pith. sign in

arxiv: 2508.20187 · v2 · submitted 2025-08-27 · 🧮 math.NA · cs.NA

Multi-Order Monte Carlo IMEX hierarchies for uncertainty quantification in multiscale hyperbolic systems

Giulia Bertaglia , Walter Boscheri , Lorenzo Pareschi This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 20:25 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.NA cs.NA
keywords Multi-Order Monte CarloUncertainty quantificationMultiscale hyperbolic systemsIMEX Runge-Kutta methodsAsymptotic-preserving schemesVariance reductionStiff relaxation
0
0 comments X

The pith

A new Multi-Order Monte Carlo method reduces both error and variance for uncertainty quantification in multiscale hyperbolic systems while preserving asymptotic consistency.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper presents a Multi-Order Monte Carlo framework for uncertainty quantification in multiscale time-dependent partial differential equations. It builds a hierarchy by varying spatial and temporal discretization orders inside the Monte Carlo sampling and employs Implicit-Explicit Runge-Kutta integrators to keep the asymptotic-preserving property at every level. This avoids the expensive hierarchical re-meshing required by traditional Multi-Level Monte Carlo methods. The approach is designed for hyperbolic systems with stiff relaxation, kinetic equations, and low Mach flows. Numerical experiments show that the method delivers substantial reductions in both bias and variance while remaining consistent in the asymptotic limit.

Core claim

The novel Multi-Order Monte Carlo approach achieves substantial reduction of both error and variance while maintaining asymptotic consistency in the asymptotic limit.

What carries the argument

The Multi-Order Monte Carlo hierarchy obtained by varying both spatial and temporal discretization orders within the Monte Carlo framework, using IMEX Runge-Kutta integrators to enforce the asymptotic-preserving property across orders.

If this is right

  • The method enables efficient uncertainty quantification for hyperbolic systems with stiff relaxation without the computational overhead of re-meshing at each level.
  • Asymptotic consistency is preserved across the different orders of accuracy in the hierarchy.
  • The framework extends naturally to kinetic equations and low Mach number flows where standard Multi-Level Monte Carlo encounters difficulties.
  • Variance reduction occurs while the scheme automatically adapts to the multiple scales present in the problem.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same order-variation idea could be tested on non-hyperbolic multiscale problems such as parabolic or dispersive systems.
  • Combining the Multi-Order hierarchy with other variance-reduction techniques like antithetic sampling might yield further efficiency gains.
  • The approach may prove especially useful in high-dimensional parameter spaces where re-meshing costs become prohibitive.
  • Implementation on adaptive meshes could be examined to see whether the absence of explicit re-meshing still holds.

Load-bearing premise

Varying both spatial and temporal discretization orders inside the Monte Carlo framework combined with IMEX Runge-Kutta integrators produces an effective variance-reduction hierarchy that preserves the asymptotic-preserving property across orders without needing costly hierarchical re-meshing.

What would settle it

A concrete numerical test on a stiff hyperbolic relaxation system in which increasing the discretization orders inside the Monte Carlo hierarchy fails to reduce variance or breaks asymptotic consistency in the stiff limit would falsify the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.20187 by Giulia Bertaglia, Lorenzo Pareschi, Walter Boscheri.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic representation of the hierarchical structure for AP-MOMC and bi-fidelity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Burgers equation. Reference solution at the initial (left) and final (right) time of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Burgers equation. L 1 -norm error in the expectation (left) and in the variance (right) of the variable u with respect to the number of samples M used in the standard Monte Carlo (MC) methods and in the L-th level of the different Multi-Level MC (MLMC) and Multi￾Order MC (MOMC) methods used [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Burgers equation. L 1 -norm error in the expectation of the variable u with respect to the total computational cost for the different Monte Carlo (MC), Multi-Level MC (MLMC) and Multi-Order MC (MOMC) methods used. 1 (MLMC-RK1) schemes for each realization, employing a mesh coarsening corresponding to 100 and 50 cells on the (L − 1) and (L − 2) levels, respectively. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p01… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Shallow Water Equations. Reference solution of the water depth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Shallow Water Equations. L 1 -norm error in the expectation of the variable h with respect to the number of samples M used in the standard Monte Carlo (MC) methods and in the L-th level of the different Multi-Order MC (MOMC) methods used (left) and with respect to the total computational cost (right). reconstruction of the boundary values and Rusanov numerical fluxes and a fourth order Central Finite Diffe… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Blood flow model, Test 1. Reference solution at the final time of flow rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Blood flow model, Test 1. L 1 -norm error in the expectation of the variable p with respect to the number of samples M used in the standard Monte Carlo (MC) methods and in the L-th level of the different Multi-Order MC (MOMC) methods used (left) and with respect to the total computational cost (right). 5.3.2 Test 2: Bi-fidelity AP-MOMC In the second test case, we consider the same initial distributions of … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Blood flow model, Test 2. Reference solution at the final time of cross-sectional [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Blood flow model, Test 2. L 1 -norm error in the expectation of the variable p with respect to the number of samples M used in the standard Monte Carlo (MC) methods and in the L-th level of the different Multi-Order MC (MOMC) methods used (left) and with respect to the total computational cost (right). 6 Conclusion In this work, we introduced a novel Multi-Order Monte Carlo (MOMC) framework for uncer￾tain… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We introduce a novel Multi-Order Monte Carlo approach for uncertainty quantification in the context of multiscale time-dependent partial differential equations. The new framework leverages Implicit-Explicit Runge-Kutta time integrators to satisfy the asymptotic-preserving property across different discretization orders of accuracy. In contrast to traditional Multi-Level Monte Carlo methods, which require costly hierarchical re-meshing, our method constructs a multi-order hierarchy by varying both spatial and temporal discretization orders within the Monte Carlo framework. This enables efficient variance reduction while naturally adapting to the multiple scales inherent in the problem ensuring asymptotic consistency. The proposed method is particularly well-suited for hyperbolic systems with stiff relaxation, kinetic equations, and low Mach number flows, where standard Multi-Level Monte Carlo techniques often encounter computational challenges. Numerical experiments demonstrate that the novel Multi-Order Monte Carlo approach achieves substantial reduction of both error and variance while maintaining asymptotic consistency in the asymptotic limit.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a Multi-Order Monte Carlo (MOMC) framework for uncertainty quantification in multiscale time-dependent hyperbolic PDEs with stiff relaxation. It employs IMEX Runge-Kutta integrators to enforce the asymptotic-preserving property while constructing a hierarchy by varying both spatial and temporal discretization orders inside the Monte Carlo sampling loop. This is positioned as an alternative to traditional Multi-Level Monte Carlo, avoiding costly hierarchical re-meshing. The central claims are that the resulting estimator achieves substantial error and variance reduction while remaining asymptotically consistent with the macroscopic limit as the relaxation parameter tends to zero. Numerical experiments are asserted to confirm these properties for hyperbolic systems, kinetic equations, and low-Mach flows.

Significance. If the consistency of the combined estimator and the reported reductions hold under rigorous verification, the approach could provide a practical route to efficient UQ for stiff multiscale problems by replacing mesh-refinement hierarchies with order variation. The explicit use of IMEX schemes to carry the asymptotic-preserving property across orders is a targeted strength for the intended application class.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3] §3 (MOMC estimator construction): the telescoping differences between IMEX schemes of differing orders are asserted to preserve asymptotic consistency, yet no uniform bound or commutativity argument with the stiff limit operator is supplied. A lower-order IMEX scheme may converge to a distinct discrete equilibrium, so the correction terms need not vanish as ε → 0; this directly affects the central claim that the full hierarchy remains asymptotically consistent.
  2. [§4] §4 (Numerical experiments): the abstract states that experiments demonstrate error and variance reduction together with asymptotic consistency, but the reported results lack explicit quantitative metrics (e.g., observed orders, variance decay rates versus number of samples, or direct comparison of the MOMC estimator against the macroscopic limit for a sequence of ε values). Without these data the support for the performance claims cannot be verified.
minor comments (2)
  1. [§2–3] Clarify the precise definition of the multi-order hierarchy (e.g., which orders are paired and how the Monte Carlo estimator is assembled) with an explicit equation reference.
  2. [§2] Add a short table summarizing the IMEX Runge-Kutta schemes employed, their orders, and the corresponding asymptotic-preserving properties.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and the constructive comments. We address each major point below and indicate the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 (MOMC estimator construction): the telescoping differences between IMEX schemes of differing orders are asserted to preserve asymptotic consistency, yet no uniform bound or commutativity argument with the stiff limit operator is supplied. A lower-order IMEX scheme may converge to a distinct discrete equilibrium, so the correction terms need not vanish as ε → 0; this directly affects the central claim that the full hierarchy remains asymptotically consistent.

    Authors: We thank the referee for this observation. Each IMEX Runge-Kutta scheme employed in the hierarchy is constructed to be asymptotic-preserving, so that, for fixed spatial and temporal orders, the scheme converges to a consistent discretization of the macroscopic limit as ε → 0. Because the same limit equation is recovered independently of the order, the telescoping differences between schemes of different orders vanish in the stiff limit. We will add a clarifying paragraph in §3 that makes this reasoning explicit and cites the relevant literature on asymptotic-preserving IMEX schemes. A full uniform-in-ε bound on the estimator is not derived in the present work, whose primary focus is the algorithmic construction and numerical demonstration; such an analysis would constitute a separate theoretical contribution. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [§4] §4 (Numerical experiments): the abstract states that experiments demonstrate error and variance reduction together with asymptotic consistency, but the reported results lack explicit quantitative metrics (e.g., observed orders, variance decay rates versus number of samples, or direct comparison of the MOMC estimator against the macroscopic limit for a sequence of ε values). Without these data the support for the performance claims cannot be verified.

    Authors: We agree that additional quantitative metrics will strengthen the numerical section. In the revised manuscript we will insert new tables and figures in §4 that report: (i) observed convergence orders of the MOMC estimator, (ii) measured variance decay rates plotted against the number of samples, and (iii) direct comparisons of the MOMC solution against the macroscopic limit for a sequence of successively smaller ε values. These additions will supply the explicit verification requested by the referee. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in the derivation chain

full rationale

The paper introduces a novel Multi-Order Monte Carlo framework that varies spatial and temporal discretization orders inside an IMEX Runge-Kutta Monte Carlo hierarchy for asymptotic-preserving uncertainty quantification. All performance claims (error/variance reduction and asymptotic consistency) are presented as outcomes of numerical experiments on the explicitly constructed method rather than as mathematical derivations that reduce to fitted inputs, self-definitions, or unverified self-citations. The asymptotic-preserving property is achieved by deliberate choice of IMEX integrators across orders; this is an engineering design decision, not a tautological result. No load-bearing step equates a claimed prediction to a quantity defined by the method itself.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that IMEX Runge-Kutta schemes remain asymptotic-preserving when the spatial and temporal orders are varied inside the Monte Carlo hierarchy, together with the modeling choice that this variation yields effective variance reduction for stiff hyperbolic systems.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption IMEX Runge-Kutta integrators satisfy the asymptotic-preserving property for the chosen discretization orders in multiscale hyperbolic systems with stiff relaxation.
    Invoked to guarantee consistency across the multi-order hierarchy in the stiff limit.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5682 in / 1227 out tokens · 34704 ms · 2026-05-18T20:25:53.402940+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    N. Z. A. Barth, C. Schwab. Multi-level Monte Carlo Finite Element method for elliptic PDEs with stochastic coefficients. Numerische Mathematik, 119:123–161, 2011

    work page 2011

  2. [2]

    U. M. Ascher, S. J. Ruuth, and R. J. Spiteri. Implicit-explicit Runge-Kutta methods for time-dependent partial differential equations. Applied Numerical Mathematics , 25:151– 167, 1997. 22

    work page 1997

  3. [3]

    J. Beck, L. Tamellini, and R. Tempone. IGA-based multi-index stochastic collocation for random PDEs on arbitrary domains. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 351:330–350, 2019

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Bertaglia, V

    G. Bertaglia, V. Caleffi, L. Pareschi, and A. Valiani. Uncertainty quantification of vis- coelastic parameters in arterial hemodynamics with the a-FSI blood flow model. Journal of Computational Physics , 430:110102, 2021

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Bertaglia, V

    G. Bertaglia, V. Caleffi, and A. Valiani. Modeling blood flow in viscoelastic vessels: the 1d augmented fluid–structure interaction system. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 360:112772, 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Bertaglia and L

    G. Bertaglia and L. Pareschi. Multiscale constitutive framework of one-dimensional blood flow modeling: Asymptotic limits and numerical methods. Multiscale Modeling & Simu- lation, 21:1237–1267, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Bertaglia, L

    G. Bertaglia, L. Pareschi, and R. E. Caflisch. Gradient-based Monte Carlo methods for relaxation approximations of hyperbolic conservation laws. Journal of Scientific Com- puting, 100:60, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Blondeel, P

    P. Blondeel, P. Robbe, C. V. hoorickx, S. Fran¸ cois, G. Lombaert, and S. Vandewalle. p-Refined Multilevel Quasi-Monte Carlo for Galerkin Finite Element Methods with Ap- plications in Civil Engineering. Algorithms, 13:110, 2020

    work page 2020

  9. [9]

    Boscarino, L

    S. Boscarino, L. Pareschi, and G. Russo. A unified IMEX Runge–Kutta approach for hyperbolic systems with multiscale relaxation. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis , 55:2085–2109, 2017

    work page 2085

  10. [10]

    Boscarino, L

    S. Boscarino, L. Pareschi, and G. Russo. Implicit-Explicit Methods for Evolutionary Par- tial Differential Equations. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA, 2024

    work page 2024

  11. [11]

    Boscheri, M

    W. Boscheri, M. Tavelli, and C. E. Castro. An all Froude high order IMEX scheme for the shallow water equations on unstructured Voronoi meshes. Applied Numerical Mathematics, 185:311–335, 2023

    work page 2023

  12. [12]

    R. E. Caflisch. Monte Carlo and quasi-Monte Carlo methods. Acta Numerica, 7:1–49, 1998

    work page 1998

  13. [13]

    P. Chen, A. Quarteroni, and G. Rozza. Simulation-based uncertainty quantification of human arterial network hemodynamics. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical Engineering, 29:698–721, 2013

    work page 2013

  14. [14]

    M. J. Colebank and N. C. Chesler. Efficient uncertainty quantification in a spatially multiscale model of pulmonary arterial and venous hemodynamics. Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology, 2024

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    Dimarco, L

    G. Dimarco, L. Liu, L. Pareschi, and X. Zhu. Multi-fidelity methods for uncertainty propagation in kinetic equations. Panoramas et Synth` eses, Soci´ et´ e Math´ ematique de France, to appear, 2024. 23

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    Dimarco and L

    G. Dimarco and L. Pareschi. Numerical methods for kinetic equations. Acta Numerica, 23:369–520, 2014

    work page 2014

  17. [17]

    Dimarco and L

    G. Dimarco and L. Pareschi. Multi-scale control variate methods for uncertainty quan- tification in kinetic equations. Journal of Computational Physics , 388:63–89, 2019

    work page 2019

  18. [18]

    Dumbser and E

    M. Dumbser and E. F. Toro. A simple extension of the Osher Riemann solver to non- conservative hyperbolic systems. Journal of Scientific Computing , 48:70–88, 2011

    work page 2011

  19. [19]

    D¨ urrw¨ achter, A

    J. D¨ urrw¨ achter, A. Beck, and C.-D. Munz. Data-integrated uncertainty quantification for the performance prediction of iced airfoils. Preprint ArXiv, 2023

    work page 2023

  20. [20]

    C. M. Fleeter, G. Geraci, D. E. Schiavazzi, A. M. Kahn, and A. L. Marsden. Multilevel and multifidelity uncertainty quantification for cardiovascular hemodynamics. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering , 365:113030, 2020

    work page 2020

  21. [21]

    H. Gao, X. Zhu, and J. X. Wang. A bi-fidelity surrogate modeling approach for uncer- tainty propagation in three-dimensional hemodynamic simulations. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering , 366:113047, 2020

    work page 2020

  22. [22]

    M. B. Giles. Multilevel Monte Carlo Path Simulation. Operations Research, 56:607–617, 2008

    work page 2008

  23. [23]

    M. J. Grote, S. Michel, and F. Nobile. Uncertainty quantification by Multilevel Monte Carlo and Local Time-Stepping for wave propagation. SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncer- tainty Quantification, 10(4):1601–1628, 2022

    work page 2022

  24. [24]

    Heinrich

    S. Heinrich. Multilevel Monte Carlo Methods. In S. Margenov, J. Wa´ sniewski, and P. Yalamov, editors, Large-Scale Scientific Computing, pages 58–67. Springer, 2001

    work page 2001

  25. [25]

    Iacomini and L

    E. Iacomini and L. Pareschi. Multi-fidelity and multi-level Monte Carlo methods for kinetic models of traffic flow. Preprint ArXiv:2501.15967, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    S. Jin. Asymptotic-preserving schemes for multiscale physical problems. Acta Numerica, 31:415–489, 2021

    work page 2021

  27. [27]

    Jin and L

    S. Jin and L. Pareschi. Uncertainty Quantification for Hyperbolic and Kinetic Equations. Springer International Publishing, 2017

    work page 2017

  28. [28]

    Jin and Z

    S. Jin and Z. Xin. The relaxation schemes for systems of conservation laws in arbitrary space dimensions. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 48:235–276, 1995

    work page 1995

  29. [29]

    S. Jin, D. Xiu, and X. Zhu. Asymptotic-preserving methods for hyperbolic and transport equations with random inputs and diffusive scalings. Journal of Computational Physics , 289:35–52, 2015

    work page 2015

  30. [30]

    S. Jin, D. Xiu, and X. Zhu. A well-balanced stochastic Galerkin method for scalar hyper- bolic balance laws with random inputs.Journal of Scientific Computing, 67(3):1198–1218, 2016

    work page 2016

  31. [31]

    Lin and L

    Y. Lin and L. Liu. On a class of multi-fidelity methods for the semiclassical Schr¨ odinger equation with uncertainties. Preprint ArXiv:2406.05489, 2025. 24

    work page arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Menhorn, G

    F. Menhorn, G. Geraci, D. T. Seidl, Y. M. Marzouk, M. S. Eldred, and H.-J. Bungartz. Multilevel Monte Carlo estimators for derivative-free optimization under uncertainty. International Journal for Uncertainty Quantification , 14:21–65, 2024

    work page 2024

  33. [33]

    Mishra and C

    S. Mishra and C. Schwab. Sparse tensor multi-level monte carlo finite volume methods for hyperbolic conservation laws with random initial data. Mathematics of Computation, 81:1979–2018, 2012

    work page 1979

  34. [34]

    Mishra, C

    S. Mishra, C. Schwab, and J. ˇSukys. Multi-level Monte Carlo finite volume methods for nonlinear systems of conservation laws in multi-dimensions. Journal of Computational Physics, 231:3365–3388, 2012

    work page 2012

  35. [35]

    M. Motamed. A Multi-Fidelity Neural Network surrogate sampling method for uncer- tainty quantification. International Journal for Uncertainty Quantification , 10:601–626, 2020

    work page 2020

  36. [36]

    Motamed and D

    M. Motamed and D. Appel¨ o. A MultiOrder Discontinuous Galerkin Monte Carlo method for hyperbolic problems with stochastic parameters. SIAM Journal on Numerical Anal- ysis, 56:448–468, 2018

    work page 2018

  37. [37]

    Mouhot and L

    C. Mouhot and L. Pareschi. Fast algorithms for computing the boltzmann collision operator. Mathematics of Computation , 75:1833–1852, 2006

    work page 2006

  38. [38]

    Pareschi

    L. Pareschi. An Introduction to Uncertainty Quantification for Kinetic Equations and Related Problems, pages 141–181. Springer, 2021

    work page 2021

  39. [39]

    Pareschi and G

    L. Pareschi and G. Russo. Implicit-explicit Runge-Kutta schemes and applications to hyperbolic systems with relaxation. Journal of Scientific Computing , 25:129–155, 2005

    work page 2005

  40. [40]

    Pareschi and G

    L. Pareschi and G. Toscani. Interacting Multiagent Systems, Kinetic Equations And Monte Carlo Methods . Oxford University Press, 2013

    work page 2013

  41. [41]

    Pareschi, T

    L. Pareschi, T. Trimborn, and M. Zanella. Mean-field control variate methods for kinetic equations with uncertainties and applications to socioeconomic sciences. International Journal for Uncertainty Quantification , 12:61–84, 2022

    work page 2022

  42. [42]

    Peherstorfer, K

    B. Peherstorfer, K. Willcox, and M. Gunzburger. Optimal model management for multifi- delity monte carlo estimation. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing , 38:A3163–A3194, 2016

    work page 2016

  43. [43]

    Peherstorfer, K

    B. Peherstorfer, K. Willcox, and M. Gunzburger. Survey of multifidelity methods in uncertainty propagation, inference, and optimization. SIAM Review, 60:550–591, 2018

    work page 2018

  44. [44]

    W. Rudin. Real and complex analysis, 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill, Inc., USA, 1987

    work page 1987

  45. [45]

    Russo, P

    G. Russo, P. Santagati, and S.-B. Yun. Convergence of a Semi-Lagrangian Scheme for the BGK Model of the Boltzmann Equation. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis , 50(3):1111–1135, 2012

    work page 2012

  46. [46]

    D. Xiu. Numerical Methods for Stochastic Computations . Princeton University Press, 2010. 25

    work page 2010

  47. [47]

    ˇSukys, S

    J. ˇSukys, S. Mishra, and C. Schwab. Multi-level monte carlo finite difference and finite volume methods for stochastic linear hyperbolic systems. In J. Dick, F. Kuo, G. Pe- ters, and I. Sloan, editors, Monte Carlo and Quasi-Monte Carlo Methods 2012. Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics , volume 65, pages 649–666. Springer, 2013. 26

    work page 2012