Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 62 references

Information geometric regularization for computing sensitivities of flows with shocks

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper derives forward and adjoint sensitivity equations for the IGR regularization of the Euler equations and shows they converge, under grid refinement, to finite-difference and automatic-differentiation sensitivities.

desk verdict First derivation of IGR forward/adjoint sensitivities with a clever one-elliptic-solve nonlocal term; honest numerics, but the abstract overstates convergence under natural scaling. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09759 v1 pith:5NIDJNUC submitted 2026-08-10 math.NA cs.NAmath.OC

Florian Schäfer This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NAcs.NAmath.OC MSC 35L6576L0565M6076N2549M41
keywords adjointsensitivitiesinformationgeometricregularizationEulerequationsshockwavesinviscidPDEregularizationsforwarddiscontinuousGalerkinvanishinglimit
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

Computing adjoint sensitivities of flows with shocks has long been unreliable because shock-capturing limiters and sensors produce spurious spikes when differentiated. This paper shows that a recently introduced regularization, information geometric regularization (IGR), which replaces shocks with smooth profiles through an auxiliary entropic pressure, admits clean forward and adjoint sensitivity equations. The paper derives those equations for periodic domains and verifies in one and two dimensions that solving them reproduces the sensitivities obtained by finite differences or automatic differentiation through the forward IGR solve, with agreement improving under mesh refinement at fixed regularization. If correct, this gives practitioners a route to gradient-based design optimization, uncertainty quantification, and scientific machine learning for flows with shocks without freezing limiters or accepting their systematic errors.

What carries the argument

The central object is the information geometric regularization of the compressible Euler equations, which replaces shocks with smooth profiles of width proportional to $\sqrt{\alpha}$ by augmenting the physical pressure $P$ with an entropic pressure $\Sigma$ defined through an elliptic equation. Two mechanisms carry the argument: formal differentiation of the IGR system, which yields an evolution PDE for the forward sensitivity together with an additional elliptic PDE for the entropic-pressure sensitivity $\hat\Sigma$; and an abstract adjoint calculus for hyperbolic systems with nonlocal fluxes that splits the flux into a local part and a part mediated by $\Sigma$. The nonlocal adjoint term is evaluated through the $L^2$ gradient $\Sigma_q$, which the paper expresses using an auxiliary adjoint elliptic field $\Pi$ (equation (3.6)) and the self-adjointness of the elliptic operator, yielding the nonlocal source term (3.7) at the cost of one elliptic solve per time step. The numerical implementation uses a nodal discontinuous Galerkin method with symmetric interior penalty discretization of the elliptic problems and local Lax--Friedrichs fluxes for both the forward and adjoint hyperbolic solves.

What would settle it

Extend the mesh sweep of Section 5.2 to $N_e = 8192$ and beyond under the sublinear scaling $\sqrt{\alpha} = s\,\Delta x_0^{1/3}\Delta x^{2/3}$: if the $L^1$ consecutive-resolution error of the adjoint solution stops decreasing or reverses, the paper's claim that the IGR adjoint converges under this scaling is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the IGR system, the compressible Euler equations augmented by an entropic pressure $\Sigma$ solving the elliptic equation $\Sigma/\rho - \alpha\,\mathrm{div}(\rho^{-1}\nabla\Sigma) = \alpha(\mathrm{tr}^2(Du)+\mathrm{tr}((Du)^2))$, supports a well-posed sensitivity calculus: the forward sensitivity equations (2.1) and the adjoint equations (3.5), closed by the nonlocal term (3.7) that expresses the $L^2$ gradient $\Sigma_q$ through one additional elliptic solve, correctly describe how regularized shock solutions respond to parameter changes. Numerically, the PDE-based sensitivities agree with finite differences and with forward and reverse-mode automatic differentiation through the discretized IGR solve, and the agreement tightens under grid refinement at fixed $\alpha$ for one- and two-dimensional problems including interacting blast waves and a blast--vortex interaction. The paper further reports that the adjoint solution appears to converge under the sublinear scaling $\sqrt{\alpha}\propto\Delta x^{2/3}$, whereas the more common scaling $\sqrt{\alpha}\propto\Delta x$ fails to converge at fine resolutions, and it defers a rigorous analysis of this phenomenon to future work.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that differentiating the smooth IGR solution and then letting the regularization strength $\alpha$ and the grid spacing $\Delta x$ tend to zero together yields the true sensitivity of the underlying discontinuous Euler solution, so that the regularized sensitivity is not an artifact of the smoothing.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For a fixed regularization strength $\alpha$, the continuous IGR forward and adjoint sensitivities coincide with finite-difference and automatic-differentiation sensitivities under mesh refinement, so the adjoint can replace per-parameter forward solves.
  • The adjoint of a scalar output functional costs one backward-in-time PDE solve plus one elliptic solve per time step for the auxiliary field $\Pi$, independent of the number of parameters.
  • Under the sublinear scaling $\sqrt{\alpha}\propto\Delta x^{2/3}$ the discrete IGR adjoint appears to converge across resolutions, whereas the standard linear scaling $\sqrt{\alpha}\propto\Delta x$ does not, making the choice of $\alpha$ relative to the grid decisive for the reliability of the sensitivity.
  • In two dimensions, the PDE-based adjoint agrees with central finite differences for directional derivatives of kinetic-energy objectives on triple Sedov blasts and blast--vortex interactions, with the mismatch decreasing at second order in the mesh spacing.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the sublinear-scaling convergence is later proven, the IGR adjoint would settle the long-standing tension between 'differentiate-then-discretize' and 'discretize-then-differentiate' for Euler flows with shocks, because the equation-based sensitivity would track the discretized regularized solution at every resolution.
  • The same splitting argument, a local hyperbolic flux plus an elliptic auxiliary field whose $L^2$ gradient is recovered from an adjoint elliptic solve, should transfer to other PDE-based regularizations with self-adjoint elliptic operators, such as artificial bulk viscosity or hyperviscosity.
  • A practical recommendation that follows from the scaling study, though the paper does not make it explicitly, is to choose $\alpha$ according to the resolution demanded by the output functional rather than purely by $\Delta x$, since the adjoint but not the primal solution distinguishes the two scaling paths.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper derives forward and adjoint sensitivity equations for the information geometric regularization (IGR) of the compressible Euler equations with periodic boundary conditions. The forward equations are obtained by direct differentiation of the IGR system, and the adjoint equations are derived through an abstract integration-by-parts argument extended to the nonlocal entropic-pressure flux. The resulting PDEs are discretized with a discontinuous Galerkin method, and numerical tests in one and two dimensions compare the PDE-based sensitivities against automatic differentiation and finite differences. The abstract and Section 5 claim convergence of these sensitivities under grid refinement to the discrete sensitivities of the forward solve.

Significance. If the central claim were fully established, this would be a valuable contribution to adjoint-based design and uncertainty quantification for compressible flows with shocks, since IGR offers an inviscid smooth regularization whose sensitivities could be computed by standard continuous adjoint methods. The formal derivation is self-contained and the fixed-regularization numerical validations (Figures 1-3, 6-7) are credible, with a publicly available code. However, the paper's most important claim—that the sensitivities converge in the joint zero-regularization and zero-mesh-size limit—is not supported by the presented evidence; the paper's own scaling study shows a breakdown under the natural scaling and defers rigorous analysis of the substitute scaling. The contribution is therefore best viewed as a derivation plus a fixed-α consistency study, with the vanishing-regularization question left open.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Section 5.2, Figures 4-5] The abstract states that the paper 'demonstrates their convergence, under grid refinement' to the sensitivities obtained by finite differences or automatic differentiation. This is not supported by the paper's own scaling study. Under the natural scaling √α = s Δx, which keeps the number of cells per regularized shock width fixed, the L1 differences between adjoint solutions at consecutive resolutions break upward at the finest resolutions for both s = 2 and s = 4 (Figure 5, right). Only the ad hoc sublinear scaling √α = s Δx0^{1/3} Δx^{2/3} appears to converge, and the text explicitly states that a rigorous analysis is future work. The claim in the abstract should be qualified to fixed regularization or to the sublinear scaling as a heuristic.
  2. [Section 5.2, Figure 5] The sublinear scaling √α = s Δx0^{1/3} Δx^{2/3} is introduced as a numerical observation motivated by Giles and Ulbrich [20, 21], but no argument is given that the limit of the IGR adjoint under this scaling is the sensitivity of the underlying discontinuous Euler solution. Differentiating the smooth IGR system (2.1) and then letting α → 0 does not obviously commute with the vanishing-regularization limit, and the paper provides no error estimates connecting the IGR adjoint to an appropriately defined Euler adjoint in the sense of [20, 21]. Without such an identification, the title's promise of 'sensitivities of flows with shocks' is not realized; the paper rigorously addresses only sensitivities of the fixed-α regularized system.
  3. [Section 5, Figures 6-7] The fixed-α two-dimensional experiments with mesh refinement at constant α validate only the discretization of the continuous IGR adjoint; they do not provide evidence about the α → 0 limit. These figures should be presented as consistency checks for the numerical scheme at fixed regularization, not as convergence of sensitivities to those of the unregularized Euler equations. The O(h^2) labels in these figures are also not defined in terms of the norm or the range of h used, so the claimed convergence order is not verifiable from the text.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Title page] The title as rendered contains spacing artifacts ('INFORMA TION', 'REGULARIZA TION'); these should be corrected in the final version.
  2. [Section 5.1] The text says 'T = 1.7 ≫ ts' without defining ts or stating its value; please define the shock-formation time or rephrase.
  3. [Section 3.2] The sentence 'The above expression can be deduced by checking dimensional consistency and remembering that ˆq is contracted over the derivatives with respect to q' is too informal for a derivation of the adjoint operator; the tensor contraction should be shown explicitly or a reference provided.
  4. [Section 5.1] The 'small discretize-then-differentiate gap' mentioned for Figures 1 and 2 is not quantified; a table of the maximum or L1 difference would make the claim precise.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the sensitivity equations are derived by differentiating the IGR system, and validation uses independent AD/FD baselines; the unproven α→0 limit is a correctness caveat, not a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's forward and adjoint sensitivity equations (Sections 2 and 3) are obtained by formal differentiation of the IGR PDE system (1.1), with the nonlocal adjoint term (3.7) computed from the elliptic equation via self-adjointness of L^{-1}; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Validation compares the derived PDE sensitivities against automatic differentiation and finite differences through the DG forward solver (Figures 1–3, 6–7), which are independent discretize-then-differentiate baselines; even though both sides differentiate the same discrete forward solver, that establishes consistency of the two discretizations rather than reducing the claim by construction. The paper explicitly flags the unproven scaling limit ('A rigorous analysis of this phenomenon is the subject of future work', Section 5.2) and the nonconvergence under the linear √α∝Δx scaling, but that is a correctness/evidence limitation, not circularity. The few self-citations (e.g., [7,2] for IGR's smooth shock profiles) are to prior independent works, not to a uniqueness claim made in this paper, and are therefore not load-bearing circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The derivation itself rests on standard integration-by-parts and chain-rule manipulations, plus the smoothness of IGR solutions and the self-adjointness of the elliptic solver. The paper introduces no new physical entities. The key hidden assumption is the commutativity of differentiation with the vanishing-regularization limit, which is unresolved.

free parameters (4)
  • regularization strength alpha = chosen per experiment; e.g., (3L/Ne)^2 in Section 5.1, 3(L/20)^2 fixed in Section 5.3
    IGR model parameter that sets shock width ~ sqrt(alpha); the paper's convergence conclusions depend on how alpha is scaled with the mesh (Sections 5.2-5.3).
  • scaling law constants for sqrt(alpha) = s = 2 or 4; exponent 1 (linear) or 2/3 (sublinear)
    The scaling sqrt(alpha) = s Delta x or s Delta x0^{1/3} Delta x^{2/3} is chosen by hand, motivated by Giles-Ulbrich [20,21], to make the adjoint appear to converge; not derived in this paper.
  • finite-difference step size epsilon = 1e-5 (cyclic shift), 1e-6 (gamma)
    FD validation step sizes; results near shocks can be sensitive to this choice.
  • SIP penalty parameter eta_p = not specified, chosen large enough for coercivity
    Discretization parameter for the elliptic solves; affects accuracy of Sigma, Pi, and the adjoint source term.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption IGR forward solutions are smooth enough for term-by-term differentiation and integration by parts.
    Sections 2.2 and 3.4 differentiate the PDE formally; smoothness of IGR solutions is asserted from prior work ([7,8,3]) but not proven here for the general Euler case.
  • standard math The elliptic operator L[.] = (.)/rho - alpha div(nabla(.)/rho) is self-adjoint on the periodic domain, so L^{-1} can pass across the inner product.
    Used in Section 3.6 to derive (3.7); holds for the SIP discretization given in Section 4.1.2.
  • standard math Boundary terms vanish in the integration by parts on the periodic domain.
    Explicitly used in the abstract adjoint derivation (Section 3.2) and throughout Section 3.
  • domain assumption The derivative of the regularized solution with respect to a parameter, in the limit alpha -> 0, equals the sensitivity of the limiting discontinuous Euler solution.
    This is the practical justification for the method; the paper does not prove it and the scaling study suggests it does not hold under naive scaling (Section 5.2).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Information geometric regularization for computing sensitivities of flows with shocks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5NIDJNUC

@misc{pith2026260809759,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Information geometric regularization for computing sensitivities of flows with shocks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5NIDJNUC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09759}
}
read the original abstract

Computing (adjoint) sensitivities of flows with shocks is a longstanding problem in computational fluid dynamics. The spurious sensitivities due to shock sensors and limiters frequently force practitioners to accept the errors incurred by "freezing" limiters and shock sensors. The recently proposed information geometric regularization (IGR) is an inviscid, PDE-based regularization of the compressible Euler equations that replaces shocks with smooth profiles without damping fine-scale structures. This work derives the forward and adjoint sensitivities for the IGR system with periodic boundary conditions and demonstrates their convergence, under grid refinement, to the sensitivities obtained by finite differences or automatic differentiation through the forward solve.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    An interior penalty finite element method with discontinuous elements

    Douglas N Arnold. An interior penalty finite element method with discontinuous elements. SIAM journal on numerical analysis , 19(4):742–760, 1982

    work page 1982

  2. [2]

    Hamiltonian in- formation geometric regularization of the compressible Euler equations

    William Barham, Brian K Tran, Ben S Southworth, and Florian Sch¨ afer. Hamiltonian in- formation geometric regularization of the compressible Euler equations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.13948, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Shock solutions for the one-dimensional information geometric regularization of compressible flow

    William Barham, Brian K Tran, Ben S Southworth, and Florian Sch¨ afer. Shock solutions for the one-dimensional information geometric regularization of compressible flow. arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.12693, 2026

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  4. [4]

    On a regularization of the compressible Euler equations for an isothermal gas

    HS Bhat and RC Fetecau. On a regularization of the compressible Euler equations for an isothermal gas. Journal of mathematical analysis and applications , 358(1):168–181, 2009

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    Adjoint-based sensitivity of shock-laden flows

    DJ Bodony and A Fikl. Adjoint-based sensitivity of shock-laden flows. In Proceedings of the 2022 CTR summer program . Center for Turbulence Research, Stanford University, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Fast macroscopic forcing method

    Spencer H Bryngelson, Florian Sch¨ afer, Jessie Liu, and Ali Mani. Fast macroscopic forcing method. Journal of Computational Physics , 499:112721, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Information geometric regularization of the barotropic Euler equation

    Ruijia Cao and Florian Sch¨ afer. Information geometric regularization of the barotropic Euler equation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.14127 , 2023

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Information geometric regularization of unidimensional pres- sureless Euler equations yields global strong solutions

    Ruijia Cao and Florian Sch¨ afer. Information geometric regularization of unidimensional pres- sureless Euler equations yields global strong solutions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.15121 , 2024

    arXiv 2024

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    An artificial viscosity approach to high order entropy stable discontinuous Galerkin methods

    Jesse Chan. An artificial viscosity approach to high order entropy stable discontinuous Galerkin methods. Journal of Computational Physics , page 114380, 2025

    2025

  2. [10]

    Checkpointing schemes for adjoint codes: Application to the meteorolog- ical model Meso-NH

    Isabelle Charpentier. Checkpointing schemes for adjoint codes: Application to the meteorolog- ical model Meso-NH. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing , 22(6):2135–2151, 2001

    2001

  3. [11]

    Discontinuous Galerkin meth- ods: theory, computation and applications , volume 11

    Bernardo Cockburn, George E Karniadakis, and Chi-Wang Shu. Discontinuous Galerkin meth- ods: theory, computation and applications , volume 11. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    2012

  4. [12]

    The local discontinuous Galerkin method for time- dependent convection-diffusion systems

    Bernardo Cockburn and Chi-Wang Shu. The local discontinuous Galerkin method for time- dependent convection-diffusion systems. SIAM journal on numerical analysis , 35(6):2440– 2463, 1998

    1998

  5. [13]

    The free compressible viscous vortex

    Tim Colonius, Sanjiva K Lele, and Parviz Moin. The free compressible viscous vortex. Journal of Fluid Mechanics , 230:45–73, 1991

    1991

  6. [14]

    Hyperviscosity for shock-turbulence interactions

    Andrew W Cook and William H Cabot. Hyperviscosity for shock-turbulence interactions. Journal of Computational Physics , 203(2):379–385, 2005

    2005

  7. [15]

    Interior penalty procedures for elliptic and parabolic galerkin methods

    Jim Douglas and Todd Dupont. Interior penalty procedures for elliptic and parabolic galerkin methods. In Computing Methods in Applied Sciences: Second International Symposium December 15–19, 1975, pages 207–216. Springer, 2008

    1975

  8. [16]

    Discontinuous Galerkin semidiscretization of the information geometric regularized compressible Euler equations

    Brook Eyob, Jesus Arias, Spencer H Bryngelson, and Florian Sch¨ afer. Discontinuous Galerkin semidiscretization of the information geometric regularized compressible Euler equations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2608.02223 , 2026

    2026 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Adjoint equations in CFD-duality, boundary conditions and solution behaviour

    MBMB Giles, Niles Pierce, M Giles, and N Pierce. Adjoint equations in CFD-duality, boundary conditions and solution behaviour. In 13th computational fluid dynamics conference , page 1850, 1997

    1997

  10. [18]

    On the properties of solutions of the adjoint Euler equations

    Michael B Giles and Niles A Pierce. On the properties of solutions of the adjoint Euler equations. Numerical Methods for Fluid Dynamics VI. ICFD , pages 1–16, 1998

    1998

  11. [19]

    An introduction to the adjoint approach to design

    Michael B Giles and Niles A Pierce. An introduction to the adjoint approach to design. Flow, turbulence and combustion , 65(3):393–415, 2000

    2000

  12. [20]

    Giles and Stefan Ulbrich

    Michael B. Giles and Stefan Ulbrich. Convergence of linearized and adjoint approximations for discontinuous solutions of conservation laws. Part 1: Linearized approximations and linearized output functionals. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis , 48(3):882–904, 2010

    2010

  13. [21]

    Giles and Stefan Ulbrich

    Michael B. Giles and Stefan Ulbrich. Convergence of linearized and adjoint approximations for discontinuous solutions of conservation laws. Part 2: Adjoint approximations and exten- sions. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis , 48(3):905–921, 2010

    2010

  14. [22]

    Smooth and compactly supported viscous sub-cell shock capturing for discontinuous Galerkin methods

    Jan Glaubitz, Philipp ¨Offner, Hendrik Ranocha, and Thomas Sonar. Smooth and compactly supported viscous sub-cell shock capturing for discontinuous Galerkin methods. Journal of Scientific Computing , 79(1):249–272, 2019

    2019

  15. [23]

    Evaluating derivatives: principles and techniques of algorithmic differentiation

    Andreas Griewank and Andrea Walther. Evaluating derivatives: principles and techniques of algorithmic differentiation. SIAM, 2008

    2008

  16. [24]

    Hamiltonian regularisation of the unidimensional barotropic Euler equations

    Billel Guelmame, Didier Clamond, and St´ ephane Junca. Hamiltonian regularisation of the unidimensional barotropic Euler equations. Nonlinear Analysis: Real World Applications , 64:103455, 2022. 20 FLORIAN SCH ¨AFER

    2022

  17. [25]

    Global weak solutions of a Hamiltonian regularised Burgers equation

    Billel Guelmame, St´ ephane Junca, Didier Clamond, and Robert L Pego. Global weak solutions of a Hamiltonian regularised Burgers equation. Journal of Dynamics and Differential Equations, pages 1–29, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    Second-order invari- ant domain preserving approximation of the Euler equations using convex limiting

    Jean-Luc Guermond, Murtazo Nazarov, Bojan Popov, and Ignacio Tomas. Second-order invari- ant domain preserving approximation of the Euler equations using convex limiting. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing , 40(5):A3211–A3239, 2018

    2018

  19. [27]

    Entropy viscosity method for nonlinear conservation laws

    Jean-Luc Guermond, Richard Pasquetti, and Bojan Popov. Entropy viscosity method for nonlinear conservation laws. Journal of Computational Physics , 230(11):4248–4267, 2011

    2011

  20. [28]

    Strong sta- bility preserving explicit Runge–Kutta methods of maximal effective order

    Yiannis Hadjimichael, Colin B Macdonald, David I Ketcheson, and James H Verner. Strong sta- bility preserving explicit Runge–Kutta methods of maximal effective order. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis , 51(4):2149–2165, 2013

    2013

  21. [29]

    High resolution schemes for hyperbolic conservation laws

    Ami Harten. High resolution schemes for hyperbolic conservation laws. Journal of Computa- tional Physics , 49(3):357–393, 1983

    1983

  22. [30]

    Uniformly high order accurate essentially non-oscillatory schemes, III

    Ami Harten, Bjorn Engquist, Stanley Osher, and Sukumar R Chakravarthy. Uniformly high order accurate essentially non-oscillatory schemes, III. Journal of computational physics , 131(1):3–47, 1997

    1997

  23. [31]

    Aerodynamic design via control theory

    Antony Jameson. Aerodynamic design via control theory. Journal of scientific computing , 3:233–260, 1988

    1988

  24. [32]

    Origins and further development of the Jameson–Schmidt–Turkel scheme

    Antony Jameson. Origins and further development of the Jameson–Schmidt–Turkel scheme. AIAA Journal , 55(5):1487–1510, 2017

    2017

  25. [33]

    Control theory based airfoil design using the Euler equations

    Antony Jameson and James Reuther. Control theory based airfoil design using the Euler equations. In 5th Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization , page 4272, 1994

    1994

  26. [34]

    Efficient implementation of weighted ENO schemes

    Guang-Shan Jiang and Chi-Wang Shu. Efficient implementation of weighted ENO schemes. Journal of Computational Physics , 126(1):202–228, 1996

    1996

  27. [35]

    Assessment of localized artificial dif- fusivity scheme for large-eddy simulation of compressible turbulent flows

    Soshi Kawai, Santhosh K Shankar, and Sanjiva K Lele. Assessment of localized artificial dif- fusivity scheme for large-eddy simulation of compressible turbulent flows. Journal of com- putational physics , 229(5):1739–1762, 2010

    2010

  28. [36]

    Essai sur le mouvement d’un fluide visqueux emplissant l’espace

    J Leray. Essai sur le mouvement d’un fluide visqueux emplissant l’espace. Acta Math. , 63(1):193–248, 1934

    1934

  29. [37]

    Numerical methods for conservation laws , volume

    Randall J LeVeque and Randall J Leveque. Numerical methods for conservation laws , volume

  30. [38]

    Adjoint-based computation of nonlocal eddy viscosity in turbulent channel flow

    Jessie Liu, Florian Sch¨ afer, Spencer H Bryngelson, Tamer A Zaki, and Ali Mani. Adjoint-based computation of nonlocal eddy viscosity in turbulent channel flow. Physical Review Fluids, 9(9):094606, 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    Well-posedness and derivative blow-up for a dispersionless regularized shallow water system

    Jian-Guo Liu, Robert L Pego, and Yue Pu. Well-posedness and derivative blow-up for a dispersionless regularized shallow water system. Nonlinearity, 32(11):4346, 2019

    2019

  32. [40]

    A note on the dual consistency of the discrete adjoint quasi-one-dimensional Euler equations with cell-centered and cell-vertex central discretizations

    Carlos Lozano. A note on the dual consistency of the discrete adjoint quasi-one-dimensional Euler equations with cell-centered and cell-vertex central discretizations. Computers & Fluids, 134:51–60, 2016

    2016

  33. [41]

    Watch your adjoints! Lack of mesh convergence in inviscid adjoint solutions

    Carlos Lozano. Watch your adjoints! Lack of mesh convergence in inviscid adjoint solutions. AIAA Journal , 57(9):3991–4006, 2019

    2019

  34. [42]

    Suitability of artificial bulk viscosity for large- eddy simulation of turbulent flows with shocks

    Ali Mani, Johan Larsson, and Parviz Moin. Suitability of artificial bulk viscosity for large- eddy simulation of turbulent flows with shocks. Journal of Computational Physics , 228(19):7368–7374, 2009

    2009

  35. [43]

    Instead of rewriting foreign code for machine learn- ing, automatically synthesize fast gradients

    William Moses and Valentin Churavy. Instead of rewriting foreign code for machine learn- ing, automatically synthesize fast gradients. In H. Larochelle, M. Ranzato, R. Hadsell, M. F. Balcan, and H. Lin, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 33, pa...

    2020

  36. [44]

    Moses, Valentin Churavy, Ludger Paehler, Jan H¨ uckelheim, Sri Hari Krishna Narayanan, Michel Schanen, and Johannes Doerfert

    William S. Moses, Valentin Churavy, Ludger Paehler, Jan H¨ uckelheim, Sri Hari Krishna Narayanan, Michel Schanen, and Johannes Doerfert. Reverse-mode automatic differen- tiation and optimization of gpu kernels via enzyme. In Proceedings of the International Conference for High...

    2021

  37. [45]

    Resolvent analysis of shock-laden flows

    Sandeep Ravikumar Murthy and Daniel J Bodony. Resolvent analysis of shock-laden flows. Journal of Fluid Mechanics , 1031:A11, 2026

    2026

  38. [46]

    Aerodynamic shape optimization using a Cartesian adjoint method and CAD geometry

    Marian Nemec and Michael Aftosmis. Aerodynamic shape optimization using a Cartesian adjoint method and CAD geometry. In 24th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference , page 3456, 2006

    2006

  39. [47]

    Sub-cell shock capturing for discontinuous Galerkin meth- ods

    Per-Olof Persson and Jaime Peraire. Sub-cell shock capturing for discontinuous Galerkin meth- ods. In 44th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit , page 112, 2006

    2006

  40. [48]

    Weakly singular shock pro- INFORMATION GEOMETRIC REGULARIZATION FOR COMPUTING SENSITIVITIES 21 files for a non-dispersive regularization of shallow-water equations

    Yue Pu, Robert L Pego, Denys Dutykh, and Didier Clamond. Weakly singular shock pro- INFORMATION GEOMETRIC REGULARIZATION FOR COMPUTING SENSITIVITIES 21 files for a non-dispersive regularization of shallow-water equations. Communications in Mathematical Sciences, 16(5), 2018

    2018

  41. [49]

    Numerical entropy production for central schemes

    Gabriella Puppo. Numerical entropy production for central schemes. SIAM Journal on Scien- tific Computing , 25(4):1382–1415, 2004

    2004

  42. [50]

    Bryngelson, and Florian Sch¨ afer

    Anand Radhakrishnan, Benjamin Wilfong, Spencer H. Bryngelson, and Florian Sch¨ afer. Shocks without shock capturing: Information geometric regularization of finite volume methods for Navier–Stokes-like problems. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering , 461:119216, 2026

    2026

  43. [51]

    Forward-mode automatic differentia- tion in julia

    Jarrett Revels, Miles Lubin, and Theodore Papamarkou. Forward-mode automatic differentia- tion in julia. arXiv preprint arXiv:1607.07892 , 2016

    2016 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Total-variation-diminishing time discretizations

    Chi-Wang Shu. Total-variation-diminishing time discretizations. SIAM Journal on Scientific and Statistical Computing , 9(6):1073–1084, 1988

    1988

  45. [53]

    Essentially non-oscillatory and weighted essentially non-oscillatory schemes for hyperbolic conservation laws

    Chi-Wang Shu. Essentially non-oscillatory and weighted essentially non-oscillatory schemes for hyperbolic conservation laws. In Advanced Numerical Approximation of Nonlinear Hyper- bolic Equations: Lectures given at the 2nd Session of the Centro Internazionale Matem- atico Est...

    1997

  46. [54]

    Thermodynamically con- strained information geometric regularization for compressible flows

    Seth Taylor, Raymond J Spiteri, and St´ ephane Gaudreault. Thermodynamically con- strained information geometric regularization for compressible flows. arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.27286, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  47. [55]

    A sensitivity and adjoint calculus for discontinuous solutions of hyperbolic conservation laws with source terms.SIAM journal on control and optimization, 41(3):740– 797, 2002

    Stefan Ulbrich. A sensitivity and adjoint calculus for discontinuous solutions of hyperbolic conservation laws with source terms.SIAM journal on control and optimization, 41(3):740– 797, 2002

    2002

  48. [56]

    Adjoint-based derivative computations for the optimal control of discontinuous solutions of hyperbolic conservation laws

    Stefan Ulbrich. Adjoint-based derivative computations for the optimal control of discontinuous solutions of hyperbolic conservation laws. Systems & control letters, 48(3-4):313–328, 2003

    2003

  49. [57]

    Towards the ultimate conservative difference scheme

    Bram Van Leer. Towards the ultimate conservative difference scheme. V. a second-order sequel to Godunov’s method. Journal of computational Physics , 32(1):101–136, 1979

    1979

  50. [58]

    A method for the numerical calculation of hydrodynamic shocks

    John Von Neumann and Robert D Richtmyer. A method for the numerical calculation of hydrodynamic shocks. Journal of applied physics , 21(3):232–237, 1950

    1950

  51. [59]

    Minimal repetition dynamic checkpoint- ing algorithm for unsteady adjoint calculation

    Qiqi Wang, Parviz Moin, and Gianluca Iaccarino. Minimal repetition dynamic checkpoint- ing algorithm for unsteady adjoint calculation. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing , 31(4):2549–2567, 2009

    2009

  52. [60]

    An elliptic collocation-finite element method with interior penalties

    Mary Fanett Wheeler. An elliptic collocation-finite element method with interior penalties. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis , 15(1):152–161, 1978

    1978

  53. [61]

    Simulating many-engine spacecraft: Exceeding 1 quadrillion degrees of freedom via information geometric regularization

    Benjamin Wilfong, Anand Radhakrishnan, Henry Le Berre, Daniel Vickers, Tanush Prathi, Nikolaos Tselepidis, Benedikt Dorschner, Reuben Budiardja, Brian Cornille, Stephen Ab- bott, et al. Simulating many-engine spacecraft: Exceeding 1 quadrillion degrees of freedom via informati...

    2025

  54. [62]

    A compression-directional entropic stress method for shock-regularized compressible flow

    Bonan Xu, Chihyung Wen, and Peixu Guo. A compression-directional entropic stress method for shock-regularized compressible flow. arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.21444 , 2026

    2026 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.