269e-2 - 5.051e-1 - 2.304e-1 1.068e-2 2.3294 3.519e-1 1.1171 1.164e-1 2.574e-3 2.0829 1.756e-1 1.0179 8.273e-2 1.249e-3 2.1199 1.… view at source ↗
Figure 6.2
Figure 6.2. Error plots for Example 1 on Voronoi meshes for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 6.3
Figure 6.3. Figure 6.3: Error plots for Example 1 on distorted square meshes for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6_3.png]
Figure 6.4
Figure 6.4. Figure 6.4: Error plots for Example 1 on concave meshes for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6_4.png]
Figure 6.5
Figure 6.5. Figure 6.5: Error plots for Example 2 on Voronoi meshes for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6_5.png]
Figure 6.6
Figure 6.6. Figure 6.6: Error plots for Example 2 on distorted square meshes for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6_6.png]
Figure 6.7
Figure 6.7. Figure 6.7: Error plots for Example 2 on concave meshes for k = 1, 2 and 3. findings for uniformly refined mesh are shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6_7.png]
Figure 6.8
Figure 6.8. Figure 6.8: The left image shows the domain discretized by adaptively refined mesh and right image is the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6_8.png]
Figure 6.9
Figure 6.9. Figure 6.9: The left image shows the domain discretized by uniformly refined mesh, and the right image is the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_6_9.png]
Figure 6.10
Figure 6.10. Figure 6.10: Comparison of errors with uniform and adaptive mesh refinement. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_6_10.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [25]

    Pradhan and B

    G. Pradhan and B. Deka , Optimal convergence analysis of the virtual element methods for second-order Sobolev equations with variable coefficients on polygonal meshes, Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computing, 70 (2024), pp. 2313–2341

    work page 2024

  2. [31]

    Y. Xu, Z. Zhou, and J. Zhao , Conforming virtual element methods for Sobolev equations , Journal of Scientific Computing, 93 (2022), p. 32

    work page 2022

  3. [1]

    Ahmad, A

    B. Ahmad, A. Alsaedi, F. Brezzi, L. D. Marini, and A. Russo , Equivalent projectors for virtual element methods , Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 66 (2013), pp. 376–391

    work page 2013

  4. [2]

    Anaya, M

    V. Anaya, M. Bendahmane, D. Mora, and M. Sep ´ulveda, A virtual element method for a nonlocal Fitzhugh–Nagumo model of cardiac electrophysiology, IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis, 40 (2020), pp. 1544–1576

    work page 2020

  5. [3]

    P. F. Antonietti, L. B. Da Veiga, D. Mora, and M. Verani , A stream virtual element formulation of the Stokes problem on polygonal meshes , SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 52 (2014), pp. 386–404

    work page 2014

  6. [4]

    P. F. Antonietti, G. V acca, and M. Verani, Virtual element method for the Navier–Stokes equation coupled with the heat equation, IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis, 43 (2023), pp. 3396–3429

    work page 2023

  7. [5]

    Arrutselvi and E

    M. Arrutselvi and E. Natarajan , Virtual element method for nonlinear time-dependent convection-diffusion-reaction equation, Computational Mathematics and Modeling, 32 (2021), pp. 376–386

    work page 2021

  8. [6]

    G. I. Barenblatt, I. P. Zheltov, and I. Kochina, Basic concepts in the theory of seepage of homogeneous liquids in fissured rocks [strata], Journal of applied mathematics and mechanics, 24 (1960), pp. 1286–1303

    work page 1960

Show all 34 references
  1. [7]

    Beir˜ao da Veiga, F

    L. Beir˜ao da Veiga, F. Brezzi, A. Cangiani, G. Manzini, L. D. Marini, and A. Russo, Basic principles of virtual element methods, Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences, 23 (2013), pp. 199–214

    2013

  2. [8]

    Beir ˜ao da Veiga, F

    L. Beir ˜ao da Veiga, F. Brezzi, L. D. Marini, and A. Russo , Virtual element method for general second-order elliptic problems on polygonal meshes , Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences, 26 (2016), pp. 729–750

    2016

  3. [9]

    M. F. Benedetto, S. Berrone, A. Borio, S. Pieraccini, and S. Scialo , Order preserving SUPG stabilization for the virtual element formulation of advection–diffusion problems , Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 311 (2016), pp. 18–40. 22 A. KUMAR, S. KUMAR, ...

    2016

  4. [10]

    S. C. Brenner, Q. Guan, and L.-Y. Sung, Some estimates for virtual element methods , Computational Methods in Applied Mathematics, 17 (2017), pp. 553–574

    2017

  5. [11]

    Cangiani, G

    A. Cangiani, G. Manzini, and O. J. Sutton, Conforming and nonconforming virtual element methods for elliptic problems , IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis, 37 (2017), pp. 1317–1354

    2017

  6. [12]

    C. Chen, K. Li, Y. Chen, and Y. Huang , Two-grid finite element methods combined with Crank-Nicolson scheme for nonlinear Sobolev equations, Advances in Computational Mathematics, 45 (2019), pp. 611–630

    2019

  7. [13]

    L. B. Da Veiga, F. Brezzi, and L. D. Marini , Virtual elements for linear elasticity problems , SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 51 (2013), pp. 794–812

    2013

  8. [14]

    L. B. da Veiga, F. Dassi, C. Lovadina, and G. V acca, SUPG-stabilized virtual elements for diffusion-convection problems: a robustness analysis , ESAIM: Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Analysis, 55 (2021), pp. 2233–2258

    2021

  9. [15]

    Dongyang, Y

    S. Dongyang, Y. Fengna, and W. Junjun , Unconditional superconvergence analysis of a new mixed finite element method for nonlinear Sobolev equation , Applied Mathematics and Computation, 274 (2016), pp. 182–194

    2016

  10. [16]

    R. E. Ewing, Time-stepping Galerkin methods for nonlinear Sobolev partial differential equations , SIAM Journal on Numer- ical Analysis, 15 (1978), pp. 1125–1150

    1978

  11. [17]

    F. Gao, J. Cui, and G. Zhao , Weak Galerkin finite element methods for Sobolev equation , Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 317 (2017), pp. 188–202

    2017

  12. [18]

    F. Gao, J. Qiu, and Q. Zhang , Local discontinuous Galerkin finite element method and error estimates for one class of Sobolev equation, Journal of Scientific Computing, 41 (2009), pp. 436–460

    2009

  13. [19]

    Gao and H

    F. Gao and H. Rui , A split least-squares characteristic mixed finite element method for Sobolev equations with convection term, Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 80 (2009), pp. 341–351

    2009

  14. [20]

    Kumar and B

    N. Kumar and B. Deka, A stabilizer free weak Galerkin finite element method for second-order Sobolev equation , Numerical Methods for Partial Differential Equations, 39 (2023), pp. 2115–2140

    2023

  15. [21]

    Kumar, D

    S. Kumar, D. Mora, R. Ruiz-Baier, and N. Verma , Numerical solution of the Biot/elasticity interface problem using virtual element methods , Journal of Scientific Computing, 98 (2024), p. 53

    2024

  16. [22]

    M. G. Larson and F. Bengzon , The finite element method: theory, implementation, and applications , vol. 10, Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    2013

  17. [23]

    N. Li, P. Lin, and F. Gao , An expanded mixed finite element method for two-dimensional Sobolev equations , Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 348 (2019), pp. 342–355

    2019

  18. [24]

    Mendina and R

    M. Mendina and R. Terra , Sensitivity of simulated convection to soil moisture in a region in central amazon , Atm´ osfera, 25 (2012), pp. 269–293

    2012

  19. [26]

    Showalter, The Sobolev equation, ii , Applicable Analysis, 5 (1975), pp

    R. Showalter, The Sobolev equation, ii , Applicable Analysis, 5 (1975), pp. 81–99

    1975

  20. [27]

    T. W. Ting , A cooling process according to two-temperature theory of heat conduction , Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 45 (1974), pp. 23–31

    1974

  21. [28]

    V acca and L

    G. V acca and L. Beir˜ao da Veiga, Virtual element methods for parabolic problems on polygonal meshes, Numerical Methods for Partial Differential Equations, 31 (2015), pp. 2110–2134

    2015

  22. [29]

    W ang, R

    G. W ang, R. Fu, Y. Zhuang, P. A. Dirmeyer, J. A. Santanello, G. W ang, K. Yang, and K. McColl , Influence of lower-tropospheric moisture on local soil moisture–precipitation feedback over the US Southern Great Plains, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 24 (2024), pp. 3857–3868

    2024

  23. [30]

    Xie, M.-F

    C.-M. Xie, M.-F. Feng, and Y. Luo, A hybrid high-order method for the Sobolev equation , Applied Numerical Mathematics, 178 (2022), pp. 84–97

    2022

  24. [32]

    Yadav, M

    S. Yadav, M. Suthar, and S. Kumar , A conforming virtual element method for parabolic integro-differential equations , Computational Methods in Applied Mathematics, 24 (2024), pp. 1001–1019. CONVERGENCE ANALYSIS OF VEM FOR THE SOBOLEV EQUATION WITH CONVECTION 23

    2024

  25. [33]

    Zhang, J

    B. Zhang, J. Zhao, and S. Chen , Virtual element method for the Sobolev equations , Mathematical Methods in the Applied Sciences, 46 (2023), pp. 1266–1281

    2023

  26. [34]

    J. Zhao, B. Zhang, and X. Zhu , The nonconforming virtual element method for parabolic problems , Applied Numerical Mathematics, 143 (2019), pp. 97–111

    2019

Pith tools

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