A Unified Discrete Gradient-SAV Framework for Structure-Preserving Integration

Brynjulf Owren; David Mart\'in de Diego; Elena Celledoni; Miguel Vaquero

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 49 references

A Unified Discrete Gradient-SAV Framework for Structure-Preserving Integration

T0 review · 2 major / 4 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 discrete-gradient and scalar-auxiliary-variable methods are two endpoints of a single template whose modified-energy law is determined by one quadratic form, yielding three practical integrators and an extension that p

desk verdict A genuinely useful unification of DG and SAV whose central algebra checks out; the main caveat is a well-flagged positivity assumption, and the numerical claims need the promised code/data. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.27795 v1 pith:O2LV72QF submitted 2026-07-30 math.NA cs.NAmath-phmath.MP

Elena Celledoni , David Martín de Diego , Brynjulf Owren , Miguel Vaquero This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.NAcs.NAmath-phmath.MP MSC 65P1065L0537M1570H05

keywords discretegradientscalarauxiliaryvariablestructure-preservingintegrationmodifiedenergydissipationPoissonsystemsCasimirpreservationHamiltonian

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 tries to establish that discrete-gradient (DG) and scalar-auxiliary-variable (SAV) methods are not separate paradigms but two ends of one template: SAV quadratization lifts the dynamics to an extended state (x,r) with r²=E_SAV+C₀, and applying a discrete-gradient chain rule to the modified energy Ê=E_DG+r² yields an exact energy law whose sign is set solely by the structure matrix. This gives three concrete integrators—first-order Forward Euler, second-order self-adjoint Midpoint, and second-order Predictive with reduced implicitness—all conserving or dissipating the modified energy without any time-step restriction. A Poisson extension with a projected tensor preserves selected Casimirs exactly alongside the modified Hamiltonian. If the framework is right, structure preservation becomes a user-tunable design choice rather than a fixed property of a given integrator.

What carries the argument

The DG–SAV template itself: x_{n+1}−x_n = h S_* (∇̃E_DG(x_{n+1},x_n)+(r̄/Σ_*)G_*), r_{n+1}−r_n = ⟨G_*, x_{n+1}−x_n⟩/(2Σ_*), with r̄=(r_{n+1}+r_n)/2 and Σ_*=\sqrt{E_SAV(x_*)+C₀}. The second equation is chosen so that the r² increment telescopes with the discrete chain rule into one quadratic form. The split E=E_DG+E_SAV is the central design dial: pure DG at one end, pure SAV-type quadratization at the other. The projected tensor of Theorem 5.1 replaces the Poisson tensor B by PBP to enforce selected discrete Casimir conditions.

What would settle it

Integrate a scalar gradient flow ẋ = −(E_DG'(x)+E_SAV'(x)) with E_DG(x)=x²/2 and E_SAV(x)=x³, C₀=0, starting at x₀>0 so that E_SAV+C₀ crosses zero at x=0, using the Forward Euler DG–SAV variant. If the scheme remains bounded and converges at the advertised order across the crossing, the positivity assumption is not necessary; a blow-up or an order drop settles that it is.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Theorem 3.1: for any instance of the DG–SAV template, Ê(x_{n+1},r_{n+1}) − Ê(x_n,r_n) = h⟨η, S_* η⟩, where η is the generalized gradient combining the discrete gradient of E_DG with the SAV terms. Consequently, if S_* is skew-symmetric the modified energy is conserved exactly, and if S_* = −M_* with M_*⪰0 it dissipates exactly—no matter how the SAV coefficients are frozen. The three variants are then shown to be first-order (Forward Euler), second-order and self-adjoint (Midpoint), and second-order (Predictive), each with local well-posedness. In the Poisson setting, the projected tensor restores the discrete Casimir condition that midpoint evaluation loses, giving exact modified-Hamiltonian

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is uniform positivity: E_SAV(x)+C₀ ≥ δ > 0 must hold along the trajectory and in the local neighborhood sampled by the scheme; if a trajectory approaches the zero set of E_SAV+C₀, the coefficient 1/Σ blows up and the order and well-posedness theorems collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the core identity holds, any future DG–SAV scheme with skew-symmetric S_* conserves the modified energy exactly without any step-size restriction, regardless of how the SAV coefficients are frozen.
The three variants give users a concrete menu: first-order cheap (Forward Euler), second-order self-adjoint (Midpoint), and second-order with reduced implicitness (Predictive), each with proven local well-posedness.
The projected-tensor construction means selected Casimirs can be preserved exactly even when the Casimir is nonlinear and the midpoint tensor fails the discrete condition, at the price of solving a low-dimensional projection.
In the tested dissipative benchmarks, the second-order DG–SAV variants reach full discrete-gradient accuracy while keeping the SAV gap orders of magnitude smaller than classical SAV schemes, so the modified energy tracks the physical energy more closely at similar cost.

Reading between the lines

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

The split could be selected adaptively during a simulation: assign more of the energy to E_DG in regions where the SAV gap matters, and more to E_SAV where cost dominates; the paper's identity suggests exact conservation would hold for any per-step split.
The framework invites higher-order variants: since the energy law does not depend on the order of the scheme, symmetric composition or deferred correction of the three schemes should preserve the exact modified-energy law while raising the order—an extension the paper flags but does not test.
The positivity assumption limits the method to energies where E_SAV+C₀ stays away from zero; a robust implementation would need to detect incipient zeros and shift C₀ or redraw the split mid-simulation.
The Casimir projection requires linear independence of the selected discrete Casimir gradients; near points where two Casimir gradients become nearly dependent, the projection may become ill-conditioned, suggesting a regularized variant worth testing.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: the DG–SAV framework is the real thing. The central identity, Theorem 3.1, follows directly from the discrete chain rule plus the r-update, and it holds for any frozen reference state. I re-derived the key algebra, including the rbar/Sigma expansions in Appendix C.1, and it checks out. The three variants give a clean cost–accuracy interpolation, and the split between E_DG and E_SAV is a legitimate design handle. The paper is also honest about its boundaries: unbounded energies are deferred to Kemmochi–Sato, and the polynomial double-well case has no cost advantage. That transparency earns credit.

The main soft spot is the uniform positivity assumption E_SAV + C0 ≥ δ > 0. It is load-bearing: near the zero set, Sigma^{-1} and the coefficient ratios in the order proofs blow up, and the error bounds carry a 1/delta factor. The paper flags this in Appendix C, so it is a stated boundary rather than an algebraic error, but it means the second-order claims are only uniform on regions where the quadratized term stays bounded away from zero. For energies without a usable lower bound, the framework needs separate analysis.

Numerics: the benchmarks are useful, but the paper says code and data are 'being prepared for public release.' That is a real gap for a methods paper. Timings also lack variance, and the abstract's headline 'six to seven orders of magnitude smaller' SAV gap omits the split-dependence caveat that the body states. All three are fixable.

The Poisson extension is neat, and the manufactured example shows exact Casimir preservation. I would like to see where it sits relative to Cohen–Hairer's linear energy-preserving integrators, which the paper mentions but does not delineate. Minor.

Bottom line: solid mathematical core, honest statements of scope, and a useful framework. The empirical efficiency claims need reproduction, but the framework itself deserves referee time. I would accept for peer review and ask for code/data release in the revised version.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a discretization template (DG-SAV) for gradient flows, Hamiltonian systems, and Poisson systems, based on splitting the energy as E = E_DG + E_SAV, introducing an auxiliary variable r with r^2 = E_SAV + C0, and forming the modified energy E-hat = E_DG + r^2. The central identity (Theorem 3.1) shows that any scheme of the template satisfies E-hat_{n+1} - E-hat_n = h <eta, S_* eta>, so skew-symmetric S_* gives exact modified-energy conservation and negative-semidefinite S_* gives dissipation for every solvable step. Three variants are proposed: Forward Euler (first order), self-adjoint Midpoint (second order), and Predictive (second order, reduced implicitness). A projected tensor construction (Theorem 5.1) enforces selected discrete Casimir conditions for Poisson systems. Numerical experiments on the Allen-Cahn equation, a nonlocal Ohta-Kawasaki-type gradient flow, a double-well Hamiltonian oscillator, and a cubic-Casimir Poisson system support the theoretical claims.

Significance. The exact modified-energy identity is a simple but useful structural observation that unifies DG and SAV approaches and gives the user a tunable cost/structure trade-off. The order and well-posedness theorems are carefully stated under a uniform positivity assumption, and Appendix C supplies detailed residual calculations. The numerical benchmarks use external references and report work-precision comparisons, which is a strength. If the results hold, the Predictive variant is a valuable second-order low-cost structure-preserving scheme. The main limitation is that only the modified energy is guaranteed; original-energy behavior is controlled only through the SAV gap, and the accuracy analysis is not uniform as E_SAV + C0 approaches zero.

major comments (2)

[Theorem 4.3; Appendix C.1] The order and well-posedness results are correct under the stated hypothesis E_SAV + C0 >= delta > 0, but the stated O(h^2) and O(h) global errors should be read as having constants that may blow up as delta -> 0. In particular, the expansion bar_r/Sigma_* = 1 + O(h^2) is only meaningful when Sigma_* is bounded below, and the contraction constant in Proposition 4.4 contains ||G_*||^2/(4 delta). The manuscript already acknowledges this in Appendix C, but the main text and conclusions should state more prominently that trajectories approaching the zero set of E_SAV + C0 are outside the scope of the accuracy and well-posedness theorems, and that the constants depend on 1/delta.
[Section 4.3, Remark 4.5] The well-posedness of the Midpoint variant is asserted via the implicit function theorem but not demonstrated. Since this is a central second-order scheme, the authors should state the smoothness and invertibility conditions on the Jacobian of the midpoint map at (x_n, r_n, h) = (x_n, r_n, 0) that guarantee a unique local branch. Without this, the claim that Midpoint is locally well-posed is a proof sketch rather than a theorem.

minor comments (4)

[Section 7, Code availability] The statement that source code and data 'are being prepared for public release' makes the numerical results not currently reproducible. Please either provide the code and data with this submission or explicitly state the reason for the delay.
[Section 6.2 and Corollary 6.2] The reduction of the Predictive predictor to 'q_pred = q_n + h/2 M^{-1} p_n' is correct only because the SAV coefficients depend on q alone; this should be stated explicitly to avoid the impression that the p-component of the predictor is being ignored.
[Section 7.1 and 7.2] The convergence studies use a numerical Full DG reference (e.g., Delta t = 5e-4) or DOP853 with rtol/atol. Please state explicitly how the reference accuracy compares with the finest tested step sizes, so that the reported error floors are not misread as asymptotic orders.
[Section 1.2, contributions bullet] The bullet claiming SAV gaps 'six to seven orders of magnitude smaller' lacks the caveat given in Section 7.2 that the compared schemes use different energy splits and that the absolute gaps are not scale-invariant. Please add the caveat to the contribution bullet or soften the claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the modified-energy identity is an explicit algebraic design property of the scheme, not an input disguised as a prediction.

full rationale

The central identity, Theorem 3.1, is derived directly from the definitions of the DG–SAV template: the r-update is deliberately chosen so that the SAV contribution to the energy change telescopes against the discrete-gradient contribution, yielding bE(x_{n+1},r_{n+1}) - bE(x_n,r_n) = h<eta,S_* eta>. The paper is transparent about this design choice ('The design of the r-equation is not arbitrary: the factor ... is precisely what ensures that the SA V contribution to the energy change telescopes...'), so the conservation/dissipation conclusion is a by-construction algebraic identity, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. No constants are tuned to numerical results: C0 is a shift chosen for positivity, and the split E_DG + E_SAV is stated as a user design choice. The order results for the Forward Euler, Midpoint, and Predictive variants rest on standard Taylor/midpoint consistency expansions (Lemma 2.4 and Appendix C) plus external order-doubling arguments [19]; the positivity assumption E_SAV + C0 >= delta > 0 is explicitly stated and its role in controlling Sigma^{-1} and the order estimates is acknowledged in Appendix C, making it a clearly stated hypothesis and boundary of applicability rather than hidden circularity. Casimir preservation is likewise enforced by the projected-tensor construction in Theorem 5.1, so it is a designed property. Self-citations to prior work by the authors appear only in contextual comparisons (e.g., [4], [5], [8]) and are not load-bearing for the main theorems; the closest structural reference, Lu–Wang–Sun [24], is external and the paper explicitly distinguishes its frozen-coefficient approach from that fully implicit extended-system method. Numerical benchmarks are validated against external references (Full DG, DOP853 at tight tolerances), and the paper disclaims the scale-invariance of SAV-gap comparisons. No circular step meets the quoted-reduction standard.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger is light: the framework introduces no fitted parameters in the sense of constants tuned to reproduce target results — C₀ and the split are honest design choices whose consequences (modified-energy law, SAV gap) are stated theorems or measured quantities, not encoded targets. The genuine assumptions are smoothness and positivity of the quadratized term, plus invertibility conditions for the Casimir projector. The auxiliary scalar r is the standard SAV device of Shen–Xu–Yang, not a new physical entity; the projected tensor is an algorithmic modification of the existing structure matrix, not a new conserved quantity or force.

free parameters (2)

shift constant C₀ = 10 (Flory–Huggins); 1 (p=6 nonlocal); 1 (double well); 1 (Poisson)
Hand-chosen constant ensuring E_SAV + C₀ ≥ δ > 0 on the solution region. It shifts the modified energy by a constant and affects the SAV gap magnitude (see [39]), but does not enter Theorem 3.1's identity; it is not fitted to any target result but is a genuine free choice per problem.
energy split E = E_DG + E_SAV = problem-dependent (quadratic/nonlocal/quartic assignments in §7)
The central design knob: determines which terms receive the discrete gradient vs. the SAV scalar, controlling cost and the SAV gap. The headline numerical comparisons (especially the six-orders-of-magnitude SAV-gap claim) depend on the splits chosen, which differ between DG–SAV and classical SAV in the p=6 benchmark — an acknowledged, not fitted, dependence.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption E_SAV(x) + C₀ ≥ δ > 0 on the region of interest and its sampled neighborhood
Used throughout for smoothness/boundedness of Σ⁻¹ and r̄/Σ_*; explicit in §3.1, Theorem 4.3, Appendix C.1. Fails for energies not bounded below or trajectories hitting the zero set; the paper's proofs then do not apply (it defers to Kemmochi–Sato [21] for unbounded energies).
domain assumption E_DG, E_SAV ∈ C³; S(·) C²; symmetric C² discrete gradient (AVF/Gonzalez)
Hypotheses of Lemma 2.4 and Theorem 4.3; standard for the chosen discrete gradients but excludes non-smooth energies.
domain assumption Discrete gradients of selected Casimirs are linearly independent with C^T C invertible for all pairs
Theorem 5.1(a): needed to define the projector P; fails near the origin for the cubic Casimir x₁³+x₂³+x₃³ where ∇̃C → 0.
domain assumption Structure property holds at reference states: S_* = S(x_*) with M(x_*) ⪰ 0 or J(x_*) skew-symmetric
The energy-law identity requires the structure property of S_* at the chosen reference state, inherited from the continuous tensor; for state-dependent M/J this is an assumption on the sampled states.
standard math Banach fixed-point theorem, implicit-function theorem, order-doubling theorem for symmetric one-step methods
Proposition 4.4 (contraction), Remark 4.5 (IFT), Theorem 4.3(ii) (order doubling, [19, Thm II.3.2]).
standard math Discrete gradients satisfy the chain rule (Def. 2.2); AVF/Gonzalez maps exist and are symmetric
Definition 2.2 formalizes the standard DG axioms from Gonzalez [18] and McLachlan–Quispel–Robidoux [25]; the AVF and Gonzalez gradients are the cited concrete instances.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Unified Discrete Gradient-SAV Framework for Structure-Preserving Integration." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O2LV72QF

@misc{pith2026260727795,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Unified Discrete Gradient-SAV Framework for Structure-Preserving Integration},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O2LV72QF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.27795}
}

read the original abstract

We present a framework combining discrete gradient (DG) methods with the Scalar Auxiliary Variable (SAV) approach to construct structure-preserving integrators for dissipative and conservative systems. The key observation is that SAV quadratization lifts the dynamics to an extended state space on which the modified energy has an exact discrete-gradient identity. This viewpoint yields three integrators with different accuracy and cost profiles: a first-order semi-implicit Forward Euler scheme, a second-order self-adjoint Midpoint scheme, and a second-order Predictive scheme with reduced implicitness. The construction extends to almost-Poisson systems and preserves selected Casimir invariants under an enforceable discrete condition. Numerical experiments cover the Allen--Cahn equation, an Ohta--Kawasaki-type nonlocal gradient flow, a double-well Hamiltonian oscillator, and a Poisson system with a nonlinear cubic Casimir.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references

[1]

Journal of Computational Physics , volume =

Bilbao, Stefan and Ducceschi, Michele and Zama, Fabiana , title =. Journal of Computational Physics , volume =. 2023 , doi =

2023
[2]

Journal of Computational Physics , volume =

Betsch, Peter and Steinmann, Paul , title =. Journal of Computational Physics , volume =. 2000 , doi =

2000
[3]

International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering , volume =

Betsch, Peter and Steinmann, Paul , title =. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering , volume =. 2000 , doi =

2000
[4]

Energy-preserving integrators applied to nonholonomic systems , JOURNAL =

Celledoni, Elena and Farr\'e. Energy-preserving integrators applied to nonholonomic systems , JOURNAL =. 2019 , NUMBER =

2019
[5]

Journal of Nonlinear Science , volume =

Gonzalez, Oscar , title =. Journal of Nonlinear Science , volume =. 1996 , doi =

1996
[6]

2006 , doi =

Hairer, Ernst and Lubich, Christian and Wanner, Gerhard , title =. 2006 , doi =

2006
[7]

BIT Numerical Mathematics , volume =

Cohen, David and Hairer, Ernst , title =. BIT Numerical Mathematics , volume =. 2011 , doi =

2011
[8]

Journal of Computational Physics , volume =

Itoh, Takashi and Abe, Kanji , title =. Journal of Computational Physics , volume =. 1988 , doi =

1988

Show all 49 references

[9]

and Quispel, G

McLachlan, Robert I. and Quispel, G. R. W. and Robidoux, Nicolas , title =. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences , volume =. 1999 , doi =

1999
[10]

Modin, Klas and Verdier, Olivier , TITLE =. Numer. Math. , FJOURNAL =. 2020 , NUMBER =

2020
[11]

Quispel, G. R. W. and McLaren, D. I. , title =. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical , volume =. 2008 , doi =

2008
[12]

Journal of Computational Physics , volume =

Shen, Jie and Xu, Jie and Yang, Jiang , title =. Journal of Computational Physics , volume =. 2018 , doi =

2018
[13]

SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis , volume =

Shen, Jie and Xu, Jie , title =. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis , volume =. 2018 , doi =

2018
[14]

SIAM Review , volume =

Shen, Jie and Xu, Jie and Yang, Jiang , title =. SIAM Review , volume =. 2019 , doi =

2019
[15]

Journal of Computational Physics , volume =

Yang, Xiaofeng and Zhao, Jia and Wang, Qi , title =. Journal of Computational Physics , volume =. 2017 , doi =

2017
[16]

and Ruuth, Steven J

Ascher, Uri M. and Ruuth, Steven J. and Spiteri, Raymond J. , title =. Applied Numerical Mathematics , volume =
[17]

and Quispel, G

McLachlan, Robert I. and Quispel, G. R. W. , title =. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena , volume =. 1998 , doi =

1998
[18]

Furihata, Daisuke and Matsuo, Takayasu , title =
[19]

Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical , volume =

Dahlby, Morten and Owren, Brynjulf and Yaguchi, Takaharu , title =. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical , volume =. 2011 , doi =

2011
[20]

and McLaren, David I

Norton, Richard A. and McLaren, David I. and Quispel, G. R. W. and Stern, Ari and Zanna, Antonella , title =. Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems , volume =. 2015 , doi =

2015
[21]

and McLaren, David I

Celledoni, Elena and Grimm, Verena and McLachlan, Robert I. and McLaren, David I. and O'Neale, Dylan and Owren, Brynjulf and Quispel, G. R. W. , title =. Journal of Computational Physics , volume =. 2012 , doi =

2012
[22]

SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing , volume =

Cheng, Qing and Shen, Jie , title =. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing , volume =
[23]

and Ehrhardt, Matthias J

Riis, Erlend S. and Ehrhardt, Matthias J. and Quispel, G. R. W. and Sch\"onlieb, Carola-Bibiane , title =. Foundations of Computational Mathematics , volume =. 2022 , doi =

2022
[24]

Order theory for discrete gradient methods , journal =

Eidnes, S. Order theory for discrete gradient methods , journal =. 2022 , doi =

2022
[25]

Journal of Computational Physics , volume =

Zhang, Yanrong and Shen, Jie , title =. Journal of Computational Physics , volume =. 2022 , doi =

2022
[26]

BIT Numerical Mathematics , volume =

Kemmochi, Tomoya and Sato, Shun , title =. BIT Numerical Mathematics , volume =. 2022 , doi =

2022
[27]

2021 , eprint =

Zhang, Zhen and Shin, Yeonjong and Karniadakis, George Em , title =. 2021 , eprint =

2021
[28]

Communications in Computational Physics , volume =

An, Jing and Cao, Waixiang and Zhang, Zhimin , title =. Communications in Computational Physics , volume =. 2019 , doi =

2019
[29]

IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis , volume =

Poulain, Alexandre and Schratz, Katharina , title =. IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis , volume =. 2021 , doi =

2021
[30]

SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing , volume =

Liu, Xinyu and Shen, Jie and Zhang, Xiangxiong , title =. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing , volume =. 2023 , doi =

2023
[31]

, title =

Ranocha, Hendrik and Ketcheson, David I. , title =. Journal of Scientific Computing , volume =. 2020 , doi =

2020
[32]

, title =

Ranocha, Hendrik and Mitsotakis, Dimitrios and Ketcheson, David I. , title =. Communications in Computational Physics , volume =. 2021 , doi =

2021
[33]

, title =

Ranocha, Hendrik and Ketcheson, David I. , title =. 2025 , eprint =

2025
[34]

2023 , eprint =

Li, Xicui and Wang, Bin and Zou, Xin , title =. 2023 , eprint =

2023
[35]

2023 , eprint =

Kemmochi, Tomoya , title =. 2023 , eprint =

2023
[36]

Journal of Physics: Conference Series , volume =

Zama, Fabiana and Ducceschi, Michele and Bilbao, Stefan , title =. Journal of Physics: Conference Series , volume =. 2024 , doi =

2024
[37]

and Riis, Erlend S

Ehrhardt, Matthias J. and Riis, Erlend S. and Ringholm, Torbj. A geometric integration approach to smooth optimization: foundations of the discrete gradient method , journal =. 2025 , doi =

2025
[38]

and Shen, J

Zhang, S. and Shen, J. , title =. Communications on Applied Mathematics and Computation , volume =. 2025 , doi =

2025
[39]

2025 , note =

Celledoni, Elena and Owren, Brynjulf and Xu, Baige and Shen, Chong and Yaguchi, Takaharu , title =. 2025 , note =

2025
[40]

and Owren, Brynjulf and Quispel, G

Celledoni, Elena and McLachlan, Robert I. and Owren, Brynjulf and Quispel, G. R. W. , title =. Foundations of Computational Mathematics , volume =. 2010 , doi =

2010
[41]

Mathematics of Computation , volume =

Celledoni, Elena and Owren, Brynjulf and Sun, Yajuan , title =. Mathematics of Computation , volume =
[42]

Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems - Series A , volume =

Celledoni, Elena and Owren, Brynjulf , title =. Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems - Series A , volume =. 2014 , doi =

2014
[43]

Mathematics of Computation , volume =

Celledoni, Elena and Eidnes, S lve and Owren, Brynjulf and Ringholm, Torbj rn , title =. Mathematics of Computation , volume =. 2020 , doi =

2020
[44]

2004 , doi =

Leimkuhler, Benedict and Reich, Sebastian , title =. 2004 , doi =

2004
[45]

Sanz-Serna, J. M. and Calvo, M. P. , title =
[46]

, title =

Eyre, David J. , title =. MRS Online Proceedings Library , volume =. 1998 , doi =

1998
[47]

Du, Qiang and Nicolaides, R. A. , title =. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis , volume =. 1991 , doi =

1991
[48]

and Stuart, Andrew M

Elliott, Charles M. and Stuart, Andrew M. , title =. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis , volume =. 1993 , doi =

1993
[49]

SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing , volume =

Lu, Nan and Wang, Yushun and Sun, Yajuan , title =. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing , volume =. 2025 , doi =

2025

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Journal of Computational Physics , volume =

Bilbao, Stefan and Ducceschi, Michele and Zama, Fabiana , title =. Journal of Computational Physics , volume =. 2023 , doi =

2023

[2] [2]

Journal of Computational Physics , volume =

Betsch, Peter and Steinmann, Paul , title =. Journal of Computational Physics , volume =. 2000 , doi =

2000

[3] [3]

International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering , volume =

Betsch, Peter and Steinmann, Paul , title =. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering , volume =. 2000 , doi =

2000

[4] [4]

Energy-preserving integrators applied to nonholonomic systems , JOURNAL =

Celledoni, Elena and Farr\'e. Energy-preserving integrators applied to nonholonomic systems , JOURNAL =. 2019 , NUMBER =

2019

[5] [5]

Journal of Nonlinear Science , volume =

Gonzalez, Oscar , title =. Journal of Nonlinear Science , volume =. 1996 , doi =

1996

[6] [6]

2006 , doi =

Hairer, Ernst and Lubich, Christian and Wanner, Gerhard , title =. 2006 , doi =

2006

[7] [7]

BIT Numerical Mathematics , volume =

Cohen, David and Hairer, Ernst , title =. BIT Numerical Mathematics , volume =. 2011 , doi =

2011

[8] [8]

Journal of Computational Physics , volume =

Itoh, Takashi and Abe, Kanji , title =. Journal of Computational Physics , volume =. 1988 , doi =

1988