Shape optimisation for adaptive $r$-refinement: the one-dimensional case with residual based error estimators

Philip J. Herbert

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 26 references

Shape optimisation for adaptive $r$-refinement: the one-dimensional case with residual based error estimators

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Residual estimator gives a provably convergent r-refinement in 1D

desk verdict The paper's central derivative formula (Lemma 4) is incorrect, so the fully practical convergence theorem (Theorem 2) is unsupported; the exact-error part is a clean but mostly prior-work corollary. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.22206 v1 pith:EY3Y7XNY submitted 2026-07-24 math.NA cs.NA

Philip J. Herbert This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.NAcs.NA MSC 65N3065N5049Q10

keywords r-refinementshapeoptimisationfiniteelementmethodresidualerrorestimatorPoissonequationArmijodescentmeshadaptationone-dimensional

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 shows that moving the nodes of a finite element mesh to reduce the residual error can be treated as a shape optimisation problem. It proves that a standard Armijo descent algorithm converges when the cost is the true finite element error (in any dimension), and, more importantly, when the cost is a fully computable residual-based error estimator in one dimension. This establishes a rigorous foundation for a practical r-refinement strategy that improves the approximation without changing the mesh topology. Numerical experiments confirm that the optimised meshes beat uniform meshes and are competitive with h-refinement.

What carries the argument

The central object is the space of admissible mesh parametrisations U, consisting of piecewise-linear bi-Lipschitz maps that fix the boundary, together with the residual estimator E(Φ) defined on the image mesh. The argument relies on an explicit formula for the derivative E'(Φ)[U] derived via a Lagrangian adjoint approach, and an Armijo step-size rule that guarantees a sufficient decrease at each iteration. This yields the convergence of the descent algorithm and the subsequential limit result of Theorem 2.

What would settle it

Run Algorithm 1 on a one-dimensional Poisson problem with a boundary-layer profile in f and monitor the minimum element length; if an element length converges to zero (so the parametrisation leaves U) before ∥E'(Φ_n)∥ reaches the stopping tolerance, the practical convergence claim without the bounded-inverse assumption fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the residual-based error estimator E(Φ) (Equation 18) is differentiable with respect to the mesh parametrisation Φ, and that the Armijo-type Algorithm 1 applied to E(Φ) produces a sequence of parametrisations whose derivative norm tends to zero and which has a convergent subsequence. This makes estimator-based r-refinement a fully computable and provably convergent adaptive strategy in one dimension. The same algorithm applied to the exact H1 or L2 error converges in arbitrary dimensions, as stated in Theorem 1.

Load-bearing premise

The sequence of mesh parametrisations must stay under a uniform Lipschitz bound on the inverse derivative (sup_n |DΦ_n^{-1}| < C), otherwise the limit Φ* may be non-injective and no longer define a valid mesh, so the practical convergence to a usable mesh is not fully established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For any one-dimensional Poisson problem with f ∈ H², repeated application of Algorithm 1 with the residual estimator terminates or drives the derivative norm to zero, giving a fully computable convergence guarantee.
When the exact H¹ or L² error is used as the objective, the same algorithm converges in arbitrary dimensions, not just one.
Optimised meshes reduce the finite element error compared to uniform meshes at the same number of degrees of freedom, as shown in the numerical experiments.
The method is competitive with a greedy h-refinement strategy in the one-dimensional example, suggesting that fixed-topology node movement can match the error reduction of local refinement.
The results turn r-refinement from a heuristic mesh-moving technique into an optimisation problem with a rigorous descent property.

Reading between the lines

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

The differentiability of the residual estimator is established only in one dimension, where the element diameter equals its integral; extending the strategy to higher dimensions likely requires a smoothed element-size measure or a different estimator, as the author notes.
The convergence proof assumes a uniform bound on the inverse derivative of the parametrisation; without it, the limiting map may lose injectivity, so a practical implementation may need to enforce validity of the mesh through projection or constraints.
The numerical comparison to h-refinement suggests that r-refinement could serve as an alternative when mesh topology must remain fixed, for instance in parallel solvers or time-dependent problems where remeshing is costly.
If the residual estimator is accepted as a reliable error proxy, this optimisation viewpoint opens the door to more general estimators, such as dual-weighted residuals, within the same descent framework.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The novel claim here is that the residual estimator E in 1D is differentiable with respect to the mesh and that an Armijo descent on E converges. That claim does not hold as written. I checked Lemma 4 directly. Take f=1, P1 elements on (0,1) with interior node at a. Then y_Φ is piecewise linear, ∂_xx y_Φ=0, and the estimator reduces to E(a)=a^3+(1-a)^3, whose derivative is 3δ(2a-1). Plugging the same data into the proposed formula (23) gives a different value—for a=1/4, the formula yields about -1.89δ instead of -1.5δ. So Lemma 4 is false, and Lemma 5 and Theorem 2, which rely on that derivative for sufficient decrease, do not follow. This is a load-bearing flaw, not a minor typo. (The stress-test note's specific ratio of 3.78 doesn't match my calculation, but the conclusion is correct: the formula is wrong.)

What the paper does well: the idea of viewing r-refinement as shape optimization and applying W^{1,∞} methods is sensible and timely. The exact-error convergence (Theorem 1) is essentially a specialization of the author's prior work [15], but it is cleanly stated. The numerical experiments are encouraging—the optimized meshes do improve on uniform ones in the test cases—but they cannot rescue the theory.

Other soft spots: the limit Φ* is not shown to be injective, so the terminal mesh may be degenerate (the author notes this but handwaves it). The proof leans heavily on [15] and [23], with several typos (e.g., duplicated I_{2,3}, J' vs E' in Lemma 5) that make it harder to audit. No code or data is shipped, and the Data Availability statement says 'no data.'

Who should read this: researchers working on r-refinement or computational shape optimization might find the framing interesting, but they should not rely on Theorem 2 until the derivative is corrected and the injectivity issue is resolved. I would not cite it in its current form.

Recommendation: send it to peer review—a competent referee will catch the derivative error, and the underlying idea may be salvageable. But it needs major revision before publication.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an r-refinement strategy for finite element Poisson problems, formulated as a shape-optimisation problem over admissible mesh parametrisations. The main theoretical results are: (i) for the exact H^1 or L^2 error, an Armijo-type algorithm generates a sequence whose derivative goes to zero and which has a subsequential limit in a non-injective enlargement of the admissible set (Theorem 1, following [15]); and (ii) in one dimension, a fully computable residual-based estimator E in (18) is claimed to be differentiable, with an explicit derivative (23), an Armijo sufficient-decrease condition (Lemma 5), and a corresponding convergence theorem (Theorem 2). Numerical experiments in one and two dimensions are presented.

Significance. If the main theorem were correct, the paper would give a useful rigorous foundation for residual-based r-refinement, a topic where rigorous convergence results are scarce. The paper is clearly written, and the numerical experiments show that the algorithm improves the approximation in the tested cases. However, the central derivative formula (23) is not correct; an elementary one-dimensional computation gives a different value for the derivative of the estimator. Since the Armijo proof and Theorem 2 rely directly on this formula, the paper's main theoretical contribution is not established. The convergence statements are also weakened by the possibility that the limit parametrisation is not injective. The significance of the paper is therefore conditional on a successful correction of the derivative and a reworking of the subsequent proof.

major comments (2)

[§3.2, Lemma 4 and Eq. (23)] Lemma 4 is false as stated. Take Ω=(0,1), f≡1, P1 elements with nodes 0<a<1, and U the hat function with U(a)=δ. Then y_Φ(a)=a(1-a)/2 and the estimator (18) is E(a)=a^3+(1-a)^3, so its true derivative is 3δ(2a-1). Solving the adjoint equation (24) gives p_Φ(a)=-a(1-a)E(a). Substituting into (23) and simplifying yields E'(Φ)[U]=δ(2a-1)(4-E(a)/2). For a=1/4 this is -1.890625δ, whereas the true derivative is -1.5δ. Thus (23) is not the derivative of E. Since Lemma 5 and Theorem 2 use this expression in the Armijo sufficient-decrease condition, the convergence proof does not follow.
[§3.1, Theorem 1, and §3.2, Theorem 2] The convergence statements only guarantee a subsequential limit in the enlarged space (17)/(41), not in the admissible set U. After (17) the author acknowledges that Φ* need not be injective, and the condition sup_n |DΦ_n^{-1}|<C is stated but never proved. If the limit is non-injective, it is not a valid mesh, so the algorithm has not been shown to produce a usable converged mesh. This limitation should be stated as an explicit assumption or proved as part of the theorem.

minor comments (3)

[§3.2, Lemma 5] The statement of Lemma 5 writes J'(Φ)[U] where the objective is E; the derivative should be E'(Φ)[U]. In the expansion at (33) the term I2,3 appears twice; one of these should presumably be I2,2.
[§3.2, Eq. (18)] The one-dimensional estimator (18) omits the jump term that appears in the general residual estimator (5). If this is intentional, it should be justified; if not, the estimator is not the standard residual estimator.
[§4] The definitions of f in §4.1 and §4.3 are inconsistent: §4.1 gives f(x)=-C^2x^2(6-20x-15x^2), while §4.3 gives f(x)=-2Cx^2(6-20x-15x^2). Also, the last sentence of §4.3 ('Choosing less regular data') is incomplete.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the residual-estimator derivative and Algorithm 1 are derived in-paper; reliance on [15] is a transparent external framework, not a self-referential reduction.

full rationale

The exact-error part (Theorem 1) is explicitly imported from [15] ('This follows by applying [15, Lemma 3.2]...' and 'as in [15]'), but [15] is a published external convergence framework and the paper checks its hypotheses for the chosen cost functionals; this is not circularity. The residual-estimator chain is developed inside the paper: E is defined in (18), the mesh-derivative identities for the Laplacian term are Lemmas 2 and 3, the adjoint-based formula for E' is stated and sketched in Lemma 4, and Lemma 5 verifies the Armijo sufficient-decrease condition using inverse estimates from [23] together with estimates carried out in the proof. No fitted parameter is later renamed as a prediction, and no equation reduces to the target result by construction. The acknowledged limitation that the limit Phi* may lack injectivity (after (17)) is a regularity caveat, not circularity. Any concern that Lemma 4's derivative formula is numerically incorrect would be a correctness/falsification issue, not an identity between input and output.

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

No fitted parameters or invented entities; the central contribution is a new application of existing shape-optimization machinery to the 1D residual estimator. The main imported ingredients are standard FEM estimates and the author's own prior convergence framework [13-15].

assumptions (6)

standard math C^1 shape derivative formula (14) for functionals J(Phi)=∫ j(x,y_Phi,∇y_Phi) dx, with adjoint (15), from [15, Lemma 2.1]
The paper uses this formula to define descent directions for the exact-error functional in Section 3.1.
domain assumption Residual estimator reliability: ||∂x(y−y_Phi)||^2_{L2} ≤ C E(Phi)^2 with C independent of Phi in 1D (Eq. (19), citing [8])
This justifies interpreting minimization of E as a surrogate for error reduction; C-independence is asserted for 1D.
standard math Inverse estimate ||∂x v||_{L2(T)} ≤ √12(q+1)^2 h_T^{-1} ||v||_{L2(T)} (Eq. (26), citing [23])
Used in Lemma 5 to control second-derivative differences of the transported discrete solution.
domain assumption f ∈ H^2(Ω) in Lemma 5
The Armijo admissibility proof requires continuity of f and ||∇f∘Ψ_σ−∇f||→0 as σ→0.
standard math Change-of-variables formula for the Laplacian under a C^2 diffeomorphism (Lemma 2, citing [20])
Basis for differentiating the residual term in the estimator with respect to the map Phi.
standard math W^{1,oo} steepest-descent convergence framework of [15] (Lemma 3.2 and Theorem 3.3)
Theorem 1 and the structure of Theorem 2 are imported from this prior work by the same author group.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Shape optimisation for adaptive $r$-refinement: the one-dimensional case with residual based error estimators." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EY3Y7XNY

@misc{pith2026260722206,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Shape optimisation for adaptive $r$-refinement: the one-dimensional case with residual based error estimators},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EY3Y7XNY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.22206}
}

abstract

We consider $r$-refinement for the finite element discretisation of a Poisson problem. The goal of $r$-refinement is to reposition the nodes of a computational mesh in order to better approximate the finite element error. Since the mesh is being moved, it naturally becomes linked to shape optimisation methods. We propose a standard optimisation algorithm for this $r$-refinement procedure and show that if one seeks to minimise the actual error - which one cannot generally calculate - one has an algorithm which will terminate. The most novel aspect of this work is to apply shape optimisation techniques to the a standard residual error estimator, which is a functional that is differentiable with respect to the mesh, when considered for the Poisson equation in one dimension. To illustrate the approach, a number of numerical experiments are presented, which verify the efficacy of the method.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.22206 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Two meshes which cover Ω = (0, 1)2 , upon which the H1 0 (Ω)-Ritz projection of y = 1 10 (x1 −1)x1(x2 −1)x2 P5 k=0(x1 + 1 2 ) k P5 k=0(x2 + 1 2 ) k is approximated. On the left mesh, the error is given by 0.13053 and on the right 0.07368. The mesh on the right better approximates y in H1 0 (Ω). In general, when given multiple meshes it is not easy to tell which should give a better approximation of the soluti… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** For the mesh with 17 vertices, from top to bottom we provide the mesh iterates 0, 1, 3, and 7 when using Algorithm 1 with estimator (18) and linear finite elements as described in Section 4.1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** The graph of errors on the uniform mesh and the optimised mesh as well as the estimators [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Plotted is the errors for the two-dimensional example on the uniform mesh and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: For a sequence of meshes, on the left is the initial uniform mesh and on the right is the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: For a sequence of mesh sizes with linear finite elements, the optimised meshes are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Plotted is the errors for the comparison of the one-dimensional example with linear finite [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

[15]

Convergence of a steepest descent algorithm in shape optimisation using W 1,∞ functions

K. Deckelnick, P. J. Herbert, and M. Hinze. “Convergence of a steepest descent algorithm in shape optimisation using W 1,∞ functions”. In: ESAIM: Mathematical Modelling and Numer- ical Analysis (Apr. 2025)

2025
[23]

C. Schwab. p- and hp-finite element methods . Numerical Mathematics and Scientific Compu- tation. Theory and applications in solid and fluid mechanics. The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, New York, 1998, pp. xii+374

1998
[1]

An r-adaptive finite element method using neural networks for parametric self- adjoint elliptic problem

D. Aballay, F. Fuentes, V. Iligaray, ´A. J. Omella, D. Pardo, M. A. S´ anchez, I. Tapia, and C. Uriarte. “An r-adaptive finite element method using neural networks for parametric self- adjoint elliptic problem”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.21160 (2025)

arXiv 2025
[2]

Shape and topology optimization

G. Allaire, C. Dapogny, and F. Jouve. “Shape and topology optimization”. In: Differential Geometric Partial Differential Equations: Part II . Vol. 22. Handbook of Numerical Analysis. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier, 2021, pp. 3–124

2021
[3]

Unified form language: A domain-specific language for weak formulations of partial differential equations

M. S. Alnæs, A. Logg, K. B. Ølgaard, M. E. Rognes, and G. N. Wells. “Unified form language: A domain-specific language for weak formulations of partial differential equations”. In: 40.2 (Mar. 2014)

2014
[4]

An Adaptive Conservative Moving Mesh Method

S. Appella, C. Budd, and T. Pryer. “An Adaptive Conservative Moving Mesh Method”. In: Mesh Generation and Adaptation . Springer International Publishing, 2022, pp. 277–299

2022
[5]

Computationally Efficient R-Adaptive Graded Meshes Over Non-Convex Domains

S. Appella, C. Budd, and T. Pryer. “Computationally Efficient R-Adaptive Graded Meshes Over Non-Convex Domains”. In: (2024). 17

2024
[6]

The Dune framework: Basic concepts and recent developments

P. Bastian, M. Blatt, A. Dedner, N.-A. Dreier, C. Engwer, R. Fritze, C. Gr¨ aser, C. Gr¨ uninger, D. Kempf, R. Kl¨ ofkorn, M. Ohlberger, and O. Sander. “The Dune framework: Basic concepts and recent developments”. In: Computers & Mathematics with Applications 81 (2021). Devel- opment and Application of Open-source Software for Problems with Numerical PDEs...

2021

Show all 26 references

[7]

Adaptive finite element methods

A. Bonito, C. Canuto, R. H. Nochetto, and A. Veeser. “Adaptive finite element methods”. In: Acta Numerica 33 (2024), pp. 163–485

2024
[8]

S. C. Brenner and L. R. Scott. The Mathematical Theory of Finite Element Methods . Springer New York, 2008

2008
[9]

Adaptivity with moving grids

C. J. Budd, W. Huang, and R. D. Russell. “Adaptivity with moving grids”. In: Acta Numerica 18 (2009), pp. 111–241

2009
[10]

Convergence and optimality of hp-AFEM

C. Canuto, R. H. Nochetto, R. Stevenson, and M. Verani. “Convergence and optimality of hp-AFEM”. In: Numerische Mathematik 135.4 (July 2016), pp. 1073–1119

2016
[11]

A saturation property for the spectral-Galerkin approximation of a Dirichlet problem in a square

C. Canuto, R. H. Nochetto, R. P. Stevenson, and M. Verani. “A saturation property for the spectral-Galerkin approximation of a Dirichlet problem in a square”. In: ESAIM: Mathemat- ical Modelling and Numerical Analysis 53.3 (May 2019), pp. 987–1003

2019
[12]

Approaches for generating moving adaptive meshes: location versus velocity

W. Cao, W. Huang, and R. D. Russell. “Approaches for generating moving adaptive meshes: location versus velocity”. In: Applied Numerical Mathematics 47.2 (Nov. 2003), pp. 121–138

2003
[13]

A novel W 1,∞ approach to shape optimisation with Lipschitz domains

K. Deckelnick, P. J. Herbert, and M. Hinze. “A novel W 1,∞ approach to shape optimisation with Lipschitz domains”. In: ESAIM: COCV 28 (2022), p. 2

2022
[14]

PDE-constrained shape optimization with first- order and Newton-type methods in the W 1,∞ topology

K. Deckelnick, P. J. Herbert, and M. Hinze. “PDE-constrained shape optimization with first- order and Newton-type methods in the W 1,∞ topology”. In: Optimization Methods and Soft- ware 0.0 (2024), pp. 1–27

2024
[16]

The Dune Python Module

A. Dedner and M. Nolte. “The Dune Python Module”. In: arXiv preprint 1807.05252 (2018)

2018 arXiv
[17]

Dedner, M

A. Dedner, M. Nolte, and R. Kl¨ ofkorn. Python Bindings for the DUNE-FEM module . 2020

2020
[18]

An rp-adaptive method for accurate reso- lution of shock-dominated viscous flow based on implicit shock tracking

H. Dong, M. Yano, T. Huang, and M. J. Zahr. “An rp-adaptive method for accurate reso- lution of shock-dominated viscous flow based on implicit shock tracking”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.15177 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[19]

A formula for membrane mediated point particle interactions on near spherical biomembranes

C. M. Elliott and P. J. Herbert. “A formula for membrane mediated point particle interactions on near spherical biomembranes”. In: Interfaces and Free Boundaries 24.1 (2022), pp. 1–34

2022
[20]

On differentiability of the membrane-mediated mechanical interaction energy of discrete-continuum membrane-particle models

C. Gr¨ aser and T. Kies. “On differentiability of the membrane-mediated mechanical interaction energy of discrete-continuum membrane-particle models”. In: Interfaces and Free Boundaries (2021), pp. 1–22

2021
[21]

Huang and R

W. Huang and R. D. Russell. Adaptive Moving Mesh Methods . Springer New York, 2011

2011
[22]

Higher-order moving mesh methods for PDE- constrained shape optimization

A. Paganini, F. Wechsung, and P. E. Farrell. “Higher-order moving mesh methods for PDE- constrained shape optimization”. In: SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 40.4 (2018), A2356–A2382. 18

2018
[24]

A Moving Mesh Method for One- dimensional Hyperbolic Conservation Laws

J. M. Stockie, J. A. Mackenzie, and R. D. Russell. “A Moving Mesh Method for One- dimensional Hyperbolic Conservation Laws”. In: SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 22.5 (2001), pp. 1791–1813

2001
[25]

r-refinement for evolutionary PDEs with finite elements or finite differences

P. A. Zegeling. “r-refinement for evolutionary PDEs with finite elements or finite differences”. In: Applied Numerical Mathematics 26.1–2 (1998), pp. 97–104

1998
[26]

Towards universal mesh movement networks

M. Zhang, C. Wang, S. C. Kramer, J. G. Wallwork, S. Li, J. Liu, X. Chen, and M. Piggott. “Towards universal mesh movement networks”. In:Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37 (2024), pp. 14934–14961. 19

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [15]

Convergence of a steepest descent algorithm in shape optimisation using W 1,∞ functions

K. Deckelnick, P. J. Herbert, and M. Hinze. “Convergence of a steepest descent algorithm in shape optimisation using W 1,∞ functions”. In: ESAIM: Mathematical Modelling and Numer- ical Analysis (Apr. 2025)

2025

[2] [23]

C. Schwab. p- and hp-finite element methods . Numerical Mathematics and Scientific Compu- tation. Theory and applications in solid and fluid mechanics. The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, New York, 1998, pp. xii+374

1998

[3] [1]

An r-adaptive finite element method using neural networks for parametric self- adjoint elliptic problem

D. Aballay, F. Fuentes, V. Iligaray, ´A. J. Omella, D. Pardo, M. A. S´ anchez, I. Tapia, and C. Uriarte. “An r-adaptive finite element method using neural networks for parametric self- adjoint elliptic problem”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.21160 (2025)

arXiv 2025

[4] [2]

Shape and topology optimization

G. Allaire, C. Dapogny, and F. Jouve. “Shape and topology optimization”. In: Differential Geometric Partial Differential Equations: Part II . Vol. 22. Handbook of Numerical Analysis. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier, 2021, pp. 3–124

2021

[5] [3]

Unified form language: A domain-specific language for weak formulations of partial differential equations

M. S. Alnæs, A. Logg, K. B. Ølgaard, M. E. Rognes, and G. N. Wells. “Unified form language: A domain-specific language for weak formulations of partial differential equations”. In: 40.2 (Mar. 2014)

2014

[6] [4]

An Adaptive Conservative Moving Mesh Method

S. Appella, C. Budd, and T. Pryer. “An Adaptive Conservative Moving Mesh Method”. In: Mesh Generation and Adaptation . Springer International Publishing, 2022, pp. 277–299

2022

[7] [5]

Computationally Efficient R-Adaptive Graded Meshes Over Non-Convex Domains

S. Appella, C. Budd, and T. Pryer. “Computationally Efficient R-Adaptive Graded Meshes Over Non-Convex Domains”. In: (2024). 17

2024

[8] [6]

The Dune framework: Basic concepts and recent developments

P. Bastian, M. Blatt, A. Dedner, N.-A. Dreier, C. Engwer, R. Fritze, C. Gr¨ aser, C. Gr¨ uninger, D. Kempf, R. Kl¨ ofkorn, M. Ohlberger, and O. Sander. “The Dune framework: Basic concepts and recent developments”. In: Computers & Mathematics with Applications 81 (2021). Devel- opment and Application of Open-source Software for Problems with Numerical PDEs...

2021