Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 37 references

A wave-domain Douglas–Rachford interface keeps partitioned port-Hamiltonian simulations energy-safe at any finite iteration budget.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-13 23:46 UTC pith:LJZA4JZU

load-bearing objection Clean anytime energy-safe DR interface in wave coordinates; the math holds under its conditions, the main soft spot is FNE for nonlinear ports and a thin benchmark. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2603.16424 v2 pith:LJZA4JZU submitted 2026-03-17 cs.RO cs.NAcs.SYeess.SYmath.NA

Early-Terminable Energy-Safe Iterative Coupling for Parallel Simulation of Partitioned Port-Hamiltonian Systems

Qi Wei , Jianfeng Tao , Hongyu Nie , Wangtao Tan This is my paper
classification cs.RO cs.NAcs.SYeess.SYmath.NA
keywords port-Hamiltonian systemsco-simulationDouglas–Rachford splittingscattering variablesdiscrete passivityparallel simulationwave-domain coupling
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.

Parallel robotic simulation often splits a large model into coupled subsystems, but stopping the interface iteration early can inject fake energy even when every piece is passive. This paper builds the interface in scattering (wave) coordinates and reconciles the subsystems with a Douglas–Rachford inner loop. Passivity becomes a norm inequality and lossless coupling becomes an orthogonal swap, so the iteration’s Fejér decrease supplies algorithmic dissipation that can be booked in an augmented storage. Under a passivity condition on each subsystem integrator and an impedance-tuning condition that makes the frozen port maps firmly nonexpansive, the coupled macro-step stays discrete-passive for any finite inner budget and converges to the monolithic discrete update as that budget grows. On a linear–Duffing oscillator benchmark the energy residual sits at numerical roundoff and the state error falls as more inner iterations are allowed, giving a certified accuracy–compute knob for real-time parallel co-simulation.

Core claim

Under passivity-preserving subsystem integrators and firm nonexpansiveness of the frozen wave port maps (secured by impedance tuning), a Douglas–Rachford iteration in scattering coordinates yields an augmented-storage inequality that certifies discrete passivity of the coupled macro-step for every finite inner-iteration budget, while the same iteration recovers the monolithic discrete-time update in the hard-coupling limit.

What carries the argument

The lifted Douglas–Rachford operator in wave coordinates: coupling is the orthogonal projection onto the subspace a = P b, subsystem maps are firmly nonexpansive resolvents, and Fejér monotonicity of the DR residual supplies the algorithmic dissipation term in the augmented storage Vn.

Load-bearing premise

Each frozen discrete port map must be firmly nonexpansive, which the paper obtains only by tuning the scattering impedance and, for the nonlinear oscillator, only verifies numerically along the realized trajectory rather than proving it for all relevant states.

What would settle it

On the Duffing–linear benchmark, choose an impedance γ that drives the measured firm-nonexpansiveness margin of the frozen port maps negative; if the positive part of the augmented-storage residual then rises well above roundoff while the same integrators remain passive, Theorem 1 fails.

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

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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an early-terminable (anytime) iterative coupling interface for parallel simulation of partitioned port-Hamiltonian systems. At each macro-step, subsystem integrators induce frozen scattering port maps; a Douglas–Rachford inner iteration in wave coordinates reconciles these maps with a lossless (orthogonal) interconnection constraint. Under discrete passivity of the subsystem one-step maps (Condition 1) and firm nonexpansiveness of the frozen wave maps (Condition 2, enforced by an impedance-tuning rule on γ), Theorem 1 proves an augmented-storage inequality that certifies discrete passivity of the coupled macro-step for any finite inner-iteration budget Kn, with residual mismatch captured by Fejér decrease of the DR fixed-point residual. Theorem 2 shows that as Kn→∞ the partitioned update recovers the monolithic discrete-time update induced by the same integrators. A two-oscillator (linear–Duffing) benchmark reports FNE margins, passivity residuals at numerical roundoff (~1e-14), and monotonic RMS state-error decay with Kn.

Significance. If the claims hold under the stated conditions, the work supplies a principled, certificate-driven alternative to ad-hoc co-simulation interfaces: an anytime energy-safe contract that remains valid under finite inner budgets while converging to the monolithic discretization. That combination is directly relevant to real-time parallel simulation and co-simulation of robotic systems under varying compute budgets. Strengths include a clean reduction of power consistency to wave-domain orthogonality and norm inequalities, an explicit link between discrete passivity and monotone-operator resolvents, and a transparent Fejér argument for finite-iteration safety. The experimental residuals at double-precision roundoff and the monotonic hard-coupling error decay support the theory on the chosen benchmark. The main practical caveat is that Condition 2 is only a priori guaranteed for linear symmetric impedances (Proposition 1) and is checked numerically for the nonlinear Duffing subsystem; the contribution remains useful as a certified interface design pattern with an explicit monitor for the FNE margin.

major comments (2)
  1. [Condition 2, Proposition 1, §V Fig. 5a] Condition 2 / Proposition 1 and §V (Fig. 5a): Theorem 1’s Fejér argument requires firm nonexpansiveness of every frozen wave map Sn_i. Proposition 1 gives a sufficient (and, for linear symmetric Z, necessary) rule Zn_i,d ⪰ γI, but for the stiff Duffing subsystem the paper only verifies non-negative empirical margins Δ along realized trajectories on a finite set of test pairs (tol=1e-12). This is consistent with the stated claims and does not create circularity, but it is load-bearing for the nonlinear case: if FNE fails off the tested pairs or under other (γ,Δt,amplitude) regimes, the augmented-storage certificate (28) no longer holds. The manuscript should either (i) strengthen the a-priori guarantee for the discrete-gradient Duffing map under the chosen γ, or (ii) more prominently frame Condition 2 as a runtime-monitored hypothesis and report the empirical margin as part of the certifi
  2. [§V Experiments] §V benchmark scope: The only numerical support is a two-port linear–Duffing oscillator pair (Table I, Figs. 4–6). The theory is written for general N and multiport Dirac interconnections (stacked waves, orthogonal P), yet there is no multiport, multi-subsystem, or stiff DAE-style example that would stress parallel evaluation, non-swap P, or more severe state-dependent impedance. A second experiment (or a clear limitation statement) is needed before the “parallel simulation of robotic systems” framing can be taken as demonstrated rather than illustrated.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract, §V Fig. 5b] Abstract and §I claim “1e-14” / “10e-14” residuals; Fig. 5b positive-part summaries are consistent with roundoff but the exact residual definition (how the RHS of (28) is moved) should be stated once in the caption or text so the number is reproducible.
  2. [§II–IV, Abstract] Notation: z is used for effort/flow pairs in §II and ζ for wave pairs in §IV; a short reminder when ζ is introduced would help. Also, “10e-14” in the abstract should be “10^{-14}”.
  3. [§III-C, §IV-B] Algorithm 1 and (18)/(25): the lifted DR form and the reduced form are stated to be equivalent; a one-line pointer that the shadow ˆb used for the macro-step is the same object in both presentations would reduce reader friction.
  4. [Remark 6, §V] Remark 6 (nonuniqueness) is appropriately cautious; a sentence on how the experiments select the monolithic reference (same init / same discrete-gradient solver) would close the loop with Theorem 2.
  5. [§I] Related work on TLM and energy-leak correction is cited; a brief contrast on delay-free vs. delay-based passivity certificates would help position the contribution for co-simulation readers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: Theorems 1–2 follow from standard Fejér/DR theory under explicit Conditions 1–2, not by construction from fitted residuals or self-citation.

full rationale

The load-bearing derivation of the anytime energy certificate (Theorem 1, inequality (28)) is the sum of two independent pieces: (i) the assumed discrete passivity of the subsystem one-step maps (Condition 1 / (21)), which is a standing hypothesis satisfied by construction for the discrete-gradient integrators used, and (ii) Fejér monotonicity of the Douglas–Rachford residual term, which follows from firm nonexpansiveness of the frozen wave maps (Condition 2) via the standard resolvent representation Sn = J_An and the known firm nonexpansiveness of the DR operator (cited to Bauschke–Combettes and Lions–Mercier). Proposition 1 supplies an a-priori sufficient impedance rule Zn_i,d ⪰ γI that makes Condition 2 hold; γ is a design parameter, not reverse-engineered from the energy residual. The experimental margins and round-off residuals merely corroborate that the chosen (γ, Δt) satisfy the hypothesis on the realized trajectories; they are not used to force the inequality. Theorem 2 is ordinary DR shadow convergence plus continuity of the one-step maps. No self-definitional loop, no fitted-parameter-as-prediction, no load-bearing self-citation of an unverified uniqueness claim, and no smuggled ansatz appear in the chain. The paper is therefore self-contained against its stated assumptions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 5 axioms · 1 invented entities

The load-bearing content rests on standard monotone-operator facts, the standing discrete-passivity and FNE conditions on the subsystem maps, the modeling choice that interconnection is a linear Dirac structure (orthogonal P in wave coordinates), and the free design parameter γ. No new physical entities are postulated; the ‘augmented storage’ is an analysis device built from the DR residual, not a new conserved quantity of nature.

free parameters (2)
  • scattering impedance γ = 0.4 (benchmark)
    Chosen by hand (γ=0.4 in the benchmark) to enforce firm nonexpansiveness of the frozen wave maps via Prop. 1 / Condition 2; the passivity certificate depends on this tuning.
  • inner-iteration budgets Kn = {0,3,8,20,35,50}
    User-chosen finite budgets {0,3,8,20,35,50} that trade accuracy for compute; the anytime claim is parameterized by them.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Subsystem one-step maps satisfy discrete passivity in wave coordinates (Condition 1 / inequality (21)).
    Standing assumption on the chosen integrators; many pH-preserving methods satisfy it by construction, but it is not proved for arbitrary black-box solvers.
  • domain assumption Frozen discrete port maps Sn_i are firmly nonexpansive (Condition 2), ensured when discrete incremental impedance Zn_i,d ⪰ γI (Prop. 1).
    Load-bearing for Fejér monotonicity of DR; for nonlinear Duffing only verified numerically along trajectories.
  • domain assumption Interconnection is a linear Dirac structure, represented in wave coordinates by an orthogonal matrix P (a=Pb).
    Standard pH modeling assumption (Sec. II-B); excludes nonlinear or non-power-conserving interfaces.
  • standard math Douglas–Rachford operator for sum of two maximal monotone operators is firmly nonexpansive and Fejér monotone w.r.t. its fixed-point set (Bauschke–Combettes / Lions–Mercier).
    Cited classical monotone-operator theory used to obtain residual decrease in the proof of Theorem 1.
  • domain assumption Existence of a monolithic interface solution ζn,⋆ (solvability of the fixed-point problem at each macro-step).
    Explicitly assumed for Theorems 1–2; non-uniqueness is acknowledged in Remark 6.
invented entities (1)
  • augmented storage Vn (Hamiltonians plus DR fixed-point residual) no independent evidence
    purpose: Absorbs finite-iteration interface mismatch so discrete passivity holds for any Kn.
    Analysis construct, not a new physical energy; independent_evidence is false because it is defined from the algorithm residual.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 18817 in / 3460 out tokens · 36242 ms · 2026-07-13T23:46:57.520813+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Parallel simulation of robotic systems requires partitioning the dynamics into coupled subsystems. Finite-iteration coupling across the partition boundary can inject spurious energy, even when each subsystem is passive. We propose an early-terminable, energy-safe coupling interface for port-Hamiltonian subsystems based on Douglas--Rachford splitting in wave (scattering) coordinates. The wave-domain formulation reduces passivity to norm inequalities and coupling to orthogonality. Within this setting, the deep correspondence between monotone operator theory and discrete passivity can be exploited to construct a Douglas--Rachford inner iteration whose Fej\'er monotonicity provides algorithmic dissipation. Under passivity of the subsystem integrators and an impedance-tuning condition, the proposed method guarantees discrete passivity of the augmented storage for any finite inner-iteration budget and converges to the monolithic discretization as the budget increases. Experiments on a linear--Duffing coupled-oscillator benchmark support the finite-iteration energy inequality at numerical roundoff (1e-14 in double precision), with state-error metrics decreasing over the tested inner-iteration budgets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.16424 by Hongyu Nie, Jianfeng Tao, Qi Wei, Wangtao Tan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Port-based view of a pH interconnection. Storage [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Parallel iterative coupling of port-Hamiltonian subsystems. A macro [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Schematic of the two-oscillator benchmark. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Hard-coupling limit validation (Theorem 2). (a) RMS state error [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Two-oscillator certificates versus inner-iteration budget [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Learning to walk in minutes using massively parallel deep reinforcement learning,

    N. Rudin, D. Hoeller, P. Reist, and M. Hutter, “Learning to walk in minutes using massively parallel deep reinforcement learning,” in Conference on robot learning. PMLR, 2022, pp. 91–100

    2022

  2. [2]

    Isaac gym: High performance gpu-based physics simulation for robot learning,

    V . Makoviychuk, L. Wawrzyniak, Y . Guo, M. Lu, K. Storey, M. Macklin, D. Hoeller, N. Rudin, A. Allshire, A. Handaet al., “Isaac gym: High performance gpu-based physics simulation for robot learning,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.10470, 2021

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    Mujoco: A physics engine for model- based control,

    E. Todorov, T. Erez, and Y . Tassa, “Mujoco: A physics engine for model- based control,” in2012 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems. IEEE, 2012, pp. 5026–5033

    2012

  4. [4]

    Difftaichi: Differentiable programming for physical simulation,

    Y . Hu, L. Anderson, T.-M. Li, Q. Sun, N. Carr, J. Ragan-Kelley, and F. Durand, “Difftaichi: Differentiable programming for physical simulation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.00935, 2019

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1910

  5. [5]

    Per- ceptive locomotion through nonlinear model-predictive control,

    R. Grandia, F. Jenelten, S. Yang, F. Farshidian, and M. Hutter, “Per- ceptive locomotion through nonlinear model-predictive control,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 3402–3421, 2023

    2023

  6. [6]

    Real-time neural mpc: Deep learning model predictive control for quadrotors and agile robotic platforms,

    T. Salzmann, E. Kaufmann, J. Arrizabalaga, M. Pavone, D. Scaramuzza, and M. Ryll, “Real-time neural mpc: Deep learning model predictive control for quadrotors and agile robotic platforms,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 2397–2404, 2023. 8

    2023

  7. [7]

    Parallel computing in multibody system dynamics: why, when, and how,

    D. Negrut, R. Serban, H. Mazhar, and T. Heyn, “Parallel computing in multibody system dynamics: why, when, and how,”Journal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics, vol. 9, no. 4, p. 041007, 2014

    2014

  8. [8]

    A model partitioning method based on dynamic decoupling for the efficient simulation of multibody systems,

    A. V . Papadopoulos and A. Leva, “A model partitioning method based on dynamic decoupling for the efficient simulation of multibody systems,” Multibody System Dynamics, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 163–190, 2015

    2015

  9. [9]

    Explicit and implicit cosimulation methods: stability and convergence analysis for different solver cou- pling approaches,

    B. Schweizer, P. Li, and D. Lu, “Explicit and implicit cosimulation methods: stability and convergence analysis for different solver cou- pling approaches,”Journal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics, vol. 10, no. 5, p. 051007, 2015

    2015

  10. [10]

    Energy conservation and co-simulation: Background and challenges,

    S. Sadjina, L. T. Kyllingstad, E. Pedersen, and S. Skjong, “Energy conservation and co-simulation: Background and challenges,” inPro- ceedings of the 2024 International Conference on Bond Graph Modeling and Simulation (ICBGM’24)(San Diego, CA, USA, 1st–3rd July 2024), 2024

    2024

  11. [11]

    Energy conservation and power bonds in co-simulations: non-iterative adaptive step size control and error estimation,

    S. Sadjina, L. T. Kyllingstad, S. Skjong, and E. Pedersen, “Energy conservation and power bonds in co-simulations: non-iterative adaptive step size control and error estimation,”Engineering with Computers, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 607–620, 2017

    2017

  12. [12]

    Nepce-a nearly energy-preserving coupling element for weak-coupled problems and co-simulations,

    M. Benedikt, D. Watzenig, J. Zehetner, and A. Hofer, “Nepce-a nearly energy-preserving coupling element for weak-coupled problems and co-simulations,” inCOUPLED V: proceedings of the V International Conference on Computational Methods for Coupled Problems in Science and Engineering:. CIMNE, 2013, pp. 1021–1032

    2013

  13. [13]

    Energy-leak monitoring and correction to enhance stability in the co-simulation of mechanical systems,

    F. González, S. Arbatani, A. Mohtat, and J. Kövecses, “Energy-leak monitoring and correction to enhance stability in the co-simulation of mechanical systems,”Mechanism and Machine Theory, vol. 131, pp. 172–188, 2019

    2019

  14. [14]

    Energy-based monitoring and correction to enhance the accuracy and stability of explicit co-simulation,

    B. Rodríguez, A. J. Rodríguez, B. Sputh, R. Pastorino, M. Á. Naya, and F. González, “Energy-based monitoring and correction to enhance the accuracy and stability of explicit co-simulation,”Multibody System Dynamics, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 103–136, 2022

    2022

  15. [15]

    Co-simulation: a survey,

    C. Gomes, C. Thule, D. Broman, P. G. Larsen, and H. Vangheluwe, “Co-simulation: a survey,”ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 1–33, 2018

    2018

  16. [16]

    The functional mockup interface for tool independent exchange of simulation models,

    T. Blochwitz, M. Otter, M. Arnold, C. Bausch, C. Clauß, H. Elmqvist, A. Junghanns, J. Mauss, M. Monteiro, T. Neidholdet al., “The functional mockup interface for tool independent exchange of simulation models,” inProceedings of the 8th international Modelica conference. Linköping University Press, 2011, pp. 105–114

    2011

  17. [17]

    Multibody system dynamics interface modelling for stable multirate co-simulation of multiphysics systems,

    A. Peiret, F. González, J. Kövecses, and M. Teichmann, “Multibody system dynamics interface modelling for stable multirate co-simulation of multiphysics systems,”Mechanism and Machine Theory, vol. 127, pp. 52–72, 2018

    2018

  18. [18]

    Model-based co- simulation of flexible mechanical systems with contacts using reduced interface models,

    X. Dai, A. Raoofian, J. Kövecses, and M. Teichmann, “Model-based co- simulation of flexible mechanical systems with contacts using reduced interface models,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 239–246, 2023

    2023

  19. [19]

    Nonsmooth reduced interface models and their use in co-simulation of mechanical systems,

    A. Raoofian, X. Dai, and J. Kövecses, “Nonsmooth reduced interface models and their use in co-simulation of mechanical systems,”Journal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics, vol. 19, no. 7, p. 071006, 2024

    2024

  20. [20]

    Implicit co-simulation methods: Stability and convergence analysis for solver coupling approaches with algebraic constraints,

    B. Schweizer, P. Li, and D. Lu, “Implicit co-simulation methods: Stability and convergence analysis for solver coupling approaches with algebraic constraints,”ZAMM-Journal of Applied Mathematics and Me- chanics/Zeitschrift für Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik, vol. 96, no. 8, pp. 986–1012, 2016

    2016

  21. [21]

    Robust modelling using bi-lateral delay lines for high speed simulation of complex systems,

    P. Krus, “Robust modelling using bi-lateral delay lines for high speed simulation of complex systems,” inThe International Symposium on Dynamic Problems of Mechanics, March, 13 to 18, 2011 Maresias Beach Hotel São Sebastião, São Paulo, Brazil, 2011

    2011

  22. [22]

    Multi-threaded distributed system simulations using bi-lateral delay lines,

    R. Braun, “Multi-threaded distributed system simulations using bi-lateral delay lines,” Ph.D. dissertation, Linkopings Universitet (Sweden), 2013

    2013

  23. [23]

    Numerically robust co-simulation using transmission line modeling and the functional mock-up interface,

    R. Braun and D. Fritzson, “Numerically robust co-simulation using transmission line modeling and the functional mock-up interface,” Simulation, vol. 98, no. 11, pp. 1057–1070, 2022

    2022

  24. [24]

    Locally distributed digital real-time power sys- tem co-simulation via multi-phase distributed transmission line model,

    L. Barbierato, S. Steffen-V ogel, D. S. Schiera, E. Pons, L. Bottaccioli, A. Monti, and E. Patti, “Locally distributed digital real-time power sys- tem co-simulation via multi-phase distributed transmission line model,” IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, vol. 60, no. 6, pp. 8137– 8146, 2024

    2024

  25. [25]

    Analysis of an electro-hydraulic position control servo-system using transmission-line modelling (tlm),

    J. D. BURTON, K. A. EDGE, and C. R. BURROWS, “Analysis of an electro-hydraulic position control servo-system using transmission-line modelling (tlm),” inProceedings of the JFPS International Symposium on Fluid Power, vol. 1993, no. 2. The Japan Fluid Power System Society, 1993, pp. 507–514

    1993

  26. [26]

    Transmission line modeling co-simulation with distributed delay-size control using steady-state iden- tification,

    R. Braun, R. Hällqvist, and D. Fritzson, “Transmission line modeling co-simulation with distributed delay-size control using steady-state iden- tification,”Engineering with computers, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 301–312, 2024

    2024

  27. [27]

    Energy-preserving and passivity- consistent numerical discretization of port-hamiltonian systems,

    E. Celledoni and E. H. Høiseth, “Energy-preserving and passivity- consistent numerical discretization of port-hamiltonian systems,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.08621, 2017

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  28. [28]

    Variational integrators for interconnected lagrange–dirac systems,

    H. Parks and M. Leok, “Variational integrators for interconnected lagrange–dirac systems,”Journal of Nonlinear Science, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 1399–1434, 2017

    2017

  29. [29]

    Structure-preserving cou- pling and decoupling of port-hamiltonian systems,

    M. Ehrhardt, M. Günther, and D. Šev ˇcoviˇc, “Structure-preserving cou- pling and decoupling of port-hamiltonian systems,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.20150, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Theory and implementation of coupled port-hamiltonian continuum and lumped parameter models,

    F. J. Argus, C. P. Bradley, and P. J. Hunter, “Theory and implementation of coupled port-hamiltonian continuum and lumped parameter models,” Journal of Elasticity, vol. 145, no. 1, pp. 339–382, 2021

    2021

  31. [31]

    Operator splitting based dynamic iteration for linear differential-algebraic port-hamiltonian systems,

    A. Bartel, M. Günther, B. Jacob, and T. Reis, “Operator splitting based dynamic iteration for linear differential-algebraic port-hamiltonian systems,”Numerische Mathematik, vol. 155, no. 1, pp. 1–34, 2023

    2023

  32. [32]

    Split- ting techniques for daes with port-hamiltonian applications,

    A. Bartel, M. Diab, A. Frommer, M. Günther, and N. Marheineke, “Split- ting techniques for daes with port-hamiltonian applications,”Applied Numerical Mathematics, vol. 214, pp. 28–53, 2025

    2025

  33. [33]

    Interconnection of port- hamiltonian systems and composition of dirac structures,

    J. Cervera, A. J. van der Schaft, and A. Baños, “Interconnection of port- hamiltonian systems and composition of dirac structures,”Automatica, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 212–225, 2007

    2007

  34. [34]

    Explicit parallel co- simulation approach: analysis and improved coupling method based on h-infinity synthesis,

    W. Chen, S. Ran, C. Wu, and B. Jacobson, “Explicit parallel co- simulation approach: analysis and improved coupling method based on h-infinity synthesis,”Multibody System Dynamics, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 255–279, 2021

    2021

  35. [35]

    H. H. Bauschke and P. L. Combettes,Convex Analysis and Monotone Operator Theory in Hilbert Spaces, 2nd ed. Cham: Springer, 2017

    2017

  36. [36]

    Splitting algorithms for the sum of two nonlinear operators,

    P.-L. Lions and B. Mercier, “Splitting algorithms for the sum of two nonlinear operators,”SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 964–979, 1979

    1979

  37. [37]

    On weak convergence of the douglas–rachford method,

    B. F. Svaiter, “On weak convergence of the douglas–rachford method,” SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 280–287, 2011

    2011