Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 37 references

A Cartesian Grid Method for Advection-Diffusion Equations with Robin Boundary Conditions on Moving Domains

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 The paper develops a Cartesian grid method for moving-domain advection–diffusion equations with Robin boundary conditions, proves O(τ + h²) convergence in one dimension, and shows comparable accuracy in two dimensions.

desk verdict Solid 1D convergence proof for a correction-based moving-domain Robin method; the 2D half leans on an unanalyzed collocation assumption and never tests nonzero Robin data. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.26341 v1 pith:RMVUFLH3 submitted 2026-07-28 math.NA cs.NAmath-phmath.MP

Han Zhou , Yoichiro Mori , Lingxing Yao This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NAcs.NAmath-phmath.MP MSC 65M0665M1265M8535K20
keywords CartesiangridmethodmovingdomainRobinboundaryconditioncorrectionfunctioninterfacedensityadvection-diffusionfinitedifferenceconvergenceanalysis
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 claims that moving-domain advection–diffusion problems with Robin boundary conditions can be solved on a fixed Cartesian grid, with no remeshing and no cut cells, by introducing an unknown interface density and local polynomial corrections that enter only the right-hand side of the discrete equations. For the one-dimensional version of the scheme, the paper proves a fully discrete error bound of O(τ + h²) — first order in time, second order in space — under the mesh constraints 1/2 h² ≤ τ < h/max|γ̇| and monotone (or finitely piecewise-monotone) interface motion. In two dimensions, numerical experiments with manufactured solutions and an active transport problem show near-second-order convergence and GMRES iteration counts that are essentially independent of mesh size, implying a solve cost linear in the number of bulk unknowns. The central mechanism is a correction function C computed from a local 6×6 collocation problem at each interface marker, which supplies jump information so the bulk operator stays the standard Cartesian finite-difference matrix.

What carries the argument

The key object is the correction function C = c⁺ − c⁻ in a narrow band around the interface. In 2D it is represented as a local quadratic polynomial (six coefficients) at each marker, determined by a 6×6 collocation system imposing the PDE, the Dirichlet condition C = 0 on the interface, and ∂nC = ψ; the correction Q entering the discrete equation is the commutator [L_{τ,h}, χ]C, so it is nonzero only at irregular stencils. In 1D the same idea reduces to explicit coefficients (4.14)–(4.15). The boundary condition is imposed by Lagrange interpolation of {c} and {∇c} at interface points, closing the system (3.27); the analysis then rests on a discrete maximum principle and an M-matrix argument

What would settle it

Compute the determinant and condition number of the 6×6 collocation matrix from (3.25)–(3.26) at every marker for the star-shaped example over the whole run. If any determinant is zero, or the condition number grows like h^{-k} for k≥1 while errors still appear second-order, the 2D robustness claim is unsupported. Alternatively, run a 2D manufactured-solution test with the interface deliberately arranged so that collocation points X(s_k+jηΔs) become nearly degenerate (e.g., collinear); if the scheme still gives second-order, the local-system analysis is incomplete.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's core discovery is that a moving-domain Robin boundary condition can be enforced through an unknown interface density ψ, converting the problem into an interface problem on a fixed box with a jump in the normal derivative. The discrete scheme then needs only local corrections near the interface: a quadratic correction function C that satisfies, in a local collocation sense, the PDE, the zero-value condition, and ∂nC = ψ. Because these corrections enter only the right-hand side, the bulk coefficient matrix remains the standard cell-centered Cartesian finite-difference operator, solvable by geometric multigrid; eliminating correction coefficients and bulk unknowns leaves a boundary-

Load-bearing premise

The two-dimensional method's accuracy depends on the unproven solvability and accuracy of the 6×6 collocation systems that build the correction function at each interface marker; if those systems become singular or ill-conditioned for some interface geometry, the claimed second-order convergence in 2D collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the method is correct, moving-boundary problems with Robin conditions can be advanced on fixed grids at a cost linear in the number of bulk unknowns, with only right-hand-side corrections and a small boundary-only GMRES solve.
  • The 1D proof provides a template for showing that large, localized consistency errors at a moving interface need not degrade the global convergence rate; analogous arguments may apply to other correction-based immersed-interface schemes.
  • The interface-density formulation connects the method to boundary integral theory, so tools from discrete potential theory could be used to analyze the well-conditioning of the reduced system (3.30).
  • Practitioners get an explicit stability window, τ between 1/2 h² and h/max interface speed, for the backward-Euler + correction scheme.
  • For the motivating osmotic cell-migration application, the method can simulate coupled active transport with mass conservation errors that shrink under refinement, as demonstrated by the conservation diagnostics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The unsupported part is the 2D local collocation: the paper asserts the 6×6 systems are square by citing prior work, but gives no analysis of their solvability, conditioning, or approximation error. A robustness fix would be to use least squares with more collocation points (Nc > 6) or to verify full-rank of the Vandermonde matrix at run time.
  • The nearest-marker patching rule is the simplest possible; a smoother patching (e.g., weighted average of overlapping local polynomials) might improve accuracy on strongly curved interfaces, though it would complicate the right-hand-side-only structure.
  • The proof's monotone-motion assumption is likely removable by a more careful summation bound for interfaces that cross the same grid node multiple times, but the error constant would then depend on the total variation of γ.
  • A 3D extension would require a much larger local polynomial space and a more elaborate collocation set, so the 2D-to-3D step is non-trivial.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper develops a Cartesian grid (embedded boundary) method for advection-diffusion equations with Robin boundary conditions on moving domains. The moving-domain problem is reformulated as an interface problem on a fixed box, with an unknown single-layer density introduced on the moving interface. A local polynomial correction function is built in a narrow band via 6x6 collocation problems at each interface point; the correction enters only the right-hand side, preserving the standard bulk finite-difference operator. The coupled system is solved by eliminating correction and bulk unknowns and applying matrix-free GMRES to the interface-density Schur complement. The main theoretical result is Theorem 4.13: a fully discrete l-infinity error estimate O(tau + h^2) for a one-dimensional version of the scheme, under the mesh constraint 1/2 h^2 <= tau < h / max|gamma_dot| and monotone interface motion. Numerical experiments in 1D confirm the predicted rates; 2D tests on circular and star-shaped interfaces and an active-transport problem show near-second-order self-convergence and mesh-insensitive GMRES counts.

Significance. The 1D convergence proof is self-contained and, if correct, appears to be one of the first rigorous analyses of a correction-based Cartesian grid method for a moving-domain parabolic problem with Robin data. The design choice to keep the bulk operator unchanged is practically valuable, as it permits geometric multigrid and matrix-free GMRES and avoids cut-cell geometry. The paper is transparent that the 2D convergence proof is open, and the numerical evidence is generally consistent with the claimed rates. The main limitations are a technical gap in the application of Theorem 4.7 to the auxiliary function in Lemma 4.12, the absence of nonzero-alpha 2D manufactured tests, and the reliance on a self-cited 6x6 collocation solvability result. These are addressable without changing the central method.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.5, Lemma 4.12 / Thm 4.7] Equation (4.104) is not a special case of the canonical reduced equation (4.30) because (4.30) also contains the term (h/Q^{n-1}) R^n Z^{n-1} \tilde g^{n-1} when \tilde g = \hat g. As written, Theorem 4.7 does not directly apply to (4.104). The gap is repairable: either extend Theorem 4.7 to the E-only source (the comparison proof is unchanged) or define \hat b with the full source and absorb the extra O(h^3) crossing term into \bar e r2. Please make this explicit. I do not agree with the scaling objection that the 1/h factor is dropped: Theorem 4.7 bounds the Robin source \tilde g itself, and the sign in (4.105) gives the correct cancellation with Corollary 4.10.
  2. [§5.2.1 and §5.2.2] In both 2D manufactured tests the interface is transported by the prescribed velocity, so \partial_t X = u and hence the dimensionless Robin coefficient alpha = (\partial_t X - u)\cdot n is identically zero. The 2D convergence studies therefore do not exercise the Robin transfer coefficient alpha, which is a central feature of the method. Please add a 2D manufactured test with nonzero alpha, or explain why the alpha=0 case is a sufficient validation of the Robin treatment in 2D.
  3. [§3.3, Eqs. (3.25)-(3.26)] The 6x6 local collocation system is asserted to be square and solvable by reference to [37], a self-cited elliptic-interface paper. No condition number or accuracy analysis is given for the parabolic moving-interface setting, and nearest-marker patching is assumed accurate. Since the 2D method's accuracy and the claimed near-second-order rates depend on these local solves, please provide at least numerical conditioning evidence or an analysis for the present setting. The 1D theorem is unaffected because the correction coefficients are explicit.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Title] The title in the full text reads 'A CAR TESIAN GRID METHOD'; it should be 'A CARTESIAN GRID METHOD'.
  2. [§4.2, Eq. (4.9)] The notation C^n is used both for the vector of exact nodal values and for the correction function; the bold/non-bold distinction is easy to miss. Consider renaming one of the two objects.
  3. [§5.2] The convergence plots in Figures 3, 6, and 8 would be easier to assess if the observed orders were tabulated or annotated; the text reports rates only for the 1D table.
  4. [§3.4] The statement that the overall cost is linear in N_h when GMRES counts are mesh-independent should explicitly cite the figures and report representative iteration counts, rather than referring to 'below'.
  5. [Remark 4.14] The extension to interfaces with finitely many direction changes is stated as a remark; since it is used in the numerical section's monotone test, it would be cleaner to state it as a corollary with a one-sentence proof sketch.
  6. [§3.3, p. 8] The phrase 'the system is square; see [37]' should state the exact proposition in [37] and whether it covers the time-derivative term present in the parabolic collocation system.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 1D convergence proof is self-contained; the only self-citation is for a 2D collocation squareness statement and is not load-bearing for the paper's main theorem.

full rationale

The paper's central claimed result is Theorem 4.13, the O(tau + h^2) error estimate for the fully discrete one-dimensional scheme. Its proof is self-contained: the discrete equations, stability Lemma 4.6, comparison Theorem 4.7, local truncation error Lemma 4.9, and the modified-error construction Lemma 4.12 are all derived within the paper from the stated scheme and Taylor expansions. No fitted parameter is subsequently relabeled as a prediction, and the numerical benchmarks in Section 5 use manufactured solutions or grid-refinement self-convergence, not calibration. The only citation to prior work by a co-author is the statement in Section 3.3 that the local 6x6 collocation system is square, 'see [37]'. This is a methodological assumption for the two-dimensional implementation, not part of the 1D proof, and the 2D accuracy is independently checked numerically. The paper also explicitly disclaims a 2D convergence proof in Remark 4.15 and the conclusion. I therefore find no derivation that reduces to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All free constants are algorithmic/proof choices; there are no physical entities postulated. The interface density psi and correction function C are standard mathematical devices, not new physical objects. The central 1D proof is self-contained; the 2D construction leans on a self-cited collocation assumption.

free parameters (1)
  • eta (collocation spacing parameter) = 0.5
    Chosen by hand in Eq. (3.26); authors say accuracy is not very sensitive. It determines the six local collocation points for the 2D correction but is not fitted to data.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The interface, data, and prescribed motion are sufficiently regular (c in C^{4,2}(Q_T)); the correction function has bounded third derivatives in the band.
    Assumed in Section 4.1 and Lemma 4.9; needed for Taylor expansions and truncation-error estimates.
  • standard math Maximum principle for parabolic Robin problems with alpha >= alpha_0 > 0, or after exponential transform when alpha_0 < 0.
    Used in Theorem 4.1 and Theorem 4.7 for comparison and stability.
  • standard math The discrete matrices are M-matrices for sufficiently small h, and the inverse bound ||(K_I^n)^{-1}||_inf <= 1 + C tau holds.
    Established via row-sum estimates in Lemma 4.6; relies on standard M-matrix theory.
  • ad hoc to paper Mesh constraints 1/2 h^2 <= tau < h / max_{[0,T]} |gamma_dot|.
    Remark 4.8 calls the lower bound a technical assumption of the comparison proof, not an algorithmic restriction; the upper bound is the CFL condition ensuring one cell crossing per step.
  • domain assumption Interface motion is monotone on subintervals (gamma_dot >= 0 or <= 0), so the crossing sum bound Lemma 4.11 applies.
    Required to sum the O(h^3) crossing residuals; Theorem 4.13 and Remark 4.14 explicitly restrict to this case.
  • ad hoc to paper In 2D, the 6x6 local collocation systems (3.25)-(3.26) are square and solvable, and nearest-marker patching gives an accurate correction; see [37].
    No proof or conditioning analysis is given in this paper; the referenced [37] is co-authored by the present first author.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Cartesian Grid Method for Advection-Diffusion Equations with Robin Boundary Conditions on Moving Domains." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RMVUFLH3

@misc{pith2026260726341,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Cartesian Grid Method for Advection-Diffusion Equations with Robin Boundary Conditions on Moving Domains},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RMVUFLH3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.26341}
}
read the original abstract

We develop a Cartesian grid method for advection--diffusion equations with Robin boundary conditions on moving domains. The moving-domain problem is reformulated as an interface problem on a box, with an unknown density introduced on the moving interface to enforce the Robin condition. The bulk equation is discretized by a cell-centered finite-difference scheme on the Cartesian grid, while interface corrections are obtained from local problems in a narrow band around the interface. The resulting method requires only modest computational geometry, avoids remeshing and cut cells, and is compatible with geometric multigrid and matrix-free GMRES. The GMRES iteration count is essentially independent of the mesh size, and the computational cost scales linearly with the number of bulk degrees of freedom. For the one-dimensional scheme, first-order convergence in time and second-order convergence in space are proved. Numerical examples in one and two dimensions, including manufactured solutions and an active transport problem without an exact solution, demonstrate the accuracy and efficiency of the method.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.26341 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the six cell centers used for local quadratic interpolation near an interface point Xn k . The blue dots indicate the selected admissible six￾point stencil from the surrounding cell-centered candidates. The exact correction function then satisfies the following equations in the moving narrow band ΩΣ,T : ∂tC + ∇ · (uC − ∇C) = F, in ΩΣ,T , C = 0, on ΣT , ∂nC = ψ, on ΣT , C = 0, in Ω × {t = 0}, (3.22) w… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. shows snapshots of the numerical solution on the moving interior domain. The error curves in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Space–time maximum errors for the bulk concentration and interface trace in the circular-interface test [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: GMRES iteration counts for the circular-interface test. 5.2.2. Star-shaped interface. The second example uses the same box, but the physical domain is the exterior of a star-shaped moving interface inside B. The velocity field and manufactured concentration are u(x, y,…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: shows snapshots of the numerical solution on the exterior moving domain. The convergence plot in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Space–time maximum errors for the bulk concentration and interface trace in the star-shaped exterior test [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: GMRES iteration counts for the star-shaped exterior test. 5.3. Coupled interface dynamics. 5.3.1. Problem setup. We next consider a coupled transport problem motivated by the osmotic￾flow model of Yao and Mori [35]. The initial interface is the circle centered at the o…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Differences between successive grid levels for the coupled chemical dynamics [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Snapshots of the interior and exterior concentrations in the coupled problem [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Interface concentration profiles in the coupled problem [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Average GMRES iterations per time step for the interior and exterior solves in the coupled problem. 5.3.4. Conservation study. Due to no-flux boundary conditions and the flux balance on the interface, the total mass in the system should be conserved. The numerical met…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Conservation diagnostics for the coupled problem. Left: instanta￾neous mass error C n m. Right: accumulated mass error En m,2 . keeps the computational geometry modest. It does not require cut-cell volumes, quadrature over partial cells, explicit grid–interface inters…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references

  1. [37]

    Han Zhou and Wenjun Ying,A correction function-based kernel-free boundary integral method for elliptic PDEs with implicitly defined interfaces, Journal of Computational Physics496(2024), 112545. Department of Mathematics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA Email address:hzhou24@sas.upenn.edu Department of Mathematics, Department of Bi...

    2024

  2. [1]

    Victor Arias, Dmitry Bochkov, and Frederic Gibou,Poisson equations in irregular domains with Robin boundary conditions: solver with second-order accurate gradients, Journal of Computational Physics365(2018), 1–6

    2018

  3. [2]

    Atzberger, Samuel A

    Paul J. Atzberger, Samuel A. Isaacson, and Charles S. Peskin,A microfluidic pumping mechanism driven by non-equilibrium osmotic effects, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena238(2009), no. 14, 1168–1179

    2009

  4. [3]

    Fogelson, and Boyce E

    Aaron Barrett, Aaron L. Fogelson, and Boyce E. Griffith,A hybrid semi-Lagrangian cut cell method for advection-diffusion problems with Robin boundary conditions in moving domains, Journal of Computational Physics449(2022), 110805

    2022

  5. [4]

    Thomas Beale,Smoothing properties of implicit finite difference methods for a diffusion equation in maximum norm, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis47(2009), no

    J. Thomas Beale,Smoothing properties of implicit finite difference methods for a diffusion equation in maximum norm, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis47(2009), no. 4, 2476–2495

    2009

  6. [5]

    4, 2097–2111

    ,Uniform error estimates for Navier–Stokes flow with an exact moving boundary using the immersed interface method, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis53(2015), no. 4, 2097–2111

    2015

  7. [6]

    2, A1052–A1070

    ,Solving partial differential equations on closed surfaces with planar Cartesian grids, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing42(2020), no. 2, A1052–A1070

    2020

  8. [7]

    Thomas Beale and Anita T

    J. Thomas Beale and Anita T. Layton,On the accuracy of finite difference methods for elliptic problems with interfaces, Communications in Applied Mathematics and Computational Science1(2006), 91–119

    2006

Show all 37 references
  1. [8]

    Thomas Beale and Wenjun Ying,Solution of the Dirichlet problem by a finite difference analog of the boundary integral equation, Numerische Mathematik141(2019), no

    J. Thomas Beale and Wenjun Ying,Solution of the Dirichlet problem by a finite difference analog of the boundary integral equation, Numerische Mathematik141(2019), no. 3, 605–626

    2019

  2. [9]

    Daniil Bochkov and Frederic Gibou,Solving Poisson-type equations with Robin boundary conditions on piecewise smooth interfaces, Journal of Computational Physics376(2019), 1156–1198

    2019

  3. [10]

    Peichl,The immersed interface technique for parabolic problems with mixed boundary conditions, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis48(2010), no

    Francois Bouchon and Gunther H. Peichl,The immersed interface technique for parabolic problems with mixed boundary conditions, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis48(2010), no. 6, 2247–2266

    2010

  4. [11]

    Min Chai, Kun Luo, Chun Shao, Hui Wang, and Jianren Fan,A finite difference discretization method for heat and mass transfer with Robin boundary conditions on irregular domains, Journal of Computational Physics 400(2020), 108890

    2020

  5. [12]

    Min Chai, Kun Luo, Hui Wang, Shuying Zheng, and Jianren Fan,Imposing mixed Dirichlet-Neumann-Robin boundary conditions on irregular domains in a level set/ghost fluid based finite difference framework, Computers and Fluids214(2021), 104772

    2021

  6. [13]

    16, 7503–7542

    Tianbing Chen and John Strain,Piecewise-polynomial discretization and Krylov-accelerated multigrid for elliptic interface problems, Journal of Computational Physics227(2008), no. 16, 7503–7542

    2008

  7. [14]

    4, 498–552

    Martin Costabel,Boundary integral operators for the heat equation, Integral Equations and Operator Theory 13(1990), no. 4, 498–552

    1990

  8. [15]

    Fredrik Fryklund, Sara P ˚ alsson, and Anna Karin Tornberg,An integral equation method for the advection- diffusion equation on time-dependent domains in the plane, Journal of Computational Physics475(2023), 111856

    2023

  9. [16]

    2, 797–828

    Ruchi Guo,Solving parabolic moving interface problems with dynamical immersed spaces on unfitted meshes: fully discrete analysis, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis59(2021), no. 2, 797–828

    2021

  10. [17]

    Jacques Hadamard,Lectures on Cauchy’s problem in linear partial differential equations, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1923, Reprinted by Dover Publications, 2003

    1923

  11. [18]

    4, 583–608

    Jingfang Huang and Zhilin Li,Convergence analysis of the immersed interface method, IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis19(1999), no. 4, 583–608

    1999

  12. [19]

    LeVeque and Zhilin Li,The immersed interface method for elliptic equations with discontinuous coefficients and singular sources, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis31(1994), no

    Randall J. LeVeque and Zhilin Li,The immersed interface method for elliptic equations with discontinuous coefficients and singular sources, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis31(1994), no. 4, 1019–1044

    1994

  13. [20]

    Sun,Flow-driven cell migration under external electric fields, Physical Review Letters115(2015), no

    Yizeng Li, Yoichiro Mori, and Sean X. Sun,Flow-driven cell migration under external electric fields, Physical Review Letters115(2015), no. 26, 268101

    2015

  14. [21]

    Zhilin Li,An overview of the immersed interface method and its applications, Taiwanese Journal of Mathematics 7(2003), no. 1, 1–49

    2003

  15. [22]

    Zhilin Li and Kazufumi Ito,The immersed interface method: Numerical solutions of PDEs involving interfaces and irregular domains, SIAM, Philadelphia, 2006

    2006

  16. [23]

    3, 622–635

    Zhilin Li, Kazufumi Ito, and Ming-Chih Lai,An augmented approach for Stokes equations with a discontinuous viscosity and singular forces, Computers & Fluids36(2007), no. 3, 622–635

    2007

  17. [24]

    Saikrishna Marella, Sreedevi Krishnan, Haibo Liu, and H. S. Udaykumar,Sharp interface Cartesian grid method I: An easily implemented technique for 3D moving boundary computations, Journal of Computational Physics210(2005), no. 1, 1–31

    2005

  18. [25]

    Marques, Jean-Christophe Nave, Rodolfo R

    Alexandre N. Marques, Jean-Christophe Nave, Rodolfo R. Rosales, and Benjamin Seibold,A correction function method for Poisson problems with interface jump conditions, Journal of Computational Physics230 (2011), no. 20, 7567–7597. 34 HAN ZHOU, YOICHIRO MORI, AND LINGXING YAO

    2011

  19. [26]

    2, 285–299

    Anita Mayo,The fast solution of Poisson’s and the biharmonic equations on irregular regions, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis21(1984), no. 2, 285–299

    1984

  20. [27]

    1, 144–157

    ,Fast high order accurate solution of Laplace’s equation on irregular regions, SIAM Journal on Scientific and Statistical Computing6(1985), no. 1, 144–157

    1985

  21. [28]

    2, 620–635

    Peter McCorquodale, Phillip Colella, and Hans Johansen,A Cartesian grid embedded boundary method for the heat equation on irregular domains, Journal of Computational Physics173(2001), no. 2, 620–635

    2001

  22. [29]

    Eisenberg,A model of electrodiffusion and osmotic water flow and its energetic structure, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena240(2011), no

    Yoichiro Mori, Chun Liu, and Robert S. Eisenberg,A model of electrodiffusion and osmotic water flow and its energetic structure, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena240(2011), no. 22, 1835–1852

    2011

  23. [30]

    3, 875–889

    Joseph Papac, Frederic Gibou, and Christian Ratsch,Efficient symmetric discretization for the Poisson, heat and Stefan-type problems with Robin boundary conditions, Journal of Computational Physics229(2010), no. 3, 875–889

    2010

  24. [31]

    2, 531–550

    Peter Schwartz, Michael Barad, Phillip Colella, and Terry Ligocki,A Cartesian grid embedded boundary method for the heat equation and Poisson’s equation in three dimensions, Journal of Computational Physics 211(2006), no. 2, 531–550

    2006

  25. [32]

    Stroka, Hongyuan Jiang, Shih Hsun Chen, Ziqiu Tong, Denis Wirtz, Sean X

    Kimberly M. Stroka, Hongyuan Jiang, Shih Hsun Chen, Ziqiu Tong, Denis Wirtz, Sean X. Sun, and Konstantinos Konstantopoulos,Water permeation drives tumor cell migration in confined microenvironments, Cell157 (2014), no. 3, 611–623

    2014

  26. [33]

    H. S. Udaykumar, Rajat Mittal, P. Rampunggoon, and A. Khanna,A sharp interface Cartesian grid method for simulating flows with complex moving boundaries, Journal of Computational Physics174(2001), no. 1, 345–380

    2001

  27. [34]

    Bube,The explicit-jump immersed interface method: finite difference methods for PDEs with piecewise smooth solutions, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis37(2000), no

    Andreas Wiegmann and Kenneth P. Bube,The explicit-jump immersed interface method: finite difference methods for PDEs with piecewise smooth solutions, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis37(2000), no. 3, 827–862

    2000

  28. [35]

    Lingxing Yao and Yoichiro Mori,A numerical method for osmotic water flow and solute diffusion with deformable membrane boundaries in two spatial dimension, Journal of Computational Physics350(2017), 728–746

    2017

  29. [36]

    Henriquez,A kernel-free boundary integral method for elliptic boundary value problems, Journal of Computational Physics227(2007), no

    Wenjun Ying and Craig S. Henriquez,A kernel-free boundary integral method for elliptic boundary value problems, Journal of Computational Physics227(2007), no. 2, 1046–1074

    2007

Pith tools

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