Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 36 references

Vanishing viscosity limit for $n\times n$ hyperbolic system of conservation laws in 1-d with nonlinear viscosity: Part-I Uniform BV estimates

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Under the commutativity AB=BA, the parabolic approximation admits global solutions with total variation uniformly bounded in the viscosity parameter; in the conservative case the vanishing-viscosity limit is the unique Liu-admissible weak s

desk verdict Serious extension of Bianchini-Bressan to non-constant viscosity, but the main theorem is currently conditional on several deferred estimates and an omitted proof; send to peer review but require the missing pieces. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.15620 v2 pith:KALCPXUY submitted 2025-12-13 math.AP

Boris Haspot , Animesh Jana This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AP MSC 35L6535K55
keywords hyperbolicconservationlawsvanishingviscositylimituniformBVestimatesviscoustravellingwavescentermanifoldcommutativityAB=BAeffectivefluxesLiuadmissibility
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

This paper proves that the parabolic regularization u_t + A(u)u_x = (B(u)u_x)_x has global solutions whose total variation remains bounded for all time, uniformly in the viscosity parameter, when the initial data have small total variation and the flux matrix A commutes with the viscosity matrix B. The result extends the identity-viscosity theory to nonlinear, non-constant viscosity by decomposing the gradient along travelling-wave directions, with careful cutoffs so that the troublesome ratios |v_i,x|/|v_i| stay controlled. In the conservative case A = Df, the epsilon-family converges to a global weak solution of the limiting hyperbolic conservation law that satisfies the Liu admissibility condition and is unique. This supplies a main ingredient for proving that physically relevant solutions of strictly hyperbolic systems are selected by the vanishing-viscosity process.

What carries the argument

The central objects are the viscous travelling-wave manifolds M_i — center manifolds of the travelling-wave ODE of dimension n+2, whose dimension and the absence of non-diagonal second-derivative terms depend on the commutativity AB=BA (used to diagonalize Z² in (5.7)) — and the associated gradient basis \tilde r_i(u,\bar v_i^ε ξ_i, σ_i). The basis is engineered with cutoffs so that \tilde r_i reduces to the eigenvector r_i(u) of A whenever |v_i| is tiny, |w_i/v_i| is large, or another wave dominates, which prevents the ratios |v_{i,x}|/|v_i| from becoming singular. The workhorse identities are the coupling formula (6.51), expressing µ_i v_{i,x} − (\tilde λ_i − λ_i^*)v_i − w_i as a sum of in

What would settle it

Take a 2×2 system with A(u)=diag(λ1(u),λ2(u)) and constant B=[[1,1],[0,2]] (so AB≠BA at a state where A is not scalar). Compute the linearization Z in (5.5): Z² is not diagonalizable, so the center subspace N_i in (5.8) has dimension less than n+2 and the manifold M_i underlying the basis (6.12)–(6.13) is unavailable — this would show the theorem's method does not extend without commutativity. Alternatively, for a commuting example B(u)=diag(1+u₂, 2−u₁), expand the remainder φ₁ in (7.42) and check that every term containing v_{2,xx} cancels and appears only in the combination w_{2,xx}v₂−w₂v_{2

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 2.1: for a strictly hyperbolic matrix A with n distinct real eigenvalues and a smooth invertible viscosity matrix B with positive eigenvalues, if A and B commute and the initial data have sufficiently small total variation, the Cauchy problem u_t + A(u)u_x = (B(u)u_x)_x has a unique global solution with TV(u(t)) ≤ L1 TV(ū) and the time-continuity estimate ||u(t)−u(s)||_{L¹} ≤ L2(|t−s|+|√t−√s|). The proof rescales to viscosity coefficient 1 and decomposes u_x into a basis of viscous travelling waves, reducing the system to nearly independent scalar advection-diffusion equations for the wave strengths v_i, w_i. New effective-flux variables z_i and \hat z_i are intr

Load-bearing premise

The entire proof depends on the flux matrix A(u) and the viscosity matrix B(u) commuting (AB=BA), because this joint diagonalizability is what gives the travelling-wave center manifolds dimension n+2 and prevents non-diagonal second-derivative terms v_{j,xx} (j≠i) from appearing in the scalar equation for each wave amplitude v_i.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For every system satisfying (HA), (HB) and AB=BA, solutions of the ε-equation satisfy TV(u^ε(t)) ≤ L1 TV(ū) uniformly in ε and t, so bounded-variation compactness applies to the whole family.
  • In the conservative case A=Df, the family converges in L¹_loc to u^∞, which is a global weak solution of u_t + (f(u))_x = 0 and satisfies the Liu admissibility condition at shocks.
  • The limit u^∞ lies in the L¹ uniqueness class for hyperbolic conservation laws, so the entire family converges (not just a subsequence) and the vanishing-viscosity process selects a unique physical solution.
  • For non-conservative systems, the same uniform BV estimates are the compactness ingredient needed to define a vanishing-viscosity solution of u_t + A(u)u_x = 0, where the usual weak-solution framework is unavailable.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The abstract promises an application to the Navier–Stokes–Korteweg visco-dispersive limit, but the body never verifies that the NSK viscosity/diffusion matrices commute with the acoustic matrix; if they do not, the advertised application is not a corollary of this theorem.
  • The commutativity AB=BA is not merely a convenience: the dimension of the manifolds M_i and the absence of v_{j,xx} terms in the equation for v_i both rest on joint diagonalizability. Systems with non-commuting B are outside the theorem's scope and would need a genuinely different analysis.
  • A testable refinement would be to weaken AB=BA to simultaneous symmetrizability or to B being a polynomial in A; the proof's Section 5 suggests the center manifold would still have the required dimension under such hypotheses, but the paper does not explore this.
  • The √t rate in the time-continuity estimate (2.5) mirrors parabolic smoothing; for a concrete 2×2 commuting example one could check numerically whether the constant L2 is independent of the wave amplitudes in the way the theorem asserts.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a proof of global-in-time uniform BV bounds for the 1-D parabolic-hyperbolic system u_t + A(u)u_x = (B(u)u_x)_x, for strictly hyperbolic A and non-singular viscosity B, under the commutativity assumption AB=BA and small BV initial data. The proof follows the Bianchini–Bressan template: parabolic regularization on a short time interval, decomposition of u_x and u_t in a modified traveling-wave basis, derivation of advection-diffusion equations with remainder terms, introduction of auxiliary effective fluxes z_i and hat z_i to control the new second-order terms w_{i,xx}v_i - v_{i,xx}w_i, and a maximal-time bootstrap combining transversal interaction estimates, shortening-curve functionals, energy estimates, and higher-derivative estimates. In the conservative case A=Df, a corollary asserts L^1_loc convergence, as ε→0, to the unique Liu-admissible weak solution of the limiting conservation law.

Significance. If the proof is correct, this is a substantial extension of the Bianchini–Bressan theory to a genuinely nonlinear, non-constant viscosity matrix for the commuting class AB=BA, and it would provide a path toward the stated Navier–Stokes–Korteweg application. The paper contains many explicit, labor-intensive computations, a careful construction of the modified wave basis, and a clear articulation of the main technical obstacles. However, the central claims are currently conditional on several announced estimates and on an omitted base-interval proof; the reader cannot verify the maximal-time bootstrap from the text as written. The paper is honest about these gaps, but the gaps are load-bearing rather than cosmetic.

major comments (5)
  1. [§4, Proposition 4.4] Proposition 4.4 supplies the initial small-L^1 interval (4.17) that is used to enter the wave-decomposition machinery on [t̂,T]. Its proof is explicitly omitted: 'We omit the proof here.' This is not a technical footnote: without (4.17), Lemma 6.9 and all subsequent decompositions have no stated starting point. The reference to [5, Proposition 2.3] and [26, Proposition 3.6] is not enough, because the present system has non-constant B and higher-order regularity is needed. A complete proof, or a precise reduction to the cited results, is required.
  2. [§7.3, §8, §9; Eqs. (7.50), (8.36), (9.75)] The two central remainder bounds that make the bootstrap close are only announced. Eq. (7.50) bounds φ_i, ψ_i by the Λ^l terms plus an ε-dependent remainder; Eq. (8.36) bounds Φ_i, Ψ_i similarly; both proofs are deferred to Sections 11–12. More critically, the pointwise estimate (9.75), |ψ_{j,x}| = O(Σ Λ^l) + R̃_ε, is used inside Lemma 9.7 to control the third-order terms Λ²_i, and then (9.76)–(9.78) bootstrap to obtain (9.80). Without an independent proof of (9.75), Lemma 9.7 is circular and the estimate (9.81) for the bootstrap is unsupported. These are not merely deferred technicalities; they are the decisive estimates of the paper.
  3. [§5, Eq. (5.7) and §6, Eqs. (6.12)–(6.13)] The commutativity assumption AB=BA is load-bearing from the very start of the traveling-wave construction. In (5.7) it is used to obtain Z² in diagonal form, forcing the center subspace N_i to have dimension n+2. Without this, the invariant manifold M_i and the modified basis r̃_i of Section 6 do not exist in the form used, and the gradient decomposition (6.12)–(6.13) breaks down. The paper should state clearly that Theorem 2.1 is a theorem for the commuting subclass, and it should verify that the advertised NSK application satisfies AB=BA; this verification is absent.
  4. [§9, §9.8, Corollary 2.2] Corollary 2.2 is proved only by a sketch. The convergence to a weak solution uses Helly's theorem and the uniform BV bound, but the identification of the limit as the unique Liu-admissible solution relies on [31, Theorem 2.1] and the Bressan–De Lellis uniqueness class [11]. The paper does not verify that, under the present assumptions (including AB=BA and the non-constant B), the limit satisfies the required Liu admissibility criterion and lies in the uniqueness class. This is a load-bearing step for the vanishing-viscosity application, not a routine consequence of the BV estimate.
  5. [§9, definition of T* and G_i] The claim that G_i ∈ L^1([t̂,T],L^1(R)) is asserted before the bootstrap. The text argues that Λ²_j is integrable by invoking Lemma 9.7, but Lemma 9.7 itself depends on the announced estimate (9.75). Thus the proof of integrability of the forcing terms used to define T* is part of the deferred material. This should be made explicit, and the dependencies should be reorganized so that the maximal-time bootstrap is not circular.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4, Eq. (4.7), (4.9), (4.10)] Several displayed estimates contain obvious typos or garbled symbols, e.g. 'co' instead of c_0 in (4.7), and missing parentheses in (4.9)–(4.10). These make an already technical lemma harder to check.
  2. [§6, Lemma 6.4 proof] The proof ends with 'This completes the proof Lemma 6.5', but the statement is Lemma 6.4. Please correct the cross-reference.
  3. [General notation] The notation eφ_i, φ_i, ψ_i, Φ_i, Ψ_i, R_ε, R̃_ε is introduced in different places and sometimes without a consistent subscript. A table summarizing the notation and the exact location of each announced estimate would aid readability.
  4. [§9.8 and Remark 6.2] Remark 6.2 says the estimates are uniform in ε on [0,C(1/ε)] with C(1/ε)→∞, while the proof of Theorem 2.1 fixes ε after assuming a finite maximal time. The logical link is not spelled out; please clarify how the fixed-ε proof yields the ε-uniform statement needed for Corollary 2.2.
  5. [Abstract and Introduction] The abstract and introduction promise an application to the Navier–Stokes–Korteweg system, but the commutativity condition AB=BA is not checked for that system. Either perform the check or explicitly state that the application is conditional on the commuting subclass.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the global BV theorem is a bootstrap over estimates derived from the PDE, not a reduction of the conclusion to its inputs.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain, the main theorem is proved by a maximal-time bootstrap (Section 9) in which the assumption TV(u(t)) ≤ δ0 on [0,T] is used to prove the strict improvement TV(u(t)) ≤ 3δ0/4, giving a contradiction and hence the global bound. The quantitative estimates that close the bootstrap are (7.50), (8.36) and (9.75); these are announced in Sections 7–8 and deferred to Sections 11–12. Although the paper does not make those deferred proofs fully checkable in the text (and Proposition 4.4 explicitly says 'We omit the proof here' while citing [5, Proposition 2.3] and [26, Proposition 3.6]), this is a proof-gap/correctness issue, not circularity: the cited auxiliary estimate supplies an initial time interval and is not the global BV conclusion. No step fits a parameter to the data it later 'predicts'; no quantity is defined in terms of the target bound; no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors to force the choice; the AB=BA assumption is an explicitly stated hypothesis rather than a disguised consequence of the theorem. The self-citation to [26] appears only for standard parabolic regularizing estimates and is accompanied by a proof of the higher-order analogue (Appendix D), so it is not load-bearing in the sense of reducing the central claim to the authors' own assertion. Thus the appropriate finding is no significant circularity; concerns about omitted details belong to correctness verification, not circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 3 invented entities

Upstream content the paper pulls in: the Bianchini-Bressan L¹ framework [5, 2], the authors' own first-order regularity result [26] and 2×2 triangular result [27], and the uniqueness/admissibility theory [11, 31]. What the paper adds is the control of the Λ⁵ terms via z_i, ẑ_i, and the higher-order derivative estimates that let the bootstrap close. The ledger shows the central claim is conditional on the ad hoc commutativity assumption AB = BA and on an implicit hierarchy of smallness parameters δ₀ ≪ δ₁, ε^{1/N}(T−t̂) ≪ 1; none of these are quantified, and the NSK application promised in the abstract is never verified against them.

free parameters (4)
  • δ₀ (initial-data smallness threshold) = not explicit; chosen sufficiently small
    Assumption TV(ū) ≤ δ₀ (Eq. (2.3)); all estimates close only for δ₀ below an implicit threshold depending on κ (sup of A, B, P derivatives to order 4, Eq. (4.13)). The initial time window t̂ = (1/(255κ^{42}δ₀))² shows how violent the hierarchy is.
  • δ₁ (cut-off width in θ, ξ) = not explicit; chosen small, with δ₀ ≪ δ₁
    Defines the regions |w_i/v_i| ≤ δ₁ where the travelling-wave speed σ_i is active (Eqs. (6.6)-(6.8)); estimates in Sections 9.2-9.3 require δ₁ small relative to the wave-amplitude scale.
  • ε (regularization parameter in χ_i^ε = χ(v_i^{2N}/ε)) = not explicit; chosen with ε^{1/N}(T − t̂) ≤ 1
    Smooths the singularity {v_i = w_i = 0} so the decomposition map is C² (Section 6, Eq. (6.10)-(6.11)); remainder terms R_ε are O(δ₀²) in L¹ only for ε sufficiently small in terms of δ₀ and T − t̂. The uniform-in-ε claim rests on letting ε→0 after fixing time horizons.
  • N (positive integer in χ_i^ε) = not explicit; positive integer
    Power v_i^{2N} in the cut-off; chosen large enough for the derivative bounds in Lemma 6.5 and the estimates in (6.52)-(6.54).
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Strict hyperbolicity of A with gap condition (HA), Eq. (1.2)
    Assumed on the system: n distinct real eigenvalues λ_i with uniform gap c₀. Needed for the eigenvector frame and for the transversal interaction estimates (Lemma 9.1, condition (9.17)).
  • domain assumption B non-singular with positive eigenvalues µ_i ≥ c₁ (HB)
    Uniform parabolicity; needed for the maximum principle, the heat-kernel estimates for the fundamental solution G in (4.11)-(4.12), and the shortening-curve estimates (Lemmas 9.3-9.4).
  • ad hoc to paper Commutativity AB = BA (2.2)
    Method-driven: ensures A and B share eigenvectors and that the viscosity coupling is quadratic (p. 5). Used in (5.7) to fix the center-manifold dimension n+2 and throughout Sections 7-9 to control the Λ⁵ terms. No verification for the promised NSK application.
  • domain assumption Smallness of initial data: TV(ū) ≤ δ₀ and lim_{x→−∞} ū ∈ K compact (2.3)
    The bootstrap closes only for δ₀ below an implicit smallness threshold; the threshold is never quantified in terms of the matrices.
  • standard math Center Manifold Theorem and generalized implicit function theorem [36]
    Used in Section 5 to construct the invariant manifolds M_i of the travelling-wave ODE (5.2), and in Lemma 6.6 for the uniform invertibility of the decomposition map Λ.
  • domain assumption External uniqueness/admissibility results of [31] and [11]
    In Corollary 2.2 the limit is identified with the unique global weak solution via the Bressan-De Lellis uniqueness class and the strict-stability criterion [31, Thm 2.1]; these are cited, not reproved.
  • standard math Heat-kernel estimates for the parabolic Green's function (4.11)-(4.12)
    The fundamental solution of w_t + A*₂ w_x = w_xx satisfies ||G||_{L¹} ≤ κ_G and ||G_x||_{L¹} ≤ κ_G/√t; these drive all parabolic smoothing estimates in Proposition 4.3.
invented entities (3)
  • Effective fluxes z_i, ẑ_i (Eqs. (8.4)-(8.5))
    purpose: Auxiliary unknowns introduced to absorb the dangerous terms w_{i,xx}v_i − v_{i,xx}w_i that appear because B has distinct eigenvalues; their advection-diffusion equations (8.20), (8.31) carry forcing Φ_i, Ψ_i that can be estimated after a diagram chase.
    Proof devices, not physical entities; their equations are derived, not measured, and they have no falsifiable handle outside the paper's argument.
  • Modified travelling-wave basis r̃_i(u, v̄_i^ε ξ_i, σ_i) (Section 6, (6.12)-(6.13))
    purpose: A basis interpolating between viscous travelling waves (when v_i is dominant and |w_i/v_i| small) and eigenvectors of A (otherwise), so that v_i, w_i stay smooth across {v_i = w_i = 0}.
    Internal construction; the cut-offs η, ξ, χ, θ determine when each branch is active. No content outside the proof.
  • Cut-off functions θ, ξ, η, χ and derived indicators ρ_i^ε, Δ_{ij}^ε, κ_i^ε, A_i (Eqs. (6.6)-(6.15))
    purpose: Partition of (v, w)-space into regimes where different estimates apply (dominant field, small/large |w_i/v_i|, |v_i| tiny).
    Bookkeeping devices; the sizes of their transition layers enter every constant in the estimates.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Vanishing viscosity limit for $n\times n$ hyperbolic system of conservation laws in 1-d with nonlinear viscosity: Part-I Uniform BV estimates." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KALCPXUY

@misc{pith2026251215620,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Vanishing viscosity limit for $n\times n$ hyperbolic system of conservation laws in 1-d with nonlinear viscosity: Part-I Uniform BV estimates},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KALCPXUY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.15620}
}
abstract

We consider the following parabolic approximation for hyperbolic system of conservation laws in 1-D with non-singular viscosity matrix $B(u)$ and $A(u)$ strictly hyperbolic, \[u^\varepsilon_t+A(u^\varepsilon)u^\varepsilon_x=\varepsilon(B(u^\varepsilon)u^\varepsilon_x)_x.\] We prove global in time uniform $BV$ bound for solution to this parabolic system when $\varepsilon>0$ provided that the initial data is small in $BV$ and the matrix $A(u)$ and $B(u)$ commutate. Moreover, in the case where the system is conservative, we show that the sequence $(u^\varepsilon)_{\varepsilon>0}$ admits a limit $u$, which is the unique global weak solution to the limiting strictly hyperbolic system. We provide a concrete application of this result in the study of the visco-dispersive limit of the Navier-Stokes-Korteweg system.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [11]

    Bressan and C

    A. Bressan and C. De Lellis, A remark on the uniqueness of solutions to hyperbolic conservation laws.Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.247 (2023), no. 6, Paper No. 106, 12 pp

    2023

  2. [1]

    Bianchini, On the Riemann problem for non-conservative hyperbolic systems.Arch

    S. Bianchini, On the Riemann problem for non-conservative hyperbolic systems.Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.166, No. 1, 1–26 (2003)

    2003

  3. [2]

    Bianchini and A

    S. Bianchini and A. Bressan, BV solutions for a class of viscous hyperbolic systems. Indiana Univ. Math. J.49 (2000), no. 4, 1673–1713

    2000

  4. [3]

    Bianchini and A

    S. Bianchini and A. Bressan, A center manifold technique for tracing viscous waves. Commun. Pure Appl. Anal.1 (2002), no. 2, 161–190

    2002

  5. [4]

    Bianchini and A

    S. Bianchini and A. Bressan, On a Lyapunov functional relating shortening curves and viscous conservation laws.Nonlinear Anal., Theory Methods Appl., Ser. A, Theory Methods51, No. 4, 649–662 (2002)

    2002

  6. [5]

    Bianchini and A

    S. Bianchini and A. Bressan, Vanishing viscosity solutions of nonlinear hyperbolic systems.Ann. of Math.(2)161(2005), no.1, 223–342

    2005

  7. [6]

    Bressan, Hyperbolic systems of conservation laws

    A. Bressan, Hyperbolic systems of conservation laws. The one-dimensional Cauchy problem Oxford Lecture Ser. Math. Appl., 20 Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2000. xii+250 pp

    2000

  8. [7]

    Bressan, G

    A. Bressan, G. Chen and Q. Zhang, On finite time BV blow-up for the p-system. Commun. Partial Differ. Equations 43, No. 8, 1242–1280 (2018)

    2018

Show all 36 references
  1. [8]

    Bressan and R

    A. Bressan and R. M. Colombo, Unique solutions of 2×2 conservation laws with large data.Indiana Univ. Math. J.44, No. 3, 677–725 (1995)

    1995

  2. [9]

    Bressan and R

    A. Bressan and R. M. Colombo, The semigroup generated by 2×2 conservation laws. Arch. Rational Mech. Anal.133 (1995), no. 1, 1–75

    1995

  3. [10]

    Bressan, G

    A. Bressan, G. Crasta and B. Piccoli, Well-posedness of the Cauchy problem forn×n systems of conservation laws.Mem. Am. Math. Soc.694, 134 p. (2000)

    2000

  4. [12]

    Bressan and P

    A. Bressan and P. Goatin, Stability ofL ∞ solutions of Temple class systems.Differential Integral Equations13 (2000), no. 10-12, 1503–1528

    2000

  5. [13]

    Bressan and P

    A. Bressan and P. Goatin, Oleinik type estimates and uniqueness forn×nconservation laws.J. Differ. Equations156, No. 1, 26–49 (1999)

    1999

  6. [14]

    Bressan and P

    A. Bressan and P. LeFloch, Uniqueness of weak solutions to systems of conservation laws.Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.140, No. 4, 301–317 (1997)

    1997

  7. [15]

    Bressan, T.-P

    A. Bressan, T.-P. Liu and T. Yang,L 1 stability estimates forn×nconservation laws. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.149, No. 1, 1–22 (1999). 235

    1999

  8. [16]

    Bressan, E

    A. Bressan, E. Marconi and G. Vaidya, Uniqueness Domains for Solutions of Hyperbolic Conservation Laws.Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.249, 70 (2025)

    2025

  9. [17]

    Chen, M.-J

    G. Chen, M.-J. Kang and A. Vasseur, From Navier-Stokes to BV solutions of the barotropic Euler equations. Preprint 2024. arXiv:2401.09305

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    G. Chen, S. G. Krupa and A. F. Vasseur, Uniqueness and weak-BV stability for 2×2 conservation laws.Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.246, No. 1, 299–332 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    Chen and M

    G.-Q. Chen and M. Perepelitsa, Vanishing viscosity limit of the Navier-Stokes equations to the Euler equations for compressible fluid flow.Comm. Pure Appl. Math.63 (2010), no. 11, 14691504

    2010

  12. [20]

    C. C. Christoforou, Hyperbolic systems of balance laws via vanishing viscosity.J. Differ. Equations221, No. 2, 470–541 (2006)

    2006

  13. [21]

    C. M. Dafermos, Hyperbolic conservation laws in continuum physics. 4th edition. Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften 325. Berlin: Springer. (2016)

    2016

  14. [22]

    R. J. DiPerna, Convergence of approximate solutions to conservation laws.Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.82, 27–70 (1983)

    1983

  15. [23]

    Friedman, Partial differential equations of parabolic type

    A. Friedman, Partial differential equations of parabolic type. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1964. xiv+347 pp

    1964

  16. [24]

    Glimm, Solutions in the large for nonlinear hyperbolic systems of equations.Comm

    J. Glimm, Solutions in the large for nonlinear hyperbolic systems of equations.Comm. Pure Appl. Math.18 (1965), 697–715

    1965

  17. [25]

    Goodman and Z

    J. Goodman and Z. Xin, Viscous limits for piecewise smooth solutions to systems of conservation laws.Arch. Rational Mech. Anal.121 (1992), no.3, 235–265

    1992

  18. [26]

    Haspot and A

    B. Haspot and A. Jana, Vanishing viscosity limit for hyperbolic system of Temple class in 1-d with nonlinear viscosityNonlinear Anal. Real World Appl.85, (2025), 104346

    2025

  19. [27]

    Haspot and A

    B. Haspot and A. Jana, Viscous approximation of triangular system in 1-d with nonlinear viscosity. Preprint arXiv:2503.04640

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    Kawashima and Y

    S. Kawashima and Y. Shizuta, On the normal form of the symmetric hyperbolic- parabolic systems associated with the conservation laws.Tˆ ohoku Math. J., II. Ser.40, No. 3, 449–464 (1988)

    1988

  21. [29]

    S. N. Kruˇ zkov, First-order quasilinear equations with several space variables,Mat. Sb., 123 (1970), pp. 228–255

    1970

  22. [30]

    P. D. Lax, Hyperbolic systems of conservation laws. II.Comm. Pure Appl. Math.10, 537–566 (1957)

    1957

  23. [31]

    Majda and R

    A. Majda and R. L. Pego, Stable viscosity matrices for systems of conservation laws. J. Differ. Equations56, 229–262 (1985). 236

    1985

  24. [32]

    Nishida and J

    T. Nishida and J. A. Smoller, Solutions in the large for some nonlinear hyperbolic conservation laws.Comm. Pure Appl. Math.26, 183–200 (1973)

    1973

  25. [33]

    O. A. Ole ˘inik, Discontinuous solutions of non-linear differential equations.Am. Math. Soc., Transl., II. Ser.26, 95–172 (1963); translation from Usp. Mat. Nauk 12, No. 3(75), 3–73 (1957)

    1963

  26. [34]

    Serre, Solutions ` a variations born´ ees pour certains syst` emes hyperboliques de lois de conservation.(French.)J

    D. Serre, Solutions ` a variations born´ ees pour certains syst` emes hyperboliques de lois de conservation.(French.)J. Differential Equations68 (1987), no.2, 137-168

    1987

  27. [35]

    L. V. Spinolo, Vanishing viscosity solutions of a 2×2 triangular hyperbolic system with Dirichlet conditions on two boundaries.Indiana Univ. Math. J.56 (2007), no. 1, 279-364

    2007

  28. [36]

    Vanderbauwhede, Centre manifolds, normal forms and elementary bifurcations

    A. Vanderbauwhede, Centre manifolds, normal forms and elementary bifurcations. Dynamics reported, Vol. 2, 89–169. Dynam. Report. Ser. Dynam. Systems Appl., 2 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester, 1989. 237

    1989

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.