Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

This paper proves that a split-form summation-by-parts discretization of the two-dimensional hyperbolized Serre-Green-Naghdi equations conserves total water mass and total energy exactly for both periodic and reflecting boundaries, and conf

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 12:29 UTC pith:2GU67FHG

load-bearing objection The discrete energy conservation is real and well verified, but the scheme's consistency with the stated PDE breaks down in the bathymetry term whenever η≠h, and the paper's tests never exercise that regime. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2601.02540 v2 pith:2GU67FHG submitted 2026-01-05 math.NA cs.NA

GPU-Accelerated Energy-Conserving Methods for the Two-Dimensional Hyperbolized Serre-Green-Naghdi Equations

Collin Wittenstein , Vincent Marks , Mario Ricchiuto , Hendrik Ranocha This is my paper
classification math.NA cs.NA MSC 65M0665M1265M20
keywords summation-by-parts operatorssplit formsSerre-Green-Naghdi equationsenergy-conserving methodsdispersive wave equationsfinite difference methodsGPU accelerationstructure-preserving methods
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper aims to show that the two-dimensional hyperbolized Serre-Green-Naghdi equations with variable bathymetry can be discretized in space so that the semidiscrete solution conserves total water mass and total energy exactly, under both periodic and reflecting boundary conditions. The conservation laws are proven as Theorems 4.1 and 4.3 for diagonal-norm summation-by-parts operators combined with split forms, and verified numerically to machine precision. Because the spatial semidiscretization contributes no energy error, any energy drift in a simulation must come from the time integrator; this is the practical reason a coastal or tsunami modeller would care. The paper also implements the method on CPU and GPU hardware, reports large speedups on accelerators, and validates the approach with second-order convergence tests and comparisons to experiments.

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central discovery is that the split-form SBP semidiscretizations (4.1) and (4.5) conserve discrete analogues of total water mass and total energy exactly for the two-dimensional hyperbolic SGN system with variable bathymetry. The energy is the natural discrete version of the continuum invariant, including the relaxation potential term λ/6(η/h − 1)²; the proofs proceed by showing that the discrete time derivative of this energy reduces to a telescoping sum of SBP boundary terms that vanish under periodic or weakly imposed reflecting boundary conditions. The paper states this as Theorems 4.1 and 4.3, confirms the energy time derivative at machine precision in a fu

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the pairing of summation-by-parts (SBP) derivative operators with diagonal mass matrices and split-form discretizations. SBP operators mimic integration by parts; split forms rewrite nonlinear terms so that discrete analogues of product- and chain-rule identities hold. For the reflecting case, simultaneous approximation terms (SATs) weakly impose zero normal velocity at the walls. Together these tools make the discrete energy time derivative cancel term-by-term exactly, leaving only boundary fluxes that vanish by the boundary conditions. The proof is algebraic, so it holds for any diagonal-norm SBP operator of any order, not just the second-order operators used in t

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the split-form semidiscretization (4.1)/(4.5) actually approximates the continuum hyperbolic Serre-Green-Naghdi equations as the grid is refined; the paper checks this only empirically through manufactured-solution convergence tests, without a formal consistency proof for the non-conservative velocity and η equations.

What would settle it

Compute the discrete energy time derivative ⟨∂qE, ∂tq⟩_M for the semidiscretization (4.1) with a fixed diagonal-norm periodic SBP operator and arbitrary admissible positive water-height data: if it does not vanish identically to machine precision for every such data, Theorem 4.1 fails. For the consistency question, run the manufactured-solution test on a sequence of non-uniform grids or with discontinuous bathymetry and check whether second-order convergence in h, u, and v persists; any loss of convergence would indicate the split form is not consistent in the regime the analysis assumes.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the conservation theorems hold, the spatial discretization introduces no mass or energy drift; any numerical energy change in practice is attributable solely to the temporal integrator and round-off.
  • The split-form/SBP design gives a template for energy-conserving semidiscretizations of other first-order hyperbolic reformulations of dispersive wave equations with variable coefficients or bathymetry.
  • Second-order convergence in all variables (h, u, v, η, w) is confirmed for periodic and reflecting boundary conditions via manufactured solutions, so the method is usable at practical resolutions.
  • The GPU implementation completes benchmark runs in about fifteen minutes on a modern accelerator where the CPU estimate exceeds a day, making high-resolution long-time simulations tractable.
  • Comparisons with experimental benchmarks show that the method tracks measured wave heights and phases, provided the flow does not enter wave-breaking regimes.
  • The energy-conservation proof assumes a diagonal norm matrix; with a non-diagonal norm the same split-form algebra would not telescope in the same way.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: since the proofs are algebraic and require only a diagonal-norm SBP operator, the same split-form structure should yield energy-conserving semidiscretizations for higher-order SBP operators and for other hyperbolic relaxation models of dispersive waves, not just the second-order finite-difference implementation shown here.
  • Inference: pairing this spatial discretization with a relaxation Runge-Kutta time integrator—which the paper lists as future work—would likely give a fully discrete method whose energy error is controlled to machine precision, removing the one remaining source of drift.
  • Inference: exact energy conservation is only appropriate when energy is the right invariant; in wetting/drying or wave-breaking regimes, where the paper observes breakdown for Froude numbers above about 1.25, one would instead want an energy-dissipating or positivity-preserving version.
  • Inference: the consistency of the split-form semidiscretization is verified empirically rather than by a formal truncation-error proof for the non-conservative velocity and η equations; a reader who needs guaranteed convergence on non-uniform grids or with discontinuous bathymetry would want a separate consistency analysis.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops split-form SBP semidiscretizations for the two-dimensional hyperbolized Serre–Green–Naghdi equations with variable bathymetry, for both periodic and weakly imposed reflecting boundary conditions. The central theoretical results, Theorems 4.1 and 4.3, assert exact semidiscrete conservation of total water mass and total energy. The paper verifies the conservation identities numerically, reports second-order convergence with a manufactured solution and a 1D solitary wave, compares against several experimental and reference solutions, and provides a CPU/GPU Julia implementation with a public reproducibility repository.

Significance. If the consistency of the proposed semidiscretization with the intended PDE is established, this is a valuable extension of structure-preserving methods for dispersive water-wave models from 1D to fully 2D configurations with variable bathymetry and reflecting walls. The explicit algebraic conservation proofs, the practical verification of machine-precision semidiscrete conservation, and the vendor-agnostic GPU implementation are strengths that make the work useful to the numerical PDE community. However, the manuscript currently contains a concrete mismatch between the displayed PDE system (3.5) and the continuous limit of the discrete equations (4.1), and the numerical validation does not exercise the regime in which that mismatch is visible.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.2, Eq. (3.5)–(3.6) vs. §4.1, Eq. (4.1)] The continuous limit of (4.1) is not the PDE (3.5) as typeset. Substituting p = λ/3 · (η/h)(1−η/h) into the nonhydrostatic bathymetry term of (3.5) gives 3/2 hηp = λ/2 · (η²/h)(1−η/h). The corresponding terms in (4.1) reduce, in the mesh limit, to λ/2 · (1−η/h). These agree only when η = h. Moreover, the printed term 3/2 hηp in (3.5) is dimensionally inconsistent with the momentum equation: hηp has units L⁴/T², while the other momentum terms are L²/T². The intended coefficient is likely 3/2 · (h/η)p, which would match (4.1). If so, Eq. (3.5) must be corrected; otherwise Theorem 4.1 proves energy conservation for a PDE different from the one stated. A consistency/truncation analysis, or at least a corrected statement of (3.5), is required for the central claim to be evaluable.
  2. [§5.1.1, §5.1.2, §5.2 and Eq. (5.1)] The numerical validation never exercises the regime η ≠ h, so the consistency issue above is invisible in all reported tests. The manufactured solution in §5.1.2 imposes η = h identically; the solitary-wave initialization (5.1) sets η = h; and the relaxation term λ(1−η/h) with λ = 500 or 30 000 drives η back toward h. Consequently, the manufactured-solution convergence study at second order does not certify that the split-form semidiscretization approximates the intended nonhydrostatic bathymetry coupling. The authors should add a manufactured solution with a genuinely nonhydrostatic state (η ≠ h), or otherwise provide a formal consistency check that distinguishes the two formulations.
  3. [§4.1–§4.2, Theorems 4.1 and 4.3] The energy-conservation proofs are long algebraic calculations, but the final simplification is summarized as “several terms cancel” and no consistency proof for the split forms is supplied. This matters because the momentum and η equations are non-conservative, so it is not automatic that the split form reduces to (3.5) in the mesh limit. The empirical second-order test in §5.1.2 is not sufficient, since it sets η = h. Please provide a discrete consistency lemma (e.g., formal truncation-error analysis for smooth solutions) or a numerical order study with a genuine η ≠ h manufactured solution.
  4. [§4.2, Eq. (4.5) and §5.7] The reflecting boundary condition is imposed only through SATs in the height equation; the momentum and auxiliary equations contain no boundary modification. The proofs show that boundary terms cancel in the energy identity, but energy conservation alone does not establish that the discrete solution satisfies the intended no-normal-flow condition u·n ≈ 0 at the wall. The wall-reflection comparisons in §5.7 are reassuring, but the manuscript should state the precise sense in which the weakly imposed reflection condition is enforced and provide a numerical diagnostic of the boundary normal velocity.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§5.3] The Dingemans comparison uses a manually adjusted initial phase offset. Please report the offset value, or state that the comparison is used only as a qualitative validation, to avoid the appearance of a fitted parameter.
  2. [References] References [61] and [62] are the same paper (Tkachenko, Gavrilyuk, Massoni, J. Comput. Phys. 477). One should be deleted.
  3. [Abstract and §6] The paper uses “energy-conserving methods” to describe semidiscrete conservation; the fully discrete Runge–Kutta integrator does not conserve energy. Please make this distinction explicit in the abstract and conclusions.
  4. [§5.9] The performance study consists of single runs without error bars. This is acknowledged in the text, but a short sentence on expected run-to-run variability would strengthen the benchmark section.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the conservation theorems are self-contained SBP/split-form algebra, and the only self-citations are reference/support material rather than load-bearing premises.

full rationale

The central derivations (Theorems 4.1 and 4.3) do not fit any parameter to the quantities they claim to conserve. Mass conservation follows directly from the periodic/nonperiodic SBP property M D_d + D_d^T M = boundary terms, and energy conservation is proven by substituting E, its discrete derivatives, and the semidiscretization (4.1)/(4.5) into (4.2) and showing that all shallow-water and non-hydrostatic terms cancel. This proof is self-contained algebra; it does not invoke [49] or any other self-citation as a premise. The split forms are constructed rather than inferred from data, and lambda is a physical/regularization parameter, not a fitted constant. The cited 1D foundation [49] is used for context, as a starting point, and for an exact solitary-wave reference; it is not the justification for the 2D conservation result, and the 2D scheme is independently checked against experimental and external numerical data (Dingemans, Craig et al., [43], [5], [65]). The manuscript itself flags validation limitations: Section 5.1.1 notes that many cross-derivative terms vanish and that reflecting boundary conditions are unexercised there, and the manufactured solution in Section 5.1.2 sets eta=h, so consistency between the split forms and (3.5) for eta != h is only implicitly tested. These are correctness/validation gaps rather than circularity under this rubric: no claimed result reduces by definition to an input or to a self-citation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no new physical entities. Its free parameters are the model's relaxation parameter and a validation-phase offset; the main hidden loads are the mild-slope/small-gradient assumption and the consistency of the non-conservative split form, which is only tested numerically.

free parameters (2)
  • relaxation parameter λ = 500 (30,000 for solitary wave test)
    Chosen by hand; controls how closely the hyperbolic system approximates SGN; not fitted, but results depend on it.
  • Dingemans initial phase offset = manually adjusted
    Initial perturbation offset tuned to match gauge 1; a validation-setup parameter, not part of the numerical method.
axioms (4)
  • standard math SBP property for tensor-product operators with diagonal mass matrix: M D + D^T M = boundary terms.
    Definition 2.2/2.3; used in Theorems 4.1 and 4.3 for cancellation.
  • domain assumption The hyperbolized SGN system (3.5) and its energy (3.7) accurately model the target waves.
    Taken from [5,21]; the paper's validation assumes this model is the right one.
  • domain assumption The mild-slope approximation underlying the hyperbolization is valid for the test bathymetries.
    Remark 3.1 states the hyperbolization assumes small gradients of b; used in experiments with trapezoidal bar and Gaussian bump.
  • ad hoc to paper The specific SAT treatment (only in the height equation) is sufficient to enforce reflection while preserving energy.
    The proof of Theorem 4.3 relies on this construction; it is a design choice of this paper, not a standard theorem.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 29049 in / 16809 out tokens · 150019 ms · 2026-08-03T12:29:49.991207+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We develop energy-conserving numerical methods for a two-dimensional hyperbolic approximation of the Serre-Green-Naghdi equations with variable bathymetry and either periodic or reflecting boundary conditions. The hyperbolic formulation avoids the costly inversion of an elliptic operator present in the classical model. Our schemes combine split forms with summation-by-parts (SBP) operators to construct semi-discretizations that conserve the total water mass and the total energy. We provide analytical proofs of these conservation properties and also verify them numerically. While the framework is general, our implementation focuses on second-order finite-difference SBP operators. The methods are implemented in Julia for CPU and GPU architectures (AMD and NVIDIA) and achieve substantial speedups on modern accelerators. We validate the approach through convergence studies based on solitary-wave and manufactured-solution tests, and by comparisons to analytical, experimental, and existing numerical results. All source code to reproduce our results is available online.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Justification and structure- and asymptotic-preserving discretizations of a hyperbolized Cahn-Hilliard equation

    math.NA 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Develops energy-stable asymptotic-preserving discretizations of a hyperbolized Cahn-Hilliard equation via SBP operators and IMEX Runge-Kutta methods guided by relative-energy error estimates.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Analysis of the SBP-SAT Stabilization for Finite Element Methods Part I: Linear problems

    R. Abgrall, J. Nordström, P. Öffner, and S. Tokareva. “Analysis of the SBP-SAT Stabilization for Finite Element Methods Part I: Linear problems.” In:Journal of Scientific Computing 85.2 (2020), pp. 1–29. DOI:10.1007/s10915-020-01349-z. arXiv:1912.08108 [math.NA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  2. [2]

    Bona-Smith-Type systems in Bounded Domains with Slip-WallBoundaryConditions:TheoreticalJustificationandaConservativeNumericalScheme

    D. Antonopoulos and D. Mitsotakis. “Bona-Smith-Type systems in Bounded Domains with Slip-WallBoundaryConditions:TheoreticalJustificationandaConservativeNumericalScheme.” In: Journal of Scientific Computing 102.1 (2025), p. 16. DOI:10.1007/s10915-024-02742-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s10915-024-02742-8 2025

  3. [3]

    Barsukow, C

    W. Barsukow, C. Klingenberg, L. Lechner, J. Nordström, S. Ortleb, and H. Ranocha.Stability of the Active Flux Method in the Framework of Summation-by-Parts Operators . July 2025. arXiv: 2507.11068 [math.NA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Julia:AFreshApproachtoNumerical Computing

    J.Bezanson,A.Edelman,S.Karpinski,andV.B.Shah.“Julia:AFreshApproachtoNumerical Computing.” In:SIAM Review 59.1 (2017), pp. 65–98. DOI:10.1137/141000671

    doi:10.1137/141000671 2017

  5. [5]

    On High Order ADER Discontinuous Galerkin Schemes for First Order Hyperbolic Reformulations of Nonlinear Dispersive Systems

    S. Busto, M. Dumbser, C. Escalante, N. Favrie, and S. Gavrilyuk. “On High Order ADER Discontinuous Galerkin Schemes for First Order Hyperbolic Reformulations of Nonlinear Dispersive Systems.” In:Journal of Scientific Computing 87.2 (Mar. 2021), p. 48. DOI:10.1007/ s10915-021-01429-8. 29

    2021

  6. [6]

    Entropy Stable Spectral Collo- cationSchemesfortheNavier-StokesEquations:DiscontinuousInterfaces

    M. H. Carpenter, T. C. Fisher, E. J. Nielsen, and S. H. Frankel. “Entropy Stable Spectral Collo- cationSchemesfortheNavier-StokesEquations:DiscontinuousInterfaces.”In: SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 36.5 (2014), B835–B867. DOI:10.1137/130932193

    doi:10.1137/130932193 2014

  7. [7]

    Time-StableBoundaryConditionsforFinite- Difference Schemes Solving Hyperbolic Systems: Methodology and Application to High- Order Compact Schemes

    M.H.Carpenter,D.Gottlieb,andS.Abarbanel.“Time-StableBoundaryConditionsforFinite- Difference Schemes Solving Hyperbolic Systems: Methodology and Application to High- Order Compact Schemes.” In:Journal of Computational Physics 111.2 (1994), pp. 220–236. DOI: 10.1006/jcph.1994.1057

    arXiv 1994

  8. [8]

    Dispersive and dispersive-like bores in channels with sloping banks

    R Chassagne, A. G. Filippini, M. Ricchiuto, and P Bonneton. “Dispersive and dispersive-like bores in channels with sloping banks.” In:Journal of Fluid Mechanics 870 (2019), pp. 595–616. DOI: 10.1017/jfm.2019.287

    work page doi:10.1017/jfm.2019.287 2019

  9. [9]

    Plots.jl–auser extendable plotting API for the Julia programming language

    S.Christ,D.Schwabeneder,C.Rackauckas,M.K.Borregaard,andT.Breloff.“Plots.jl–auser extendable plotting API for the Julia programming language.” In:Journal of Open Research Software(2023). DOI:10.5334/jors.431

    doi:10.5334/jors.431 2023

  10. [10]

    KernelAbstractions.jl.DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4021259.URL: https://github.com/ JuliaGPU/KernelAbstractions.jl

    V.Churavy. KernelAbstractions.jl.DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4021259.URL: https://github.com/ JuliaGPU/KernelAbstractions.jl

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.4021259.url:

  11. [11]

    Solitary water wave in- teractions

    W. Craig, P. Guyenne, J. Hammack, D. Henderson, and C. Sulem. “Solitary water wave in- teractions.” In:Physics of Fluids 18.5 (May 2006), p. 057106. DOI:10.1063/1.2205916

    work page doi:10.1063/1.2205916 2006

  12. [12]

    M. W. Dingemans.Comparison of computations with Boussinesq-like models and laboratory mea- surements. Technical Report. 1994. URL:https://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:c2091d53- f455-48af-a84b-ac86680455e9

    1994

  13. [13]

    M. W. Dingemans.Water Wave Propagation Over Uneven Bottoms. World Scientific Publishing Company, 1997. DOI:10.1142/1241

    work page doi:10.1142/1241 1997

  14. [14]

    Rigorous justification of the Favrie–Gavrilyuk approximation to the Serre– Green–Naghdi model

    V. Duchêne. “Rigorous justification of the Favrie–Gavrilyuk approximation to the Serre– Green–Naghdi model.” In: Nonlinearity 32.10 (Sept. 2019), pp. 3772–3797. DOI:10 . 1088 / 1361-6544/ab22fb

    2019

  15. [15]

    Finitevolumeandpseudo-spectral schemesforthefullynonlinear1DSerreequations

    D.Dutykh,D.Clamond,P.Milewski,andD.Mitsotakis.“Finitevolumeandpseudo-spectral schemesforthefullynonlinear1DSerreequations.”In: European Journal of Applied Mathemat- ics 24.5 (2013), pp. 761–787. DOI:10.1017/S0956792513000168

    work page doi:10.1017/s0956792513000168 2013

  16. [16]

    Finite volume schemes for dispersive wave propagation and runup

    D. Dutykh, T. Katsaounis, and D. Mitsotakis. “Finite volume schemes for dispersive wave propagation and runup.” In:Journal of Computational Physics230.8 (2011), pp. 3035–3061. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcp.2011.01.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2011.01.003 2011

  17. [17]

    Unsteady undular bores in fully nonlinear shallow-water theory

    G. A. El, R. H. J. Grimshaw, and N. F. Smyth. “Unsteady undular bores in fully nonlinear shallow-water theory.” In:Physics of Fluids 18.2 (Feb. 2006), p. 027104. DOI:10 . 1063 / 1 . 2175152

    2006

  18. [18]

    An efficient hyperbolic relaxation system for dispersivenon-hydrostaticwaterwavesanditssolutionwithhighorderdiscontinuousGalerkin schemes

    C. Escalante, M. Dumbser, and M. J. Castro. “An efficient hyperbolic relaxation system for dispersivenon-hydrostaticwaterwavesanditssolutionwithhighorderdiscontinuousGalerkin schemes.” In:Journal of Computational Physics 394 (2019), pp. 385–416. DOI:10.1016/j.jcp. 2019.05.035

    doi:10.1016/j.jcp 2019

  19. [19]

    Activefluxschemes

    T.EymannandP.Roe.“Activefluxschemes.”In: 49th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting includ- ing the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition. 2011, p. 382. DOI:10.2514/6.2011-382

    doi:10.2514/6.2011-382 2011

  20. [20]

    Étude théorique et expérimentale des ondes de translation dans les canaux découverts.Paris: Dunod, 1935

    H.Favre. Étude théorique et expérimentale des ondes de translation dans les canaux découverts.Paris: Dunod, 1935. URL:https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:126909361

    1935

  21. [21]

    A rapid numerical method for solving Serre–Green–Naghdi equations describing long free surface gravity waves

    N. Favrie and S. Gavrilyuk. “A rapid numerical method for solving Serre–Green–Naghdi equations describing long free surface gravity waves.” In:Nonlinearity 30.7 (2017), p. 2718. DOI: 10.1088/1361-6544/aa712d. 30

    doi:10.1088/1361-6544/aa712d 2017

  22. [22]

    Review of summation-by-parts opera- torswithsimultaneousapproximationtermsforthenumericalsolutionofpartialdifferential equations

    D. C. D. R. Fernández, J. E. Hicken, and D. W. Zingg. “Review of summation-by-parts opera- torswithsimultaneousapproximationtermsforthenumericalsolutionofpartialdifferential equations.” In:Computers & Fluids 95 (2014), pp. 171–196. DOI:10.1016/j.compfluid.2014. 02.016

    work page doi:10.1016/j.compfluid.2014 2014

  23. [23]

    Discretelycon- servativefinite-differenceformulationsfornonlinearconservationlawsinsplitform:Theory and boundary conditions

    T.C.Fisher,M.H.Carpenter,J.Nordström,N.K.Yamaleev,andC.Swanson.“Discretelycon- servativefinite-differenceformulationsfornonlinearconservationlawsinsplitform:Theory and boundary conditions.” In:Journal of Computational Physics 234 (2013), pp. 353–375. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcp.2012.09.026

    doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2012.09.026 2013

  24. [24]

    Classroom Note:Calculation of Weights in Finite Difference Formulas

    B. Fornberg. “Classroom Note:Calculation of Weights in Finite Difference Formulas.” In: SIAM Review 40.3 (1998), pp. 685–691. DOI:10.1137/S0036144596322507. eprint:https:// doi.org/10.1137/S0036144596322507.URL: https://doi.org/10.1137/S0036144596322507

    work page doi:10.1137/s0036144596322507 1998

  25. [25]

    A Skew-Symmetric Discontinuous Galerkin Spectral Element Discretization and Its Relation to SBP-SAT Finite Difference Methods

    G. J. Gassner. “A Skew-Symmetric Discontinuous Galerkin Spectral Element Discretization and Its Relation to SBP-SAT Finite Difference Methods.” In:SIAM Journal on Scientific Com- puting 35.3 (2013), A1233–A1253. DOI:10.1137/120890144

    doi:10.1137/120890144 2013

  26. [26]

    Stationaryshock-liketransition fronts in dispersive systems

    S.Gavrilyuk,B.Nkonga,K.-M.Shyue,andL.Truskinovsky.“Stationaryshock-liketransition fronts in dispersive systems.” In:Nonlinearity 33 (Sept. 2020), pp. 5477–5509. DOI:10.1088/ 1361-6544/ab95ac

    2020

  27. [27]

    2D Serre-Green-Naghdi equations over topography: Elliptic operatorinversionmethod

    S. Gavrilyuk and K.-M. Shyue. “2D Serre-Green-Naghdi equations over topography: Elliptic operatorinversionmethod.”In: Journal of Hydraulic Engineering150.1(2024),p.04023054.DOI: 10.1061/JHEND8.HYENG-13703

    work page doi:10.1061/jhend8.hyeng-13703 2024

  28. [28]

    Dispersion of tsunamis: does it really matter?

    S. Glimsdal, G. K. Pedersen, C. B. Harbitz, and F. Løvholt. “Dispersion of tsunamis: does it really matter?” In:Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 13.6 (2013), pp. 1507–1526. DOI: 10.5194/nhess-13-1507-2013

    doi:10.5194/nhess-13-1507-2013 2013

  29. [29]

    A derivation of equations for wave propagation in water of variable depth

    A. E. Green and P. M. Naghdi. “A derivation of equations for wave propagation in water of variable depth.” In:Journal of Fluid Mechanics 78.2 (1976), pp. 237–246

    1976

  30. [30]

    Hyperbolicrelaxationtechniqueforsolving the dispersive Serre-Green-Naghdi equations with topography

    J.-L.Guermond,C.Kees,B.Popov,andE.Tovar.“Hyperbolicrelaxationtechniqueforsolving the dispersive Serre-Green-Naghdi equations with topography.” In:Journal of Computational Physics 450 (2022), p. 110809. DOI:10.1016/j.jcp.2021.110809

    arXiv 2022

  31. [31]

    Well-balanced second-order convex lim- iting technique for solving the Serre-Green-Naghdi equations

    J.-L. Guermond, C. Kees, B. Popov, and E. Tovar. “Well-balanced second-order convex lim- iting technique for solving the Serre-Green-Naghdi equations.” In:Water Waves 4.3 (2022), pp. 409–445. DOI:10.1007/s42286-022-00062-8

    doi:10.1007/s42286-022-00062-8 2022

  32. [32]

    MultidimensionalSummation-by-PartsOp- erators: General Theory and Application to Simplex Elements

    J.Hicken,D.DelReyFernández,andD.Zingg.“MultidimensionalSummation-by-PartsOp- erators: General Theory and Application to Simplex Elements.” In:SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 38 (July 2016), A1935–A1958. DOI:10.1137/15M1038360

    doi:10.1137/15m1038360 2016

  33. [33]

    Constructing stable, high-order finite-difference operators on point clouds over complex geometries

    J. Hicken, G. Yan, and S. Kaur. “Constructing stable, high-order finite-difference operators on point clouds over complex geometries.” In:Journal of Computational Physics 532 (2025), p. 113940. DOI:10.1016/j.jcp.2025.113940

    arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Entropy-stable, high-order summation-by-parts discretizations without inter- face penalties

    J. E. Hicken. “Entropy-stable, high-order summation-by-parts discretizations without inter- face penalties.” In:Journal of Scientific Computing 82.2 (2020), p. 50. DOI:10.1007/s10915- 020-01154-8

    doi:10.1007/s10915- 2020

  35. [35]

    A Flux Reconstruction Approach to High-Order Schemes Including Discon- tinuous Galerkin Methods

    H. T. Huynh. “A Flux Reconstruction Approach to High-Order Schemes Including Discon- tinuous Galerkin Methods.” In:18th AIAA Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference . Ameri- can Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. 2007. DOI:10.2514/6.2007-4079

    doi:10.2514/6.2007-4079 2007

  36. [36]

    One dimensional modelling of Favre waves in channels

    B. Jouy, D. Violeau, M. Ricchiuto, and M Le. “One dimensional modelling of Favre waves in channels.” In:Applied Mathematical Modelling 133 (2024), pp. 170–194. DOI:10.1016/j.apm. 2024.05.020. 31

    doi:10.1016/j.apm 2024

  37. [37]

    Low dispersion finite volume/element dis- cretization of the enhanced Green–Naghdi equations for wave propagation, breaking and runup on unstructured meshes

    M. Kazolea, A. Filippini, and M. Ricchiuto. “Low dispersion finite volume/element dis- cretization of the enhanced Green–Naghdi equations for wave propagation, breaking and runup on unstructured meshes.” In:Ocean Modelling 182 (Dec. 2022), p. 102157. DOI:10 . 1016/j.ocemod.2022.102157

    arXiv 2022

  38. [38]

    Full Nonlinearity in Weakly Dispersive Boussinesq Models: Luxury or Necessity

    M. Kazolea and M. Ricchiuto. “Full Nonlinearity in Weakly Dispersive Boussinesq Models: Luxury or Necessity.” In:Journal of Hydraulic Engineering (2024). DOI: 10 . 1061 / JHEND8 . HYENG-13718

    2024

  39. [39]

    Finite element and finite difference methods for hyperbolic partial differential equations

    H.-O. Kreiss and G. Scherer. “Finite element and finite difference methods for hyperbolic partial differential equations.” In:Mathematical Aspects of Finite Elements in Partial Differential Equations. Ed. by C. de Boor. New York: Academic Press, 1974, pp. 195–212

    1974

  40. [40]

    A robust first order meshfree method for time-dependent nonlinear conservation laws

    S. Kwan and J. Chan. “A robust first order meshfree method for time-dependent nonlinear conservation laws.” In:Advances in Computational Science and Engineering 6 (2025), pp. 1–24. DOI: 10.3934/acse.2025021

    doi:10.3934/acse.2025021 2025

  41. [41]

    Structure-Preserving Numerical Methods for Two Nonlinear Systems of Dispersive Wave Equations

    J. Lampert and H. Ranocha. “Structure-Preserving Numerical Methods for Two Nonlinear Systems of Dispersive Wave Equations.” In:Computational Science and Engineering 2 (Nov. 2025), p. 2. DOI:10.1007/s44207-025-00006-3. arXiv:2402.16669 [math.NA]

    arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    Summation by parts operators for finite difference approxi- mations of second derivatives

    K. Mattsson and J. Nordström. “Summation by parts operators for finite difference approxi- mations of second derivatives.” In:Journal of Computational Physics 199.2 (2004), pp. 503–540. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2004.03.001 . URL:https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0021999104000932

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2004.03.001 2004

  43. [43]

    AmodifiedGalerkin/finiteelementmethod forthenumericalsolutionoftheSerre-Green-Naghdisystem

    D.Mitsotakis,C.Synolakis,andM.McGuinness.“AmodifiedGalerkin/finiteelementmethod forthenumericalsolutionoftheSerre-Green-Naghdisystem.”In: International Journal for Nu- merical Methods in Fluids 83.10 (2017), pp. 755–778. DOI:10.1002/fld.4293

    work page doi:10.1002/fld.4293 2017

  44. [44]

    A conservative fully-discrete nu- merical method for the regularized shallow water wave equations

    D. Mitsotakis, H. Ranocha, D. I. Ketcheson, and E. Süli. “A conservative fully-discrete nu- merical method for the regularized shallow water wave equations.” In:SIAM Journal on Sci- entific Computing 42 (2 Apr. 2021), B508–B537. DOI:10.1137/20M1364606. arXiv:2009.09641 [math.NA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  45. [45]

    A Class of Boundary Conditions for Time-Discrete Green-NaghdiEquationswithBathymetry

    S. Noelle, M. Parisot, and T. Tscherpel. “A Class of Boundary Conditions for Time-Discrete Green-NaghdiEquationswithBathymetry.”In: SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis60.5(2022), pp. 2681–2712. DOI:10.1137/21M1426031

    work page doi:10.1137/21m1426031 2022

  46. [46]

    Finitevolumeapproximationsandstrictstabilityforhyperbolic problems

    J.NordströmandM.Björck.“Finitevolumeapproximationsandstrictstabilityforhyperbolic problems.” In:Applied Numerical Mathematics 38.3 (2001), pp. 237–255. DOI:10.1016/S0168- 9274(01)00027-7

    doi:10.1016/s0168- 2001

  47. [47]

    Entropy-satisfying scheme for a hierarchy of dispersive reduced models of free surface flow

    M. Parisot. “Entropy-satisfying scheme for a hierarchy of dispersive reduced models of free surface flow.” In:International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids 91.10 (2019), pp. 509–

    2019

  48. [48]

    DifferentialEquations.jl–APerformantandFeature-RichEcosys- tem for Solving Differential Equations in Julia

    C.RackauckasandQ.Nie.“DifferentialEquations.jl–APerformantandFeature-RichEcosys- tem for Solving Differential Equations in Julia.” In:The Journal of Open Research Software 5.1 (2017). DOI:10.5334/jors.151

    doi:10.5334/jors.151 2017

  49. [49]

    Structure-Preserving Approximations of the Serre-Green- Naghdi Equations in Standard and Hyperbolic Form

    H. Ranocha and M. Ricchiuto. “Structure-Preserving Approximations of the Serre-Green- Naghdi Equations in Standard and Hyperbolic Form.” In:Numerical Methods for Partial Dif- ferential Equations 41.4 (2025), e70016. DOI:10.1002/num.70016

    doi:10.1002/num.70016 2025

  50. [50]

    Comparison of Some Entropy Conservative Numerical Fluxes for the Euler Equations

    H. Ranocha. “Comparison of Some Entropy Conservative Numerical Fluxes for the Euler Equations.” In: Journal of Scientific Computing 76.1 (July 2018), pp. 216–242. DOI:10 . 1007 / s10915-017-0618-1

    2018

  51. [51]

    Mimeticpropertiesofdifferenceoperators:productandchainrulesasforfunc- tions of bounded variation and entropy stability of second derivatives

    H.Ranocha.“Mimeticpropertiesofdifferenceoperators:productandchainrulesasforfunc- tions of bounded variation and entropy stability of second derivatives.” In:BIT Numerical Mathematics 59.2 (Nov. 2018), pp. 547–563. DOI:10.1007/s10543-018-0736-7. 32

    work page doi:10.1007/s10543-018-0736-7 2018

  52. [52]

    SBPoperatorsforCPRmethods

    H.Ranocha.“SBPoperatorsforCPRmethods.”MAthesis.TUBraunschweig,Feb.2016.DOI: 10.24355/dbbs.084-201605271143-0

    work page doi:10.24355/dbbs.084-201605271143-0 2016

  53. [53]

    Shallow water equations: Split-form, entropy stable, well-balanced, and posi- tivity preserving numerical methods

    H. Ranocha. “Shallow water equations: Split-form, entropy stable, well-balanced, and posi- tivity preserving numerical methods.” In:GEM – International Journal on Geomathematics 8.1 (Apr. 2017), pp. 85–133. DOI:10.1007/s13137-016-0089-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s13137-016-0089-9 2017

  54. [54]

    Optimized Runge-Kutta Methods with Automatic Step Size Control for Compressible Computational Fluid Dynamics

    H. Ranocha, L. Dalcin, M. Parsani, and D. I. Ketcheson. “Optimized Runge-Kutta Methods with Automatic Step Size Control for Compressible Computational Fluid Dynamics.” In: Communications on Applied Mathematics and Computation 4 (Nov. 2021), pp. 1191–1228. DOI: 10.1007/s42967-021-00159-w

    doi:10.1007/s42967-021-00159-w 2021

  55. [55]

    A Broad Class of Conservative Numerical Methods for Dispersive Wave Equations

    H. Ranocha, D. Mitsotakis, and D. I. Ketcheson. “A Broad Class of Conservative Numerical Methods for Dispersive Wave Equations.” In:Communications in Computational Physics 29.4 (June 2021), pp. 979–1029. DOI:10.4208/cicp.oa-2020-0119

    doi:10.4208/cicp.oa-2020-0119 2021

  56. [56]

    Summation-by-partsoperatorsforcorrectionprocedure via reconstruction

    H.Ranocha,P.Öffner,andT.Sonar.“Summation-by-partsoperatorsforcorrectionprocedure via reconstruction.” In: Journal of Computational Physics 311 (Apr. 2016), pp. 299–328. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcp.2016.02.009. arXiv:1511.02052 [math.NA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  57. [57]

    Contribution à l’étude des écoulements permanents et variables dans les canaux

    F. Serre. “Contribution à l’étude des écoulements permanents et variables dans les canaux.” In: Houille Blanche 8 (1953)

    1953

  58. [58]

    Summation by Parts for Finite Difference Approximations for𝑑/ 𝑑𝑥

    B. Strand. “Summation by Parts for Finite Difference Approximations for𝑑/ 𝑑𝑥.” In:Journal of Computational Physics 110.1 (1994), pp. 47–67. DOI:10.1006/jcph.1994.1005

    arXiv 1994

  59. [59]

    A novel energy-bounded Boussinesq model and a well balanced and stable numerical discretisation

    M. Svärd and H. Kalisch. “A novel energy-bounded Boussinesq model and a well balanced and stable numerical discretisation.” In:Journal of Computational Physics 520 (2025). DOI:10. 1016/j.jcp.2024.113516

    arXiv 2025

  60. [60]

    Review of summation-by-parts schemes for initial-boundary- value problems

    M. Svärd and J. Nordström. “Review of summation-by-parts schemes for initial-boundary- value problems.” In:Journal of Computational Physics 268 (2014), pp. 17–38. DOI:10.1016/j. jcp.2014.02.031

    doi:10.1016/j 2014

  61. [62]

    Extended Lagrangian approach for the numer- ical study of multidimensional dispersive waves: Applications to the Serre-Green-Naghdi equations

    S. Tkachenko, S. Gavrilyuk, and J. Massoni. “Extended Lagrangian approach for the numer- ical study of multidimensional dispersive waves: Applications to the Serre-Green-Naghdi equations.” In:Journal of Computational Physics 477 (2023), p. 111901. DOI:https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jcp.2022.111901

    arXiv 2023

  62. [63]

    Undular bores (Favre-waves) in open channels – Experimental studies

    A. Treske. “Undular bores (Favre-waves) in open channels – Experimental studies.” In:Jour- nal of Hydraulic Research 32.3 (1994), pp. 355–370. DOI:10.1080/00221689409498738

    work page doi:10.1080/00221689409498738 1994

  63. [64]

    A New Class of High-Order Energy Stable Flux Reconstruction Schemes

    P. E. Vincent, P. Castonguay, and A. Jameson. “A New Class of High-Order Energy Stable Flux Reconstruction Schemes.” In:Journal of Scientific Computing 47.1 (2011), pp. 50–72. DOI: 10.1007/s10915-010-9420-z

    doi:10.1007/s10915-010-9420-z 2011

  64. [65]

    A fully nonlinear Boussinesq model for surface waves. Part 1. Highly nonlinear unsteady waves

    G. Wei, J. T. Kirby, S. T. Grilli, and R. Subramanya. “A fully nonlinear Boussinesq model for surface waves. Part 1. Highly nonlinear unsteady waves.” In:Journal of Fluid Mechanics 294 (1995), pp. 71–92. DOI:10.1017/S0022112095002813

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022112095002813 1995

  65. [66]

    An entropy stable nodal discontinuous Galerkin method for the two dimensional shallow water equations on un- structured curvilinear meshes with discontinuous bathymetry

    N. Wintermeyer, A. R. Winters, G. J. Gassner, and D. A. Kopriva. “An entropy stable nodal discontinuous Galerkin method for the two dimensional shallow water equations on un- structured curvilinear meshes with discontinuous bathymetry.” In:Journal of Computational Physics 340 (2017), pp. 200–242. DOI:10.1016/j.jcp.2017.03.036

    doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2017.03.036 2017

  66. [67]

    Wittenstein, V

    C. Wittenstein, V. Marks, and H. Ranocha.Reproducibility repository: GPU-Accelerated Energy- Conserving Methods for the Hyperbolized Serre-Green-Naghdi Equations in 2D . DOI: 10 . 5281 / zenodo.18016096. URL:https://github.com/cwittens/2025_Hyp_SGN_2D. 33

  67. [531]

    DOI:10.1002/fld.4766

    work page doi:10.1002/fld.4766