Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Fully discrete finite element methods for the stochastic Kuramoto-Sivashinsky equation with multiplicative noise

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that a fully discrete finite element scheme for the stochastic Kuramoto–Sivashinsky equation converges with rate k^(1/2)+h^(r-2) under bounded multiplicative noise.

desk verdict First FE error analysis for stochastic KS with multiplicative noise — plausible and worth refereeing, but a martingale coefficient mismatch, an m=1 gap in Lemma 2.3, and missing discrete solvability all need fixing. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.03670 v3 pith:RTHRL6UY submitted 2025-10-04 math.NA cs.NAmath.PR

Hung D. Nguyen , Liet Vo This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NAcs.NAmath.PR MSC 65N1265N1565N30
keywords stochasticKuramoto–SivashinskyequationfiniteelementmethodEuler–MaruyamamultiplicativenoisestrongconvergenceratesGronwallinequalityinprobabilitySPDEnumerics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper establishes convergence of a practical numerical scheme for the stochastic Kuramoto–Sivashinsky equation, a one-dimensional model of pattern formation and spatio-temporal chaos driven by Itô multiplicative noise. The scheme combines continuous finite element spaces of piecewise polynomials with implicit Euler–Maruyama time stepping. For bounded multiplicative noise, the paper proves optimal strong convergence rates in full expectation: the error is bounded by a constant times k^(1/2)+h^(r-2) in L^q moments up to q<99/100, provided the noise amplitude is sufficiently small. For general Lipschitz multiplicative noise, where boundedness fails, the paper proves a localized error bound with an extra h^(-β/2) factor, yielding convergence in probability. This provides the first rigorous finite element error analysis for this stochastic PDE, making numerical simulations of the noisy KS equation amenable to quantitative trust.

What carries the argument

The central object is the fully discrete finite element scheme (3.4), an implicit Euler–Maruyama update in a space of periodic splines of degree r-1 with r≥4. The error analysis splits the error into the L^2 projection error θ and the discrete error ε; cancellation of the nonlinear term at the discrete level (the pairing (ε ∂x ε, ε) vanishes) is what allows the estimates to close. A second key tool is an auxiliary translated periodic test function φ_b, borrowed from deterministic KS theory, which renders the non-sign-definite operator ν∂xxxx+∂xx effectively coercive and yields an exponential stability (exponential moment) estimate for the exact solution. A discrete stochastic Gronwall inequa

What would settle it

Compute the implicit equation (3.4) for a single time step with a large Wiener increment and a non-smooth initial datum and check whether it has zero, one, or multiple solutions in V_h; alternatively, simulate the scheme with B(u)=sin(u), measure max_n ||u(t_n)-u_h^n||_{L^2} for shrinking k and h, and see whether the error stays bounded by a constant times k^(1/2)+h^(r-2).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the fully discrete scheme (3.4) is convergent in strong norms. The scheme seeks u_h^{n+1} in the finite element space V_h of degree r-1 periodic splines satisfying (u_h^{n+1}-u_h^n, φ)+νk(∂xx u_h^{n+1},∂xx φ)-k(∂x u_h^{n+1},∂x φ)+k(u_h^{n+1}∂x u_h^{n+1},φ)=(B(u_h^n)ΔW_n,φ) for all test functions φ. Under bounded multiplicative noise, Theorem 3.3 gives (E[max_n ||u(t_n)-u_h^n||^{2q}])^{1/(2q)} + (E[(νk∑||∂xx(u(t_n)-u_h^n)||^2)^q])^{1/(2q)} ≤ C(k^{1/2}+h^{r-2}) for 0<q<99/100, with constants independent of mesh size and time step, under a smallness condition on L0 and exponential moment condition on the initial datum. Theorem 3.6 treats unbounded multiplicativ

Load-bearing premise

The entire error analysis presumes that at every time step the nonlinear algebraic equation defining the next discrete solution has a unique solution in the finite element space; the paper never proves this existence and uniqueness, so if that equation can fail for some noise realizations, the main convergence theorems would have no discrete solution to apply to.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With bounded multiplicative noise, the scheme converges strongly in full L^q expectation at rate k^(1/2)+h^(r-2), so higher-degree finite elements improve the spatial accuracy as r increases.
  • With general Lipschitz multiplicative noise, the same numerical scheme still converges, but only in probability and with a rate degraded by the extra factor h^(-β/2).
  • The combination of exponential stability, stochastic Gronwall inequality, and bootstrapping is presented as a template for error analysis of other nonlinear SPDEs with non-Lipschitz drift and multiplicative noise.
  • Under the stated assumptions, numerical simulations of the stochastic KS equation are justified at the level of full moments, not merely pathwise or in probability.
  • The analysis is restricted to one spatial dimension, and the paper explicitly notes that higher-dimensional global well-posedness for arbitrary ν is not yet resolved, so the numerical theory inherits that limitation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper never proves that the nonlinear algebraic equation defining u_h^{n+1} has a unique solution in V_h for each realization of the Wiener increments; a practical implementation would need to address this solvability, for example by a fixed-point iteration or damping, before the error bounds describe an actually computable sequence.
  • The same exponential-stability-plus-Gronwall strategy could plausibly transfer to other fourth-order SPDEs with non-sign-definite linear parts, such as certain stochastic thin-film or Cahn–Hilliard type models, where the same coercivity obstruction appears.
  • The localization rate h^(-β/2) suggests that for unbounded noise the spatial mesh resolution becomes the bottleneck; one testable extension is whether a sub-exponential moment assumption on B(u) instead of full boundedness could remove this factor.
  • The smallness condition on the bounded noise amplitude L0 could be probed numerically: increasing L0 past the stated threshold should destroy the exponential moment estimate and hence the full-expectation strong rate, even if pathwise convergence persists.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes a fully discrete finite element scheme for the stochastic Kuramoto-Sivashinsky (SKS) equation with multiplicative Itô noise. The spatial discretization uses smooth periodic splines of degree r−1 with r≥4, and the time discretization is implicit Euler–Maruyama. Under bounded multiplicative noise, Theorem 3.3 claims optimal strong convergence rates in L^{2q}_ω for q<99/100, with rate k^{1/2}+h^{r−2} in L∞_t L²_x and L²_t H²_x; Theorem 3.4 extends this to higher moments by a bootstrap argument; Theorem 3.5 states the H² error bound. For general multiplicative noise, Theorem 3.6 gives localized convergence in probability with an extra h^{-β/2} factor. The analysis relies on a discrete stochastic Gronwall inequality, exponential stability of the exact solution, higher-moment regularity, and a localization argument on subsets of the sample space.

Significance. If the results are correct, this would be the first comprehensive finite element error analysis for the SKS equation with multiplicative noise, filling a real gap in the numerical SPDE literature. The paper is largely self-contained: the auxiliary PDE regularity lemmas are proved in the text or appendix, and the main external tool (discrete stochastic Gronwall, [21]) is a published theorem. The proposed scheme is natural, and the two-regime treatment (bounded vs. general noise) is appropriate. However, several load-bearing steps in the proofs are not correct as written, so the advertised rates are not fully established by the manuscript in its current form.

major comments (4)
  1. [Lemma 2.3, Eq. (2.20)] The induction proof of the higher-regularity estimate (2.15)–(2.17) breaks down at m=1. The term ∂^{m−2}_x[u∂_x u] in (2.20) is ∂^{-1}_x[u∂_x u] when m=1, which is not defined in the H^m framework used. The subsequent expansion over i=0,...,m−2 is empty, so the nonlinear contribution is effectively dropped. Since the m=1 case is the base for the induction to m≥2, the H^r regularity bounds on the exact solution used in Theorem 3.3 and Theorem 3.4 are not established as written. A separate treatment of m=1 is needed, or a corrected derivative identity must be supplied.
  2. [Theorem 3.3, Eqs. (3.25)–(3.28)] The process M_ℓ defined in (3.25) is not a martingale with the definition actually stated. Z_n is defined with the term −2k∥B(u(t_n))−B(u_h^n)∥², but in the verification the authors compute E[Z_n] using −4k∥B(u(t_n))−B(u_h^n)∥². With the stated coefficient, E[Z_n]=2kE[∥B(u(t_n))−B(u_h^n)∥²], which is not zero in general. Consequently Lemma A.1 cannot be applied at (3.26), and the central strong-error estimate is unsupported. If the coefficient 2k in Z_n is a typo, it must be corrected consistently to 4k and the added/subtracted terms in the estimate of Z_8 must be rechecked. As written, this is a load-bearing error in the main theorem.
  3. [Section 3.1, scheme (3.4)] The fully discrete scheme is an implicit nonlinear algebraic equation for u_h^{n+1} for each n, but the paper never proves that this equation has a solution, nor that the solution is unique or can be chosen measurably. The stability and error estimates are all statements about the sequence {u_h^n}, and if the algebraic system is not well-posed for some realizations of the Wiener increments, the discrete solution used in the error analysis is not defined. This premise is introduced silently at (3.4) and is never revisited. A standard Brouwer fixed-point argument combined with the coercivity estimate that follows from testing (3.4) with u_h^{n+1} would address existence; uniqueness or a measurable selection also needs discussion.
  4. [Lemma 2.3, proof of base case] In the base case m=0, the proof invokes assumption (2.1) to estimate the Itô correction term (Eq. after (2.18)), but Lemma 2.3 is stated only under (2.2). The boundedness assumption is not part of the lemma. The estimate can likely be repaired using the linear-growth consequence (2.3) of the Lipschitz condition, but as written the proof relies on an assumption that is not in force.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Theorem 3.5] The statement is incomplete: 'Let u_0 ∈.' is missing the required regularity condition on the initial data.
  2. [Section 3.3, end of first paragraph] The sentence 'It should be noted that the probability convergence of {u_h^n} is weaker than the results in Section 3.3' appears to refer to Section 3.2, not 3.3.
  3. [Eq. (2.14)–(2.16)] The notation L^{2m-i}q and L^{2m+1-i}q is ambiguous; parentheses around (2m−i)q would make the intended integrability exponents clearer. Also the m=0 cases read as L^0, which seems unintended.
  4. [Lemma 2.4 / Lemma 2.5] The proof of Lemma 2.4 is very terse: it says the result follows from Lemmas 2.5 and A.4 by Minkowski's inequality, but the higher-moment condition on u_0 in Lemma 2.4 is not clearly matched with the hypotheses of Lemmas 2.5 and A.4. Please spell out the exponent bookkeeping.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the finite element error estimates are derived from a published stochastic Gronwall lemma and independently proved PDE regularity estimates, not from the target rates themselves.

full rationale

The paper's central claims (Theorems 3.3–3.6) are convergence rates for a fully discrete FEM scheme. The derivation chain is: error recursion (3.24) → summed inequality (3.25) → stochastic Gronwall Lemma A.1 from [21] → control of the exponential factor via Lemma 2.2 → control of the remaining terms via Lemmas 2.3–2.4 and 3.1–3.2. Lemma A.1 is an external published result; Lemmas 2.2–2.5 are proved in the text or in Appendix A, using auxiliary inequalities such as Lemma A.2 from [18]. No step uses the desired convergence rate as an input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The self-citations ([18], [15], [33], [16]) are methodological or auxiliary; the main error estimates are re-derived in this paper rather than imported as conclusions. The known weaknesses—the unproved existence/uniqueness of the nonlinear algebraic scheme (3.4) and the apparent coefficient inconsistency in the martingale verification (Z_n defined with 2k but E[Z_n] computed with 4k)—are correctness gaps in the proof as written, not circular reductions. A defective proof is not the same as a derivation that is equivalent to its own input by construction. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

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

The paper's central claims rest on a handful of external and self-cited results. Most are standard tools (Gronwall, Sobolev embedding, FEM approximation), but the exponential stability construction (Lemma 2.2) depends on an unproved inequality from the authors' own prior work, and the well-posedness of the discrete scheme is assumed without proof. No free parameters are fitted to data.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Global well-posedness and uniqueness of strong solutions to the SKS equation (1.1) with multiplicative noise, adapted from Wu-Cui-Duan [34, Theorem 1.1] for all ν>0.
    Theorem 2.1 states existence/uniqueness but the proof is only referenced; the paper adapts an external result without reproducing the argument, and this underlies the entire analysis.
  • domain assumption Auxiliary function inequality of Collet-Eckmann-Epstein-Stubbe type, Lemma A.2 (from [18, Lemma A.3]), providing a positive-definite lower bound for the KS operator after a spatial shift.
    Lemma A.2 is stated and attributed to the authors' own prior work [18] without proof; it is load-bearing for the exponential stability Lemma 2.2 and for navigating the sign-indefiniteness of ν∂^4_x+∂^2_x.
  • standard math Discrete stochastic Gronwall inequality (Lemma A.1, from Kruse-Scheutzow [21, Theorem 1]).
    The main error estimates in Theorems 3.3 and 3.4 rely on this external theorem; it is stated in the appendix but not proved, and its applicability is verified in the proofs.
  • standard math Sobolev embedding H^1(D) ⊂ L^∞(D) in one dimension, with constant C_e as in (2.4).
    Used throughout Section 3 to bound L^∞ norms of the solution and its derivatives via H^1 and H^2 norms.
  • domain assumption Smallness restrictions and moment conditions: L_0 < √ν/(240 C_e√q) and E[exp(8κ∥u_0∥^2)] < ∞ for the bounded-noise results.
    These are restrictions on the noise amplitude and initial data that are not derived from the problem; they are assumed in Theorem 3.3 and 3.4 and are essential for the exponential-moment bound.
  • domain assumption The finite element spaces V_h of smooth periodic splines satisfy the approximation property (3.3).
    Standard finite element approximation result, used to bound the projection errors θ^n throughout the error analysis.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fully discrete finite element methods for the stochastic Kuramoto-Sivashinsky equation with multiplicative noise." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RTHRL6UY

@misc{pith2026251003670,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fully discrete finite element methods for the stochastic Kuramoto-Sivashinsky equation with multiplicative noise},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RTHRL6UY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.03670}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate a fully discrete finite element approximation for the stochastic Kuramoto-Sivashinsky equation, combining the standard finite element methods in spatial discretization with the implicit Euler-Maruyama scheme in time. Rigorous error estimates are established for two distinct noise regimes. In the case of bounded multiplicative noise, we prove optimal strong convergence rates in full expectation. The analysis relies crucially on a stochastic Gronwall inequality and an exponential stability estimate for the PDE solution, which together control the interplay between the nonlinear drift and the multiplicative stochastic forcing. For general multiplicative noise, where boundedness no longer holds, we derive sub-optimal convergence rates in probability by introducing a localization technique based on carefully constructed subsets of the sample space. This dual framework demonstrates that the proposed fully discrete scheme achieves strong convergence under bounded noise and probabilistic convergence under general multiplicative noise, thus providing the first comprehensive error analysis for numerical approximations of the stochastic Kuramoto-Sivashinsky equation.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. A splitting mixed finite element method for a stochastic Keller-Segel system with multiplicative noise

    math.NA 2026-08 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

    A splitting mixed finite element method for the multiplicative-noise Keller-Segel system is derived and analyzed, with localized O(ln(1/k)(k+h^2)) error estimates and convergence in probability.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [18]

    Gao and H

    P. Gao and H. D. Nguyen. Exponential mixing for the stochastic Kuramoto-Sivashinsky equation on the 1D torus.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.01794, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  2. [21]

    Kruse and M

    R. Kruse and M. Scheutzow. A discrete stochastic Gronwall lemma.Math. and Comp. in Sim., 143:149– 157, 2018

    2018

  3. [1]

    R. Adams. Well-posedness of a generalized Kuramoto-Sivashinsky equation.Nonlinear Sci., page 100046, 2025

    2025

  4. [2]

    G. Akrivis. Finite element discretization of the Kuramoto-Sivashinsky equation.Banach Center Publ., 29(1):155–163, 1994

    1994

  5. [3]

    Akrivis and Y.-s

    G. Akrivis and Y.-s. Smyrlis. Implicit–explicit BDF methods for the Kuramoto–Sivashinsky equation. Applied Numer. Math., 51(2-3):151–169, 2004

    2004

  6. [4]

    Anders, M

    D. Anders, M. Dittmann, and K. Weinberg. A higher-order finite element approach to the Kuramoto- Sivashinsky equation, 2012

    2012

  7. [5]

    G. S. Ashinsky. Nonlinear analysis of hydrodynamic instability in laminar flames—I. derivation of basic equations. InDynamics of Curved Fronts, pages 459–488. Elsevier, 1988

    1988

  8. [6]

    Bessaih and A

    H. Bessaih and A. Millet. Space-time Euler discretization schemes for the stochastic 2D Navier–Stokes equations.Stoch. Partial Differ. Equ.: Anal. Comput., 10(4):1515–1558, 2022

    2022

Show all 35 references
  1. [7]

    Breit and A

    D. Breit and A. Dodgson. Convergence rates for the numerical approximation of the 2D stochastic Navier– Stokes equations.Numer. Math., 147(3):553–578, 2021

    2021

  2. [8]

    Carelli and A

    E. Carelli and A. Prohl. Rates of convergence for discretizations of the stochastic incompressible Navier– Stokes equations.SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 50(5):2467–2496, 2012

    2012

  3. [9]

    B. I. Cohen, J. Krommes, W. Tang, and M. Rosenbluth. Non-linear saturation of the dissipative trapped- ion mode by mode coupling.Nucl. Fusion, 16(6):971, 1976

    1976

  4. [10]

    Collet, J.-P

    P. Collet, J.-P. Eckmann, H. Epstein, and J. Stubbe. A global attracting set for the Kuramoto-Sivashinsky equation.Commun. Math. Phys., 152(1):203–214, 1993

    1993

  5. [11]

    L. J. T. Doss and A. Nandini. A fourth-order H1-galerkin mixed finite element method for Kuramoto– Sivashinsky equation.Numer. Meth. Part Differ. Equ., 35(2):445–477, 2019

    2019

  6. [12]

    J. T. Drotar, Y.-P. Zhao, T.-M. Lu, and G.-C. Wang. Numerical analysis of the noisy Kuramoto-Sivashinsky equation in 2+ 1 dimensions.Phys. Rev. E, 59(1):177, 1999

    1999

  7. [13]

    Duan and V

    J. Duan and V. J. Ervin. On the stochastic Kuramoto–Sivashinsky equation.Nonlinear Anal., Theory Methods Appl., 44(2):205–216, 2001

    2001

  8. [14]

    X. Feng, A. Prohl, and L. Vo. Optimally convergent mixed finite element methods for the stochastic Stokes equations.IMA J. Numer. Anal., 41(3):2280–2310, 2021

    2021

  9. [15]

    Feng and L

    X. Feng and L. Vo. High moment and pathwise error estimates for fully discrete mixed finite element approximations of stochastic Navier-Stokes equations with additive noise.Commun. Comput.l Phys., 36(3):821–849, 2024

    2024

  10. [16]

    Feng and L

    X. Feng and L. Vo. Full moment error estimates in strong norms for numerical approximations of stochastic Navier-Stokes equations with multiplicative noise, Part I: time discretization.Submitted, 2025

    2025

  11. [17]

    Ferrario

    B. Ferrario. Invariant measures for a stochastic Kuramoto–Sivashinsky equation.Stoch. Anal. Appl., 26(2):379–407, 2008. STOCHASTIC KURAMOTO-SIV ASKINSKY EQUATION43

    2008

  12. [19]

    S. Haq, N. Bibi, S. I. A. Tirmizi, and M. Usman. Meshless method of lines for the numerical solution of generalized Kuramoto-Sivashinsky equation.Appl. Math. Comput., 217(6):2404–2413, 2010

    2010

  13. [20]

    Khater and R

    A. Khater and R. Temsah. Numerical solutions of the generalized Kuramoto–Sivashinsky equation by Chebyshev spectral collocation methods.Comput. Math. Appl., 56(6):1465–1472, 2008

    2008

  14. [22]

    Kuramoto

    Y. Kuramoto. Diffusion-induced chaos in reaction systems.Prog. Theor. Phys Supp., 64:346–367, 1978

    1978

  15. [23]

    R. E. LaQuey, S. Mahajan, P. Rutherford, and W. Tang. Nonlinear saturation of the trapped-ion mode. Phys. Rev. Lett., 34(7):391, 1975

    1975

  16. [24]

    Larios and V

    A. Larios and V. R. Martinez. Remarks on the stabilization of large-scale growth in the 2D Kuramoto– Sivashinsky equation.J. Math. Fluid Mech., 26(4):55, 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Lopez-Marcos

    M. Lopez-Marcos. Numerical analysis of pseudospectral methods for the Kuramoto-Sivashinsky equation. IMA J. Numer. Anal., 14(2):233–242, 1994

    1994

  18. [26]

    Mackenzie and A

    T. Mackenzie and A. Roberts. Holistic finite differences accurately model the dynamics of the Kuramoto- Sivashinsky equation.The Proceedings of ANZIAM, 42:C918–C935, 2000

    2000

  19. [27]

    Manickam, K

    A. Manickam, K. Moudgalya, and A. Pani. Second-order splitting combined with orthogonal cubic spline collocation method for the Kuramoto-Sivashinsky equation.Comput. Math. Appl., 35(6):5–25, 1998

    1998

  20. [28]

    D. M. Michelson and G. I. Sivashinsky. Nonlinear analysis of hydrodynamic instability in laminar flames—II. Numerical experiments.Acta Astronaut., 4(11-12):1207–1221, 1977

    1977

  21. [29]

    Nicolaenko, B

    B. Nicolaenko, B. Scheurer, and R. Temam. Some global dynamical properties of the Kuramoto-Sivashinsky equations: nonlinear stability and attractors.Physica D, 16(2):155–183, 1985

    1985

  22. [30]

    Printems

    J. Printems. On the discretization in time of parabolic stochastic partial differential equations.ESAIM: Math. Model. Numer. Anal., 35(6):1055–1078, 2001

    2001

  23. [31]

    K. Ueno, H. Sakaguchi, and M. Okamura. Renormalization-group and numerical analysis of a noisy Kuramoto-Sivashinsky equation in 1+ 1 dimensions.Phys. Rev. E, 71(4):046138, 2005

    2005

  24. [32]

    L. Vo. Higher order time discretization method for the stochastic Stokes equations with multiplicative noise.J. Sci. Comput., 97(3):59, 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    L. Vo. High moment and pathwise error estimates for fully discrete mixed finite element approximations of the stochastic Stokes equations with multiplicative noise.ESAIM: Math. Model. Numer. Anal., 59(3):1301–1331, 2025

    2025

  26. [34]

    Wu, S.-b

    W. Wu, S.-b. Cui, and J.-q. Duan. Global well-posedness of the stochastic generalized Kuramoto- Sivashinsky equation with multiplicative noise.Acta Math. Appl. Sin., Engl. Ser., 34(3):566–584, 2018

    2018

  27. [35]

    Xu and C.-W

    Y. Xu and C.-W. Shu. Local discontinuous Galerkin methods for the Kuramoto–Sivashinsky equations and the Ito-type coupled KdV equations.Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 195(25-28):3430–3447, 2006

    2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.