Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 47 references

Multi-Solver Coupling for Parallel Adaptive Multi-Physics Simulations with Trixi$.$jl and deal$.$II

T0 review · 2 major / 5 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 This paper shows that two mature, independently developed solver frameworks—a Julia DG code and a C++ finite-element library—can be coupled with thin wrappers into a strongly coupled, adaptive, parallel solver for self-gravitating gas dynam

desk verdict A genuinely useful cross-language coupling prototype with careful validation, but the unexamined LGL-vs-Gauss-Legendre node mismatch could break the central coefficient-exchange claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.25871 v1 pith:PGHGWPKT submitted 2026-07-28 math.NA cs.MScs.NA

Vivienne Ehlert , Gregor Gassner , Martin Kronbichler , Hendrik Ranocha , Michael Schlottke-Lakemper This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NAcs.MScs.NA MSC 65M6065N5565Y0565M70
keywords multi-physicscouplingdiscontinuousGalerkinspectralelementmethodmultigridPoissonsolverself-gravitatinggasesadaptivemeshrefinementpartitionedparallelscalingcompressibleEulerequations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper sets out to prove a practical point: you do not need a monolithic code to solve a coupled multi-physics problem. Its claim is that two specialized, separately developed solver frameworks—one for hyperbolic conservation laws, one for elliptic equations—can be joined through thin wrappers into a single strongly coupled, adaptive, parallel solver, provided they share one mesh and exchange only solution vectors in matching degrees of freedom. The demonstration case is the dynamics of Newtonian self-gravitating gases, where compressible Euler equations are coupled in volume to a Poisson equation for the gravitational potential. The authors validate the prototype by showing the expected p+1 order of convergence, agreement with analytical Jeans-instability energy profiles, and correct Sedov blast waves under h-adaptivity, with MPI scaling demonstrated up to 32 ranks. A sympathetic reader would take the paper's claim to be that this coupling pattern is a viable template for assembling multi-physics solvers from existing single-physics frameworks.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the degree-of-freedom match between the two discretizations: Trixi.jl's DGSEM uses tensor-product Lagrange polynomials collocated at Legendre–Gauss–Lobatto nodes, which is the same element as deal.II's FE_DGQ<k>; both solvers build their own meshes from the same refinement indicators on a common forest-of-octrees structure, so a one-to-one cell loop works without geometric searches. The elliptic stage projects density into FE_Q<k+1> (one degree higher, continuous) for the Poisson solve, then truncates the potential back to the discontinuous space; the multigrid preconditioner is matrix-free and runs in single precision inside a double-precision CG iteration. Str

What would settle it

Run the manufactured-solution problem on meshes with hanging nodes and aggressive refinement while the projection between Q^k and Q^{k+1,0} is active; if the observed order drops below p+1, or the Jeans-instability energies drift from their analytical curves under adaptation, then the small-projection-error premise fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a partitioned, strongly coupled solution of the Euler–Poisson system can be obtained by running two independent frameworks on the same forest-of-octrees mesh and exchanging only solution-vector coefficients. The key match is that Trixi.jl's Legendre–Gauss–Lobatto-collocated DGSEM polynomials are exactly the deal.II discontinuous Q^k elements, so density coefficients need no interpolation before entering the elliptic solver. The elliptic solver projects the discontinuous density onto a continuous space of one degree higher (Q^{k+1,0}), solves the Poisson equation by matrix-free geometric multigrid, and projects the potential back to the original discontinuous space;

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that projecting the discontinuous density onto a one-degree-higher continuous finite-element space for the Poisson solve, and truncating the potential back, introduces only a 'small projection error' — an assumption the paper does not analyze a priori, only verifies indirectly through the convergence test.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the coupling is right, the same pattern can deliver p+1-order accuracy for other bulk-coupled hyperbolic-elliptic systems, not just Euler–Poisson.
  • The convergence and Jeans tests mean the stage-wise potential solve does not destroy the expected order or physical energy balance.
  • The h-adaptive Sedov computation matches a uniformly refined reference, so AMR can be enabled without losing fidelity in the coupled problem.
  • Parallel scaling to 32 ranks with nearly constant solver-time fractions indicates both components scale alike, so larger runs are not bottlenecked by one side.
  • The fully reproducible artifact (Julia project plus prebuilt C++ library) means other groups can run and extend the coupled solver without building deal.II from source.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the authors leave implicit: replace the Poisson multigrid stage with another elliptic operator (e.g., radiation diffusion or incompressibility constraint) and the same mesh-plus-coefficient-transfer pattern would apply, making the prototype a generic volume-coupling template.
  • The paper states in §3.1 that the Q^{k+1,0}→Q^{k,-1} truncation introduces a 'small projection error' but does not analyze it a priori; one high-value follow-up is a projection-error estimate on adapted meshes, since hanging nodes are where an uncontrolled error would first show up.
  • The benchmark table shows mesh adaptation after every time step consumes 45–48% of runtime and rebuilds multigrid data structures; a cheaper strategy that adapts less frequently or reuses level data would likely improve throughput, though the authors caution that too-long adaptation intervals can destabilize the run.
  • Because the two solvers communicate only solution vectors, the approach could be extended to non-Cartesian or curved meshes by keeping the same coefficient-transfer logic, as the authors note in the outlook.
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.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a prototype framework for coupling two existing solver frameworks — Trixi.jl (Julia, DGSEM for hyperbolic conservation laws) and deal.II (C++, matrix-free multigrid for elliptic problems) — through a minimally invasive coefficient-exchange interface on a shared p4est Cartesian mesh. The target application is a partitioned, strongly coupled solver for the compressible Euler equations with self-gravity (Poisson equation). The authors validate the coupled solver with a manufactured-solution convergence test (EOC ≈ p+1 for p=3,4), a Jeans-instability test comparing kinetic/internal/potential energies against analytic profiles, and cylindrical/spherical Sedov blast-wave simulations with shock capturing and AMR, comparing the adaptive run with a uniform-mesh reference. They also report MPI strong-scaling results up to 32 ranks. The manuscript is explicitly a proof of concept and provides a public reproducibility repository.

Significance. If the coupling transfer is implemented as described, this is a useful engineering contribution: it demonstrates a working cross-language, parallel, AMR-capable bulk coupling with strong reproducibility infrastructure, and the validation suite contains independent checks — the manufactured solution and the analytic Jeans energies are not fitted to the implementation. The main caveat is that the central 'exact correspondence' between Trixi's LGL DG storage and deal.II's FE_DGQ storage is not accurately documented; resolving this ambiguity either confirms or invalidates the headline coefficient-exchange mechanism. The projection-error concern is secondary. The paper fits the scope of ACM TOMS and its limitations are honestly stated.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.1, §3.2] The core data-exchange premise is not correctly specified. §3.1 says Trixi's LGL-collocated DGSEM polynomials 'can be matched' by deal.II's FE_DGQ<d>(degree), and §3.2 states that the DG DoF enumeration is 'in exact correspondence with Trixi.jl'. In deal.II, FE_DGQ<d>(degree) is constructed with Gauss–Legendre support points (equivalently FE_DGQArbitraryNodes<d>(QGauss<1>(degree+1))), not Gauss–Lobatto points. Trixi.jl stores values at LGL nodes. Copying that vector into a FE_DGQ vector without a change of basis/interpolation therefore changes the discrete density field by an O(h^{p+1}) perturbation; the manufactured-solution test in Table 1 cannot detect this, because both node sets give order p+1 convergence. If the implementation actually uses FE_DGQArbitraryNodes with QGaussLobatto, then §3.2's code label and §3.1's claim are misleading and the reproducibility repository is needed to
  2. [§3.1] The DG-to-CG coupling in the Poisson solve is described only as a weak-form RHS assembly followed by a 'projection back' from Q^{k+1,0} to Q^{k,-1}. The operation that maps the continuous solution to the DG coefficient vector is not defined: is it an L2 projection, nodal interpolation at LGL points, or something else? The statement that this introduces a 'small projection error' is an unquantified assumption. The overall convergence test (Table 1) validates the composition of all steps, but not this specific step; on adapted meshes with hanging nodes the effect could be larger. Please state the projection/interpolation operation and either provide an error estimate/reference or an additional numerical check that isolates its contribution.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.1, §3.2] The notation is inconsistent: FE_DGQ<d>(degree) appears in §3.1 and FE_DGQ<dim>(degree_dg) in §3.2. More importantly, the paper should give the exact constructor call for the deal.II element (including whether arbitrary LGL support points are used) so that the reproducibility claim is unambiguous.
  2. [§4.1] The manufactured Poisson field has a constant residual ±8π, as stated in Eq. (4.3), but it is not included in the residual vector in Eq. (4.4) and the solver-side treatment of this constant source is not described. Please clarify whether the Poisson solve includes a constant source correction or whether the residual is handled implicitly.
  3. [§4.4] The uniform-refinement performance runs use Ω=[-1,1]^3 with level-six refinement, while the AMR runs use Ω=[-2,2]^3 with the same maximum level but a coarser physical cell size in the refined regions. The statements comparing adaptive and non-adaptive run times should be qualified, and the refinement-level convention should be made explicit so the comparison is not over-read.
  4. [§1] The sentence 'there is not yet a framework that allows the easy and direct development of coupled solvers' is too strong given the cited coupling libraries (preCICE, etc.). The contribution should be positioned more precisely as a solver-native, low-invasive alternative rather than as the first general coupling framework.
  5. [Fig. 6] The caption says 'every second time step' but does not identify which energy curves are plotted. Add a legend or explicitly label kinetic, internal, and potential energy so the visual agreement can be assessed quantitatively.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

Validation is self-contained; self-citations are background, and the possible LGL/GL node mismatch is a correctness concern, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a prototype cross-language solver coupling framework, demonstrated on a self-gravitating gas solver. The validation chain is self-contained and does not reduce to fitted inputs or renamed outputs. The manufactured-solution convergence test (Sec. 4.1) prescribes the solution and residuals directly in Eqs. (4.1)-(4.4) and verifies the obtained EOC against the theoretically expected p+1; nothing is calibrated to force the observed rates. The Jeans instability test (Sec. 4.2) compares numerical kinetic, internal, and potential energies against the closed-form analytic expressions (4.8)-(4.10) taken from an external reference (Derigs et al. 2016), again with no fitted parameter. The Sedov test (Sec. 4.3) compares the AMR run against a uniformly refined reference simulation; this is a self-consistency check of the adaptive-mesh implementation, not a derivation of the physics. The parallel scaling study (Sec. 4.4) is a benchmark. Self-citations such as Schlottke-Lakemper et al. (2021) for explicit-RK treatment of the hyperbolic-elliptic system and the Trixi.jl software citation are used as background or prior published results; the coupling mechanism and its numerical validation do not reduce to these citations. The skeptic's LGL-vs-GL nodal mismatch concern is about whether the 'exact correspondence' claim in Sec. 3.2 is mathematically correct, which is a correctness/reproducibility issue rather than a circular-derivation issue: a wrong node set would make the validation fail or be misleading, but it would not make the prediction equivalent to the input by construction. No step in the paper's derivation chain satisfies the strict reduction test required for a circularity finding.

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

The central claim rests on standard numerical-analysis background (DGSEM, multigrid), a physical model assumption (Euler+Poisson), and two load-bearing domain-specific assumptions: per-stage Poisson solves give a stable strongly-coupled scheme, and the DG/CG projection error is small. The latter is verified only empirically. No free parameters are fitted to data, and no new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Compressible Euler + Poisson equations model non-relativistic self-gravitating gas dynamics.
    The governing equations (2.1)–(2.3) are taken as the physical model; the paper does not justify this model against alternatives.
  • standard math DGSEM with LGL nodes and the Chandrashekar flux yields a convergent discretization for the Euler equations.
    Standard numerical analysis background, cited from Gassner 2013, Chandrashekar 2013, etc.
  • standard math The matrix-free multigrid with auxiliary-space embedding and Chebyshev smoothing converges efficiently for the Poisson problem.
    Background from deal.II multigrid literature (Kronbichler & Wall 2018, Munch et al. 2023, Antonietti et al. 2017).
  • domain assumption Solving the Poisson equation at each explicit Runge–Kutta stage yields a stable, strongly coupled partitioned scheme.
    Cites Schlottke-Lakemper et al. 2021 for 'arbitrary explicit Runge–Kutta schemes are appropriate'; not re-derived in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The projection between DG (Q^{k,-1}) and CG (Q^{k+1,0}) spaces incurs only a small error that does not degrade the expected convergence order.
    Stated in §3.1 ('a small projection error arises') without a priori error analysis; justified empirically by the convergence test.
  • domain assumption p4est mesh partitioning is deterministic and identical in both solvers, ensuring consistent coefficient vectors.
    Required for the coefficient-transfer approach; asserted in §3.1 based on the deterministic mesh distribution.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-Solver Coupling for Parallel Adaptive Multi-Physics Simulations with Trixi$.$jl and deal$.$II." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PGHGWPKT

@misc{pith2026260725871,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-Solver Coupling for Parallel Adaptive Multi-Physics Simulations with Trixi$.$jl and deal$.$II},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PGHGWPKT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.25871}
}
abstract

Many standalone frameworks for numerical solvers have been developed to tackle the simulation of specific single- or multi-physics problems. For solving coupled problems, common approaches are to extend existing solvers, to develop an entirely new solver or to couple two existing solvers by using the interface provided by a coupling library or framework. However, to the best of our knowledge, there is not yet a framework that allows the easy and direct development of coupled solvers. In this work, we prototype a portable reproducible cross-language framework for the development of coupled parallel adaptive solvers using Trixi$.$jl and deal$.$II for the numerical simulation of coupled multi-physics problems. Currently, this is tightly entangled with an example coupled solver. We show its usability by developing a partitioned strongly-coupled multi-physics solver for the dynamics of Newtonian self-gravitational gases. For the coupled solver, we validate the expected order of convergence, physical sensibility of the results and mesh adaptivity. Finally, we investigate its parallel scaling. A publicly accessible reproducibility repository for the numerical results and code is available.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.25871 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An illustration showing the abstract coupling procedure we follow in this work. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A timeline showing the calling relations during time integration per time step, following the structure of general Trixi.jl solvers. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Sequence diagram for the evaluation of the semi-discretization for the coupled system [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Sequence diagram for the adaptive mesh refinement process in the respective callback. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A schematic illustration of the coupling and calling relations during a numerical simulation between the components comprising [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The continuous lines show the analytic values of the energies, the cross marks show the energies at every second time step [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Top row: Radial density profiles of the cylindrical Sedov blast wave sampled along the positive x-axis after simulating half a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [7]

    Trottenberg, C

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acc2c0 U. Trottenberg, C. Oosterlee, and A. Schüller. 2001.Multigrid. Elsevier Academic Press, London. Manuscript submitted to ACM

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acc2c0 2001

  2. [10]

    doi:10.1137/141000671 Tan Bui-Thanh and Omar Ghattas

    Julia: A fresh approach to numerical computing.SIAM Review59, 1 (2017), 65–98. doi:10.1137/141000671 Tan Bui-Thanh and Omar Ghattas

    doi:10.1137/141000671 2017

  3. [12]

    SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing33, 3 (2011), 1103–1133

    p4est: Scalable Algorithms for Parallel Adaptive Mesh Refinement on Forests of Octrees. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing33, 3 (2011), 1103–1133. doi:10.1137/100791634 Mark H. Carpenter, Travis C. Fisher, Eric J. Nielsen, and Steven H. Frankel

    doi:10.1137/100791634 2011

  4. [16]

    ACM Trans

    A Flexible, Parallel, Adaptive Geometric Multigrid Method for FEM. ACM Trans. Math. Software47, 1 (2021), 7/1–27. doi:10.1145/3425193 Sean M. Couch, Carlo Graziani, and Norbert Flocke

    work page doi:10.1145/3425193 2021

  5. [17]

    AN IMPROVED MULTIPOLE APPROXIMATION FOR SELF-GRAVITY AND ITS IMPORTANCE FOR CORE-COLLAPSE SUPERNOVA SIMULATIONS.The Astrophysical Journal778, 2 (Nov. 2013),

    2013

  6. [21]

    Discretely conservative finite-difference formulations for nonlinear conservation laws in split form: Theory and boundary conditions.J. Comput. Phys.234 (Feb. 2013), 353–375. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2012.09.026 FLASH Center for Computational Science 2024.FLASH User’s Guide. FLASH Center for Computational Science, University of Rochester. B. Fryxell, K. Olson, P...

    doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2012.09.026 2013

  7. [24]

    doi:10.1093/pasj/psag059 Gregor J

    SFUMATO#: A GPU-accelerated code for self-gravitational radiation hydrodynamics simulation with adaptive mesh refinement.Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan(May 2026), psag059. doi:10.1093/pasj/psag059 Gregor J. Gassner

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psag059 2026

  8. [25]

    doi:10.1137/120890144 _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1137/120890144

    A Skew-Symmetric Discontinuous Galerkin Spectral Element Discretization and Its Relation to SBP-SAT Finite Difference Methods.SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing35, 3 (2013), A1233–A1253. doi:10.1137/120890144 _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1137/120890144. Gregor J. Gassner, Andrew R. Winters, Florian J. Hindenlang, and David A. Kopriva

    doi:10.1137/120890144 2013

Show all 47 references
  1. [27]

    Split form nodal discontinuous Galerkin schemes with summation-by-parts property for the compressible Euler equations.J. Comput. Phys.327 (Dec. 2016), 39–66. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2016.09.013 Amir Gholami, Dhairya Malhotra, Hari Sundar, and George Biros

    2016 doi

  2. [28]

    doi:10.1137/15M1010798 Sebastian Hennemann, Andrés M

    FFT, FMM, or multigrid? A comparative study of state-of-the-art Poisson solvers for uniform and nonuniform grids in the unit cube.SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing38, 3 (2016), C280–C306. doi:10.1137/15M1010798 Sebastian Hennemann, Andrés M. Rueda-Ramírez, Florian J. Hinden...

    2016 doi

  3. [29]

    A provably entropy stable subcell shock capturing approach for high order split form DG for the compressible Euler equations.J. Comput. Phys.426 (Feb. 2021), 109935. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2020.109935 Ryosuke Hirai, Hiroki Nagakura, Hirotada Okawa, and Kotaro Fujisawa

    2021

  4. [30]

    Physical Review D93, 8 (April 2016), 083006

    Hyperbolic self-gravity solver for large scale hydrodynamical simulations. Physical Review D93, 8 (April 2016), 083006. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.083006 Daniel Holz, Stefan Rhys Jeske, Fabian Löschner, Jan Bender, Yin Yang, and Sheldon Andrews

    2016 doi

  5. [31]

    doi:10.1111/cgf.70082 _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/cgf.70082

    Multiphysics Simulation Methods in Computer Graphics.Computer Graphics Forum44, 2 (2025), e70082. doi:10.1111/cgf.70082 _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/cgf.70082. D. A. Hubber, G. P. Rosotti, and R. A. Booth

    2025 doi

  6. [32]

    2018), 1603–1632

    GANDALF – Graphical Astrophysics code for N-body Dynamics And Lagrangian Fluids.Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society473, 2 (Jan. 2018), 1603–1632. doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2405 Farzad Ismail and Philip L. Roe

    2018 doi

  7. [35]

    2013), 4–83

    Multiphysics simulations: Challenges and opportunities.The International Journal of High Performance Computing Applications27, 1 (Feb. 2013), 4–83. doi:10.1177/1094342012468181 David A. Kopriva

    2013 doi

  8. [38]

    Fluids63 (2012), 135–147

    A generic interface for parallel cell-based finite element operator application.Comput. Fluids63 (2012), 135–147. doi:10.1016/j.compïňĆuid.2012.04.012 Martin Kronbichler and Karl Ljungkvist

    2012 doi

  9. [40]

    doi:10.1137/16M110455X Peter Munch, Timo Heister, Laura Prieto Saavedra, and Martin Kronbichler

    A performance comparison of continuous and discontinuous Galerkin methods with fast multigrid solvers.SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing40, 5 (2018), A3423–A3448. doi:10.1137/16M110455X Peter Munch, Timo Heister, Laura Prieto Saavedra, and Martin Kronbichler

    2018 doi

  10. [42]

    https://github.com/trixi-framework/Trixi.jl

    Trixi.jl: Adaptive high-order numerical simulations of hyperbolic PDEs in Julia. https://github.com/trixi-framework/Trixi.jl. doi:10.5281/zenodo.3996439 Michael Schlottke-Lakemper, Ansgar Niemöller, Matthias Meinke, and Wolfgang Schröder

    doi

  11. [43]

    2019), 461–487

    Efficient parallelization for volume-coupled multiphysics simulations on hierarchical Cartesian grids.Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering352 (Aug. 2019), 461–487. doi:10.1016/j.cma.2019. 04.032 Michael Schlottke-Lakemper, Andrew R. Winters, Hendrik Ranocha, a...

    2019 doi

  12. [44]

    A purely hyperbolic discontinuous Galerkin approach for self-gravitating gas dynamics.J. Comput. Phys.442 (Oct. 2021), 110467. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2021.110467 L. I. Sedov. 2018.Similarity and Dimensional Methods in Mechanics(10 ed.). CRC Press, Boca Raton. doi:10.1201/9780203739...

    2021

  13. [45]

    doi:10.1017/S0962492902000156 Kengo Tomida and James M

    Entropy stability theory for difference approximations of nonlinear conservation laws and related time-dependent problems.Acta Numerica12 (May 2003), 451–512. doi:10.1017/S0962492902000156 Kengo Tomida and James M. Stone

    2003 doi

  14. [46]

    The Athena++ Adaptive Mesh Refinement Framework: Multigrid Solvers for Self-gravity.The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series266, 1 (April 2023),

    2023

  15. [181]

    Winters, Gregor J

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/778/2/181 Dominik Derigs, Andrew R. Winters, Gregor J. Gassner, and Stefanie Walch

    doi

  16. [273]

    doi:10.1086/317361 Hajime Fukushima and Tomoaki Matsumoto

    doi

  17. [1221]

    Antonietti, Marco Sarti, Marco Verani, and Ludmil T

    doi:10.1088/0004-637X/715/2/1221 Paola F. Antonietti, Marco Sarti, Marco Verani, and Ludmil T. Zikatanov

    doi

  18. [1902]

    1902), 1–53

    The stability of a spherical nebula.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series A: Containing Papers of a Mathematical or Physical Character199, 312-320 (Jan. 1902), 1–53. doi:10.1098/rsta.1902.0012 David E Keyes, Lois C McInnes, Carol Woodward, William G...

    1902

  19. [1989]

    Local adaptive mesh refinement for shock hydrodynamics.J. Comput. Phys.82, 1 (May 1989), 64–84. doi:10.1016/0021- 9991(89)90035-1 Christine Bernardi

    1989 doi

  20. [1996]

    A Conservative Staggered-Grid Chebyshev Multidomain Method for Compressible Flows. II. A Semi-Structured Method.J. Comput. Phys.128, 2 (Oct. 1996), 475–488. doi:10.1006/jcph.1996.0225 David A. Kopriva. 2009.Implementing Spectral Methods for Partial Differential Equations: Algo...

    1996

  21. [2000]

    FLASH: An Adaptive Mesh Hydrodynamics Code for Modeling Astrophysical Thermonuclear Flashes.The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series131, 1 (Nov. 2000),

    2000

  22. [2002]

    Computation of electromagnetic scattering with a non-conforming discontinuous spectral element method.Internat. J. Numer. Methods Engrg.53, 1 (2002), 105–122. doi:10.1002/nme.394 _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/nme.394. Martin Kronbichler and Katharina Kormann

    2002 doi

  23. [2003]

    Parallel multigrid smoothing: polynomial versus Gauss–Seidel.J. Comput. Phys.188 (2003), 593–610. doi:10.1016/S0021-9991(03)00194-3 A. S. Almgren, V. E. Beckner, J. B. Bell, M. S. Day, L. H. Howell, C. C. Joggerst, M. J. Lijewski, A. Nonaka, M. Singer, and M. Zingale

    2003 doi

  24. [2007]

    deal.II — a General Purpose Object Oriented Finite Element Library.ACM Trans. Math. Softw.33, 4 (2007), 24/1–27. doi:10.1145/1268776.1268779 M. J. Berger and P. Colella

    2007

  25. [2009]

    Affordable, entropy-consistent Euler flux functions II: Entropy production at shocks.J. Comput. Phys.228, 15 (Aug. 2009), 5410–5436. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2009.04.021 Manuscript submitted to ACM 20 Vivienne Ehlert, Gregor Gassner, Martin Kronbichler, Hendrik Ranocha, and Michael S...

    2009 doi

  26. [2010]

    CASTRO: A NEW COMPRESSIBLE ASTROPHYSICAL SOLVER. I. HYDRODYNAMICS AND SELF-GRAVITY.The Astrophysical Journal715, 2 (May 2010),

    2010

  27. [2011]

    Algorithms and Data Structures for Massively Parallel Generic Finite Element Codes.ACM Trans. Math. Softw.38, 2 (2011). doi:10.1145/2049673.2049678 Manuscript submitted to ACM Multi-Solver Coupling for Parallel Adaptive Multi-Physics Simulations with Trixi.jl and deal.II 19 Wo...

    2011

  28. [2012]

    Analysis of an \hp\-Nonconforming Discontinuous Galerkin Spectral Element Method for Wave Propagation. SIAM J. Numer. Anal.50, 3 (2012), 1801–1826. doi:10.1137/110828010 _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1137/110828010. Carsten Burstedde, Lucas C. Wilcox, and Omar Ghattas

    2012 doi

  29. [2013]

    Communications in Computational Physics14, 5 (Nov

    Kinetic Energy Preserving and Entropy Stable Finite Volume Schemes for Compressible Euler and Navier-Stokes Equations. Communications in Computational Physics14, 5 (Nov. 2013), 1252–1286. doi:10.4208/cicp.170712.010313a G Chourdakis, K Davis, B Rodenberg, M Schulte, F Simonis,...

    2013

  30. [2014]

    2014), B835–B867

    Entropy Stable Spectral Collocation Schemes for the Navier–Stokes Equations: Discontinuous Interfaces.SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing36, 5 (Jan. 2014), B835–B867. doi:10.1137/130932193 S. Chandrasekhar. 1961.Hydrodynamic and Hydromagnetic Stability. Oxford University Pres...

    2014 doi

  31. [2016]

    A novel high-order, entropy stable, 3D AMR MHD solver with guaranteed positive pressure.J. Comput. Phys.317 (July 2016), 223–256. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2016.04.048 Vivienne Ehlert, Gregor Gassner, Martin Kronbichler, Hendrik Ranocha, and Michael Schlottke-Lakemper

    2016 doi

  32. [2017]

    A Uniform Additive Schwarz Preconditioner for High-Order Discontinuous Galerkin Approximations of Elliptic Problems.Journal of Scientific Computing70, 2 (2017), 608–630. doi:10.1007/s10915-016-0259-9 Daniel Arndt, Wolfgang Bangerth, Maximilian Bergbauer, Bruno Blais, Marc Fehl...

    2017 doi

  33. [2018]

    2018), 154–200

    The BR1 Scheme is Stable for the Compressible Navier–Stokes Equations.Journal of Scientific Computing77, 1 (Oct. 2018), 154–200. doi:10.1007/s10915-018-0702-1 Gregor J. Gassner, Andrew R. Winters, and David A. Kopriva

    2018 doi

  34. [2019]

    Parallel Comput.6, 1 (2019), 2:1–32

    Multigrid for matrix-free high-order finite element computations on graphics processors.ACM Trans. Parallel Comput.6, 1 (2019), 2:1–32. doi:10.1145/3322813 Martin Kronbichler and Wolfgang A. Wall

    2019 doi

  35. [2021]

    The deal.II finite element library: design, features, and insights.Comput. Math. Appl.81 (2021), 407–422. doi:10.1016/j.camwa. 2020.02.022 https://www.dealii.org/. Wolfgang Bangerth, Carsten Burstedde, Timo Heister, and Martin Kronbichler

    2021 doi

  36. [2022]

    doi:10.12688/openreseurope.14445.2 Thomas C

    preCICE v2: A sustainable and user-friendly coupling library.Open Research Europe2, 51 (2022). doi:10.12688/openreseurope.14445.2 Thomas C. Clevenger, Timo Heister, Guido Kanschat, and Martin Kronbichler

    2022 doi

  37. [2023]

    doi:10.1145/3580314 Hendrik Ranocha

    Efficient Distributed Matrix-free Multigrid Methods on Locally Refined Meshes for FEM Computations.ACM Transactions on Parallel Computing10, 1 (2023), 3/1–38. doi:10.1145/3580314 Hendrik Ranocha. 2018.Generalised Summation-by-Parts Operators and Entropy Stability of Numerical ...

    2023 doi

  38. [2025]

    The deal.II library, Version 9.7.Journal of Numerical Mathematics33, 4 (2025), 403–415. doi:10.1515/jnma-2025-0115 Daniel Arndt, Wolfgang Bangerth, Denis Davydov, Timo Heister, Luca Heltai, Martin Kronbichler, Matthias Maier, Jean-Paul Pelteret, Bruno Turcksin, and David Wells

    2025 doi

  39. [2026]

    Multi- Solver Coupling for Parallel Adaptive Multi-Physics Simulations with Trixi.jl and deal.II

    Reproducibility repository for "Multi- Solver Coupling for Parallel Adaptive Multi-Physics Simulations with Trixi.jl and deal.II". https://github.com/trixi-framework/paper-2026-trixi-dealii. doi:10.5281/zenodo.21647919 Travis C. Fisher, Mark H. Carpenter, Jan Nordström, Nail K...

    2026 doi

Pith tools

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