Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 46 references

A quasi-Monte Carlo multiscale method for the wave propagation in random media

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a boundary-corrected multiscale coarse-space discretization combined with quasi-Monte Carlo sampling solves the random Helmholtz equation with a total error bound $C(H^2 + \beta^\ell + N^{-\alpha} +…

desk verdict Promising LOD+qMC combination for random Helmholtz, but the central error estimate has a sign error that invalidates Theorem 6.1 as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.16647 v1 pith:3JYEXF7Z submitted 2025-07-22 math.NA cs.NA

Panchi Li , Zhiwen Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NAcs.NA MSC 65N3065N1265N1565C05
keywords uncertaintyquantificationHelmholtzequationrandomrefractiveindexquasi-MonteCarlomethodmultiscalelocalizedorthogonaldecompositionsuperconvergenceRobinboundarycondition
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 numerical method for the Helmholtz equation in a bounded domain whose refractive index is random, modeled as an infinite series of stochastic variables. The authors claim that their boundary-corrected multiscale discretization, when combined with quasi-Monte Carlo (qMC) sampling, achieves $O(H^4)$ accuracy in the $L^2$ norm, $O(H^2)$ in a wavenumber-weighted norm, and almost first-order convergence in the random variables, while removing the 'pollution' effect that normally ties mesh size to wavenumber. The central result is a wavenumber-explicit total error bound (Theorem 6.1) that combines spatial discretization, localization, dimension truncation, and qMC quadrature errors. If accurate, the method offers a practical route to uncertainty quantification for wave propagation in random media with far fewer sampling points than plain Monte Carlo.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is a localized multiscale basis built by solving patch-wise optimal problems: for each coarse node $x_j$, the complex-valued basis $\phi_j$ minimizes the modified energy $\hat{a}(\omega; \phi, \phi) = \int_D |\nabla \phi|^2 - \kappa^2 n |\phi|^2 + \kappa \int_{\partial D} \sqrt{n}(\Re \phi \Re v - \Im \phi \Im v)\, ds$ subject to a quasi-interpolation constraint, which builds the Robin boundary condition into the basis. Around this basis the paper layers a weighted quasi-interpolation operator, a duality argument for the $L^2$ superconvergence, and a dimension-truncation plus randomly shifted lattice rule estimate that converts parametric regularity into an almost first-order qMC rate.

What would settle it

Set $D=[0,1]^2$, $n=1$, $\kappa=1$, choose complex polynomials $v,w$, and check numerically whether the stated adjoint Robin condition $\nabla w \cdot \nu = i\kappa\sqrt{n}\, w$ makes $a(v,w)$ equal to $(v,\rho)$; if the boundary terms do not cancel, the duality identity behind the claimed $O(H^4)$ $L^2$ superconvergence fails in the exact setting where the paper predicts it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the fully discrete solution obtained by truncating the random refractive index to $s$ terms, discretizing with a localized boundary-corrected multiscale space on a coarse mesh of size $H$, and sampling with a randomly shifted lattice qMC rule of $N$ points satisfies the total error bound $\sqrt{\mathbb{E}[|I(G(u))-Q_{s,N}(G(u^s_{H,\ell}))|^2]} \le C(H^2 + \beta^\ell + N^{-\alpha} + (1+\kappa)s^{1-2/p})$ with $\alpha = \min(1/p - 1/2, 1-\delta)$. From this bound the authors derive $O(H^4)$ $L^2$ superconvergence, $O(H^2)$ convergence in the wavenumber-weighted $V$-norm, near-first-order convergence in the stochastic variables, and the elimination of the pollution effect, all with constants independent of $\kappa$, $s$, $N$ and $H$.

Load-bearing premise

Two premises carry the argument: the wavenumber-explicit stability proof needs $\epsilon_0 = (d-2)/(2 C_0 \mu \kappa^2)$ to be positive, which fails in dimensions $d=1$ and $d=2$, and the duality identity $a(v,w) = (v,\rho)$ used for the $O(H^4)$ $L^2$ estimate has boundary terms that do not cancel for complex-valued $v$ under the stated Robin adjoint condition.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Under the claimed bound, the $L^2$ error decays as $H^4$ even on coarse meshes, so accurate wave statistics can be computed with far fewer degrees of freedom than standard finite elements.
  • The pollution effect is eliminated: the mesh-size condition is only $H\kappa \lesssim 1$ rather than resolving every wavelength.
  • qMC sampling gives almost first-order convergence in the stochastic dimension, so the number of required realizations grows far more slowly than with plain Monte Carlo.
  • The dimension truncation error decays as $s^{1-2/p}$ for $p\in(0,1)$, making the method practical for problems with slowly decaying random-series expansions.
  • The boundary corrector is essential for the random Robin condition; without it the relative error in the heterogeneous test grows by roughly a factor of fifty.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Our inference: because $\epsilon_0 = (d-2)/(2 C_0 \mu \kappa^2)$ is nonpositive in $d=1,2$, the wavenumber-explicit stability proof as written covers only $d=3$; the $d=1,2$ superconvergence claims should be read as numerically demonstrated but not yet proven by this argument.
  • Our inference: if the duality identity behind the $O(H^4)$ $L^2$ estimate fails for complex-valued test functions, that particular estimate would need an alternative proof, while the $V$-norm and qMC rates might still stand on the remaining arguments.
  • Our inference: the same boundary-corrected multiscale construction could be applied to impedance or scattering problems with stochastic boundary data, and the predicted superconvergence rate would be a testable extension beyond random volume coefficients.
  • Our inference: the total error bound implies a computational tradeoff between the oversampling size $\ell$ (which shrinks $\beta^\ell$ but enlarges the constant) and the qMC sample size $N$; choosing $\ell$ adaptively per wavenumber could lower the overall cost.
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. This paper proposes a quasi-Monte Carlo (qMC) multiscale method for the Helmholtz equation in a bounded domain with a random refractive index parameterized by an infinite series. The method combines dimension truncation, a localized orthogonal decomposition (LOD)-type multiscale discretization with a boundary corrector for the complex Robin condition, and qMC sampling. The main result, Theorem 6.1, asserts a combined error bound of order H^2 (with an L^2 superconvergence O(H^4)) in the physical space plus beta^ell localization error plus N^{-alpha} qMC error plus a dimension truncation term s^{1-2/p}. Numerical experiments in 1D and 2D are presented for the deterministic and random cases.

Significance. The proposed algorithm is a natural and potentially useful combination of known techniques; if the advertised rates were proven, the method would offer pollution-free, high-order UQ for random Helmholtz problems. The paper explicitly provides wavenumber-dependent constants and supports the theory with several numerical examples, including a heterogeneous test showing the boundary corrector's benefit. However, the central spatial-error analysis is not valid as written, so the main theorem is currently unsupported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.3, Proposition 2.1] The proof chooses epsilon_0 = (d-2)/(2 C_0 mu kappa^2), which vanishes for d=2 and is negative for d=1, even though the paper states d=1,2,3 throughout. Cauchy's inequality requires epsilon_0 > 0, so the stability estimates (2.9)-(2.10) are not established for the dimensions used in the numerical experiments (1D and 2D).
  2. [Section 3.2, Lemma 3.2, Eq. (3.5)] From the definition (2.5), Im a(e_H,e_H) = -kappa int_{partial D} sqrt(n) |e_H|^2 ds, which is negative for n>0. Hence the claimed inequality kappa sqrt(n_1) ||e_H||^2_{L^2(partial D)} <= Im a(e_H,e_H) is false. In addition, the equality Im a(e_H,e_H) = Im f(e_H) is not justified: Galerkin orthogonality only gives a(e_H,v_H)=0 for v_H in Psi_H, and the sesquilinear form is not symmetric, so a(e_H,e_H) is not equal to f(e_H). Consequently the boundary estimate, the subsequent bound (3.6), and the resulting O(H^4) L^2-error and H^2/V-error claims in Lemma 3.2 are not proven.
  3. [Lemma 3.2, Nitsche duality, Eq. (3.7)] The adjoint problem stated with grad w . nu = i kappa sqrt(n) w does not satisfy the duality identity a(v,w) = (v,rho). Integrating by parts for a(v,w) with the stated boundary condition on w yields an extra boundary contribution, so the identity used to introduce the adjoint solution is incorrect. The Nitsche argument that produces the L^2-error estimate therefore lacks a valid starting point.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.2.1 vs 3.2.2] The global functional a_hat in (3.3) contains +kappa int_{partial D} sqrt(n) (phi_R^2 - phi_I^2) ds, while the localized functional a_hat_ell in (3.8) contains -kappa int_{partial D cap D_ell} sqrt(n) (phi_R^2 - phi_I^2) ds; the sign change is not explained.
  2. [Section 5, Eq. (5.3)] The notation int_D nabla u_s nabla v dx omits the conjugate on v; for consistency with (2.5) it should be nabla u_s . nabla bar(v).
  3. [Section 3.2.2, Lemma 3.3] The localization error estimate is stated without proof; given the nonstandard Robin boundary condition and complex-valued basis, a short justification or a precise reference to the version in [41,45] would be useful.
  4. [Section 7.1, Example 7.4] The sentence 'Here the optimal convergence rates are O(H^4) for 1D and O(H^2), respectively' is ambiguous about which curve corresponds to which rate; the caption of Fig. 4 should be more explicit.
  5. [References] There are minor reference formatting issues (duplicated URLs in [1] and [3], incomplete entries); these do not affect the content.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the total-error bound is assembled from independent stability, interpolation, regularity, and CBC-lattice estimates, and the only self-citations appear in non-essential basis-weight choices and an outsourced localization proof.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, Theorem 6.1, is a combined error estimate for dimension truncation, multiscale spatial discretization, and quasi-Monte Carlo integration. Each ingredient has independent content: the wavenumber-explicit stability estimate in Proposition 2.1 is derived from the variational form and star-shaped-domain identities; the spatial error in Lemma 3.2 is derived from Galerkin orthogonality, interpolation estimates, and a Nitsche duality argument; the localization error in Lemma 3.3 is imported from prior LOD analyses [41,45]; and the qMC error in Lemma 5.2 follows from the parametric regularity estimates in Theorem 4.1 and the CBC construction from [10,19]. None of these estimates is obtained by fitting a parameter to the quantity being predicted, and no equation in the paper reduces by definition to its own input. The self-citations [33,34] are used only to choose the interpolation weights alpha_j in the multiscale basis constraint, which is not a load-bearing part of the error analysis. The self-citation [45] underlies Lemma 3.3, but it is a prior convergence proof for a closely related LOD setting, not a restatement of the present theorem. The paper also imports qMC weight choices from Ganesh-Kuo-Sloan [19], which is external to the authors. A sign inconsistency in the boundary estimate (3.5) relative to the sesquilinear form (2.5) appears to invalidate the proof of Lemma 3.2 as written, but this is a correctness defect, not a circularity: it does not make the claimed error bound an input to itself. Overall, the derivation chain is not circular, and the minor self-citations do not force the central conclusion.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central error bound rests on the stability estimate Proposition 2.1 and the Nitsche duality step in Lemma 3.2; both have unresolved gaps. The free parameters are proof constants and experiment choices, not fitted physical constants. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Cauchy parameters epsilon_0, epsilon_1, epsilon_3 in Proposition 2.1 = epsilon_0=(d-2)/(2C0*mu*kappa^2), epsilon_1=M*n2/(C1*mu), epsilon_3=n2/(C3*sqrt(n1)*mu*kappa*(2M^2/beta_1+beta_2/2))
    Introduced by hand to close the stability estimate; epsilon_0 is invalid for d=2 and d=1, and the constants C0+C1+C3 are required to be small.
  • Oversampling size ell = ell=-3*floor(log(H)) in the random experiments
    Controls the localization error beta^ell; chosen ad hoc in the numerical tests, and the constant C in the main theorem depends on ell.
  • Randomness strength delta = delta=0.5
    Sets the amplitude of the random perturbation in the 1D random experiments; a model input, not fitted, but it shapes the tests.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Star-shaped domain with 0<n1<=n(x,omega)<=n2 and n+grad n dot alpha >= mu >0 (Definition 2.1, equation (2.8))
    Needed for the Rellich-type stability estimate; assumed for every omega and not derived from the model.
  • domain assumption Resolution condition H*kappa <= 1 (Assumption 3.1)
    Standard LOD condition; restricts the coarse mesh size relative to the wavenumber.
  • domain assumption Summability of the refractive index expansion: sum ||psi_j||_inf < inf, monotone ordering, and sum ||psi_j||_p < inf for some p in (0,1) (Assumption 5.1)
    Controls dimension truncation and qMC convergence; standard for KL-type expansions but not proven for the examples.
  • standard math H2 regularity of the adjoint solution with a kappa-independent constant (used in Lemma 3.2)
    Invoked as 'It can be proved that w satisfies |w|_H2 <= C||rho||' without proof or wavenumber dependence; doubtful at large kappa.
  • ad hoc to paper The adjoint identity a(v,w)=(v,rho) for the stated Robin boundary condition (equation (3.7))
    The paper's Nitsche duality argument assumes this identity, but boundary terms do not cancel for complex v; this is a load-bearing unsupported step.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A quasi-Monte Carlo multiscale method for the wave propagation in random media." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3JYEXF7Z

@misc{pith2026250716647,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A quasi-Monte Carlo multiscale method for the wave propagation in random media},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3JYEXF7Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.16647}
}
abstract

In this paper, we propose and analyze an accurate numerical approach to simulate the Helmholtz problem in a bounded region with a random refractive index, where the random refractive index is denoted using an infinite series parameterized by stochastic variables. To calculate the statistics of the solution numerically, we first truncate the parameterized model and adopt the quasi-Monte Carlo (qMC) method to generate stochastic variables. We develop a boundary-corrected multiscale method to discretize the truncated problem, which allows us to accurately resolve the Robin boundary condition with randomness. The proposed method exhibits superconvergence rates in the physical space (theoretical analysis suggests $\mathcal{O}(H^4)$ for $L^2$-error and $\mathcal{O}(H^2)$ for a defined $V$-error). Owing to the employment of the qMC method, it also exhibits almost the first-order convergence rate in the random space. We provide the wavenumber explicit convergence analysis and conduct numerical experiments to validate key features of the proposed method.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.16647 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The convergence rates of the FEM and multiscale method for the 1D Helmholtz equation with different configurations of n(x) and f(x). As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The convergence rates of the multiscale method for the 2D Helmholtz equation with different n(x, y). Example 7.3 (Localized multiscale method). We choose this example from [16], and intend to demon￾strate the effectiveness of the boundary corrector provided in this paper. Consider the heterogeneous Helmholtz equation − ∇ · (A∇u) − κ 2u = f, in D, ∇u · ν − iκu = 0, on ∂D, where A is piece-wise constant with respect t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The comparison of the computations without and with the boundary cor￾rection. Here the distribution of the absolute error |u − uH,ℓ| is depicted. convergence rates of the localized method with different oversampling sizes ℓ are depicted as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The convergence rates of the relative V -error with different oversampling sizes. Here the optimal convergence rates are O(H4 ) for 1D and O(H2 ), respectively. 7.2. Random problems. In this part, we test the convergence rate of the qMC method and the truncation error.…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The numerical convergence rates with respect to the qMC sample size N and the truncation dimension s. Note that the FEM solution are also depicted for comparison, and in Fig. 5b, the corresponding results are labeled squares and circles. 8. Conclusions In this paper, w…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    I. M. Babu s ka and S. A. Sauter , Is the pollution effect of the FEM avoidable for the Helmholtz equation considering high wave numbers? , SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 34 (1997), pp. 2392--2423, https://doi.org/10.1137/S0036142994269186

    doi:10.1137/s0036142994269186 1997

  2. [2]

    E. Burman , Some observations on the interaction between linear and nonlinear stabilization for continuous finite element methods applied to hyperbolic conservation laws , SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 45 (2023), pp. A96--A122, https://doi.org/10.1137/21M1464154

    doi:10.1137/21m1464154 2023

  3. [3]

    Carstensen and R

    C. Carstensen and R. Verf\" u rth , Edge residuals dominate a posteriori error estimates for low order finite element methods , SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 36 (1999), pp. 1571--1587, https://doi.org/10.1137/S003614299732334X, https://doi.org/10.1137/S003614299732334X, https://arxiv.org/abs/https://doi.org/10.1137/S003614299732334X

    work page doi:10.1137/s003614299732334x 1999

  4. [4]

    Chaumont-Frelet and F

    T. Chaumont-Frelet and F. Valentin , A multiscale hybrid-mixed method for the Helmholtz equation in heterogeneous domains , SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 58 (2020), pp. 1029--1067, https://doi.org/10.1137/19M1255616

    work page doi:10.1137/19m1255616 2020

  5. [5]

    Y. Chen, T. Y. Hou, and Y. Wang , Exponentially convergent multiscale methods for 2D high frequency heterogeneous Helmholtz equations , Multiscale Modeling & Simulation, 21 (2023), pp. 849--883, https://doi.org/10.1137/22M1507802

    doi:10.1137/22m1507802 2023

  6. [6]

    D. L. Colton, R. Kress, and R. Kress , Inverse acoustic and electromagnetic scattering theory , vol. 93, Springer, 1998

    work page 1998

  7. [7]

    Cummings and X

    P. Cummings and X. Feng , Sharp regularity coefficient estimates for complex-valued acoustic and elastic Helmholtz equations , Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences, 16 (2006), pp. 139--160

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    P. A. Cummings , Analysis of finite element based numerical methods for acoustic waves, elastic waves, and fluid-solid interactions in the frequency domain , Ph.D. thesis, The University of Tennessee, 2001

    work page 2001

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Deraemaeker, I

    A. Deraemaeker, I. Babuška, and P. Bouillard , Dispersion and pollution of the FEM solution for the Helmholtz equation in one, two and three dimensions , International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 46 (1999), pp. 471--499

    1999

  2. [10]

    J. Dick, F. Y. Kuo, and I. H. Sloan , High-dimensional integration: The quasi-Monte Carlo way , Acta Numerica, 22 (2013), p. 133–288, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0962492913000044

    2013 doi

  3. [11]

    Ern and J.-L

    A. Ern and J.-L. Guermond , Finite Elements I: Approximation and Interpolation , Springer , Feb. 2021, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56341-7, https://hal.science/hal-03226049

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    X. Feng, J. Lin, and C. Lorton , An efficient numerical method for acoustic wave scattering in random media , SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification, 3 (2015), pp. 790--822

    2015

  5. [13]

    Feng and C

    X. Feng and C. Lorton , An efficient Monte Carlo interior penalty discontinuous Galerkin method for elastic wave scattering in random media , Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 315 (2017), pp. 141--168

    2017

  6. [14]

    Feng and H

    X. Feng and H. Wu , Discontinuous Galerkin methods for the Helmholtz equation with large wave number , SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 47 (2009), pp. 2872--2896, https://doi.org/10.1137/080737538

    2009 doi

  7. [15]

    Feng and H

    X. Feng and H. Wu , hp-discontinuous Galerkin methods for the Helmholtz equation with large wave number , Mathematics of Computation, 80 (2011), pp. 1997--2024, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23075263 (accessed 2025-05-12)

    2011

  8. [16]

    Freese, M

    P. Freese, M. Hauck, and D. Peterseim , Super-localized orthogonal decomposition for high-frequency Helmholtz problems , SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 46 (2024), pp. A2377--A2397, https://doi.org/10.1137/21M1465950

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    S. Fu, S. Gong, G. Li, and Y. Wang , On edge multiscale space based hybrid schwarz preconditioner for Helmholtz problems with large wavenumbers , 2024, https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.08198, https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.08198

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    S. Fu, G. Li, R. Craster, and S. Guenneau , Wavelet-based edge multiscale finite element method for Helmholtz problems in perforated domains , Multiscale Modeling & Simulation, 19 (2021), pp. 1684--1709, https://doi.org/10.1137/19M1267180

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    Ganesh, F

    M. Ganesh, F. Y. Kuo, and I. H. Sloan , Quasi-Monte Carlo finite element analysis for wave propagation in heterogeneous random media , SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification, 9 (2021), pp. 106--134

    2021

  12. [20]

    A. D. Gilbert, I. G. Graham, F. Y. Kuo, R. Scheichl, and I. H. Sloan , Analysis of quasi-Monte Carlo methods for elliptic eigenvalue problems with stochastic coefficients , Numerische Mathematik, 142 (2019), pp. 863--915

    2019

  13. [21]

    I. G. Graham, F. Y. Kuo, J. A. Nichols, R. Scheichl, C. Schwab, and I. H. Sloan , Quasi-Monte Carlo finite element methods for elliptic PDEs with lognormal random coefficients , Numerische Mathematik, 131 (2015), pp. 329--368

    2015

  14. [22]

    I. G. Graham, F. Y. Kuo, D. Nuyens, I. H. Sloan, and E. A. Spence , Quasi-Monte Carlo methods for uncertainty quantification of wave propagation and scattering problems modelled by the Helmholtz equation , arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.12451, (2025)

    2025

  15. [23]

    I. G. Graham, O. R. Pembery, and E. A. Spence , The Helmholtz equation in heterogeneous media: A priori bounds, well-posedness, and resonances , Journal of Differential Equations, 266 (2019), pp. 2869--2923

    2019

  16. [24]

    Hauck and D

    M. Hauck and D. Peterseim , Multi-resolution localized orthogonal decomposition for Helmholtz problems , Multiscale Modeling & Simulation, 20 (2022), pp. 657--684, https://doi.org/10.1137/21M1414607

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    Hauck and D

    M. Hauck and D. Peterseim , Super-localization of elliptic multiscale problems , Mathematics of Computation, 92 (2023), pp. 981--1003

    2023

  18. [26]

    Henning and A

    P. Henning and A. M a lqvist , Localized orthogonal decomposition techniques for boundary value problems , SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 36 (2014), pp. A1609--A1634, https://doi.org/10.1137/130933198

    2014 doi

  19. [27]

    Hiptmair, A

    R. Hiptmair, A. Moiola, and I. Perugia , Plane wave discontinuous Galerkin methods for the 2d Helmholtz equation: Analysis of the p-version , SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 49 (2011), pp. 264--284, https://doi.org/10.1137/090761057

    2011 doi

  20. [28]

    Hoffman , The electromagnetic field in a randomly inhomogeneous medium , IRE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, 7 (1959), pp

    W. Hoffman , The electromagnetic field in a randomly inhomogeneous medium , IRE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, 7 (1959), pp. 301--306, https://doi.org/10.1109/TAP.1959.1144755

    1959

  21. [29]

    T. Y. Hou and P. Zhang , Sparse operator compression of higher-order elliptic operators with rough coefficients , Research in the Mathematical Sciences, 4 (2017), p. 24, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40687-017-0113-1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40687-017-0113-1

    2017 doi

  22. [30]

    Ihlenburg and I

    F. Ihlenburg and I. Babu s ka , Finite element solution of the Helmholtz equation with high wave number Part I: The h-version of the FEM , Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 30 (1995), pp. 9--37, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0898-1221(95)00144-N

    1995 doi

  23. [31]

    F. Y. Kuo and D. Nuyens , Application of quasi-Monte Carlo methods to elliptic PDEs with random diffusion coefficients: a survey of analysis and implementation , Foundations of Computational Mathematics, 16 (2016), pp. 1631--1696

    2016

  24. [32]

    F. Y. Kuo, C. Schwab, and I. H. Sloan , Quasi-Monte Carlo finite element methods for a class of elliptic partial differential equations with random coefficients , SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 50 (2012), pp. 3351--3374, https://doi.org/10.1137/110845537

    2012 doi

  25. [33]

    Li and Z

    P. Li and Z. Zhang , Efficient finite element methods for semiclassical nonlinear schr\"odinger equations with random potentials , arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.07569, (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Li and Z

    P. Li and Z. Zhang , A model reduction method for solving the eigenvalue problem of semiclassical random Schr\"odinger operators , arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.07574, (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  27. [35]

    C. Ma, C. Alber, and R. Scheichl , Wavenumber explicit convergence of a multiscale generalized finite element method for heterogeneous Helmholtz problems , SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 61 (2023), pp. 1546--1584, https://doi.org/10.1137/21M1466748

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    Ma and Z

    D. Ma and Z. Zhang , A quasi Monte Carlo -based model reduction method for solving Helmholtz equation in random media , Communications on Analysis and Computation, 1 (2023), pp. 297--320, https://doi.org/10.3934/cac.2023015

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    McDaniel and A

    A. McDaniel and A. Mahalov , Coupling of paraxial and white-noise approximations of the Helmholtz equation in randomly layered media , Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 409 (2020), p. 132491, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physd.2020.132491

    2020

  30. [38]

    J. M. Melenk and S. A. Sauter , Convergence analysis for finite element discretizations of the Helmholtz equation with Dirichelt-to-Neumann boundary conditions , Mathematics of Computation, 79 (2010), pp. 1871--1914, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20779130 (accessed 2025-05-12)

    2010

  31. [39]

    J. M. Melenk and S. A. Sauter , Wavenumber explicit convergence analysis for Galerkin discretizations of the Helmholtz equation , SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 49 (2011), pp. 1210--1243, https://doi.org/10.1137/090776202

    2011 doi

  32. [40]

    Ohlberger and B

    M. Ohlberger and B. Verfurth , A new heterogeneous multiscale method for the Helmholtz equation with high contrast , Multiscale Modeling & Simulation, 16 (2018), pp. 385--411, https://doi.org/10.1137/16M1108820

    2018 doi

  33. [41]

    Peterseim , Eliminating the pollution effect in Helmholtz problems by local subscale correction , Mathematics of Computation, 86 (2017), pp

    D. Peterseim , Eliminating the pollution effect in Helmholtz problems by local subscale correction , Mathematics of Computation, 86 (2017), pp. pp. 1005--1036, https://www.jstor.org/stable/90002120 (accessed 2025-05-03)

    2017

  34. [42]

    Pulch and O

    R. Pulch and O. S \`e te , The Helmholtz equation with uncertainties in the wavenumber , Journal of Scientific Computing, 98 (2024), p. 60, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10915-024-02450-3

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    Tezaur and C

    R. Tezaur and C. Farhat , Three-dimensional discontinuous Galerkin elements with plane waves and Lagrange multipliers for the solution of mid-frequency Helmholtz problems , International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 66 (2006), pp. 796--815, https://doi.org/htt...

    2006 doi

  36. [44]

    Z. Wang, X. Shen, C. Jiang, and B. Ni , An electromagnetic stochastic finite element method for Helmholtz -type wave propagation analysis , IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, 62 (2020), pp. 1136--1150, https://doi.org/10.1109/TEMC.2019.2927688

    2020

  37. [45]

    Wu and Z

    Z. Wu and Z. Zhang , Convergence analysis of the localized orthogonal decomposition method for the semiclassical Schr \"o dinger equations with multiscale potentials , Journal of Scientific Computing, 93 (2022), p. 73, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10915-022-02038-9

    2022 doi

  38. [46]

    Zhou and H

    Y. Zhou and H. Wu , Dispersion analysis of CIP-FEM for the Helmholtz equation , SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 61 (2023), pp. 1278--1292, https://doi.org/10.1137/21M143827X

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.