A stiffly stable semi-discrete scheme for the damped wave equation on the half-line using SBP and SAT techniques

Benjamin Boutin (IRMAR); Thi Hoai Thuong Nguyen (HCMUS)

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 30 references

A stiffly stable semi-discrete scheme for the damped wave equation on the half-line using SBP and SAT techniques

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A summation-by-parts scheme with a weak boundary penalty makes the damped wave equation on the half-line stiffly stable under a discrete dissipativity inequality on the mesh-to-relaxation ratio.

desk verdict The stress-test counterexample lands: Proposition 3.1 and Lemma A.5 are false as stated, so Theorem 1.1's proof does not cover the claimed SAT-parameter class. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16388 v1 pith:3LCN6BBV submitted 2024-11-25 math.NA cs.NA

Thi Hoai Thuong Nguyen (HCMUS) , Benjamin Boutin (IRMAR) This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.NAcs.NA MSC 65M1265M06

keywords dampedwaveequationhyperbolicrelaxationstiffstabilitysummation-by-partssimultaneousapproximationtermenergyestimateshalf-lineboundaryconditions

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper claims that a boundary treatment based on summation-by-parts differencing and a simultaneous-approximation-term penalty makes the linear damped wave equation on the half-line stiffly stable at the discrete level. The target is an energy estimate that stays bounded independently of the relaxation parameter $\varepsilon$ and, in the case $B_v>0$, of the mesh width $\Delta x$, so that no spurious boundary instability appears as $\varepsilon\to 0$. The sufficient condition is the discrete strict dissipativity inequality $2aB_v + \frac{\Delta x}{\varepsilon} B_u > 0$, and the same condition covers the fully implicit time-discrete scheme. Uniform estimates in $\varepsilon$ are exactly what a numerical zero-relaxation limit needs; without them, boundary layers or reflected waves can dominate the computed solution.

What carries the argument

The engine of the proof is the energy method on the SBP-SAT discretization. The SBP operator (1.8) is a first-derivative approximation that satisfies a summation-by-parts identity with the weighted norm (1.9), so interior terms telescope and leave only boundary contributions. The SAT term $\frac{2}{\Delta x}\Phi(BU_0-b)$ is a penalty that imposes the physical boundary condition weakly. With the symmetrizer $H=\mathrm{diag}(a,1)$, the evolution of $E=\langle U,HU\rangle_{\Delta x}$ yields the boundary inequality (2.5), and Proposition 3.1 shows that positivity of the quadratic form (2.6), equivalently negative semidefiniteness of the boundary matrix in (3.2), holds under Definition 1.1 plus (1.6). That positivity supplies the dissipation constant $c$ in (2.9), and the energy estimate follows by integrating in time, or by summing over $n$ for the implicit scheme.

What would settle it

Compute the smallest eigenvalue of the boundary matrix in (3.2)–(3.3) for a fixed $(B_u,B_v)$ with $B_v<0$, a SAT pair in Definition 1.1, and $\Delta x/\varepsilon$ below the threshold $-4aB_u^{-1}B_v$; if the eigenvalue is positive, Proposition 3.1 is false. A direct numerical check is the paper's own experiment with $(B_u,B_v)=(20,-1)$, $\varepsilon=100$, $\Delta x=5\times10^{-3}$, where the energy rises and a reflected wave appears at the left boundary.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For the initial-boundary value problem (1.1) with boundary condition $B_uu+B_vv=b$, the paper proposes scheme (1.7): central differences (1.8), the SBP norm (1.9), and a boundary update with penalty vector $\Phi=(\alpha,\beta)^T$. The central claim, Theorem 1.1, is that if $(\alpha,\beta)$ satisfies Definition 1.1 and the discrete strict dissipativity condition (1.6) holds, then every $\ell^2$ solution satisfies estimate (1.12) with a constant $C_T$ independent of the data; for $B_v>0$ the constant is independent of $\varepsilon$ and $\Delta x$, while for $B_v\le 0$ it is uniform as soon as $\Delta x\ge \delta_0\varepsilon$ with $\delta_0>-4aB_u^{-1}B_v$. Theorem 1.2 transfers the same statement to the implicit-in-time scheme (1.13) for arbitrary $\Delta t>0$. The proof reduces the boundary contribution to positivity of the quadratic form (2.6), which follows from the SAT-parameter conditions and (1.6).

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on the discrete strict dissipativity inequality $2aB_v+\frac{\Delta x}{\varepsilon}B_u>0$; if that inequality fails, the boundary quadratic form need no longer be positive and the claimed $\varepsilon$-uniform energy estimate collapses, which for $B_v<0$ also rules out letting $\Delta x\to0$ at fixed $\varepsilon$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For boundary coefficients with $B_v>0$, the stability constant in (1.12) does not degrade as $\varepsilon\to0$ or $\Delta x\to0$, so the semi-discrete scheme is a valid building block for zero-relaxation-limit convergence proofs.
For $B_v\le0$, uniform stability requires $\Delta x\ge\delta_0\varepsilon$; the theorem therefore does not allow the mesh to shrink faster than the relaxation parameter when the boundary is of the harder type.
The implicit scheme (1.13) inherits the same sufficient condition for every time step $\Delta t>0$, so full discretization introduces no additional time-step restriction beyond the space-stiffness relation.
For homogeneous boundary data, the proof gives $\partial_t E\le -\frac{c}{2}|U_0|^2$ under (1.6), so the discrete energy is monotone non-increasing in the covered regimes.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper's own numerics with $(B_u,B_v)=(20,-1)$ and $\varepsilon=100$, where (1.6) fails, show energy growth and a discrete reflected wave; this suggests the condition is close to necessary, not merely sufficient, for this family of SAT parameters, though the paper does not prove necessity.
The theorem leaves open the simultaneous limit $\Delta x\to0$ and $\varepsilon\to0$ with $\Delta x/\varepsilon\to0$ when $B_v<0$; resolving boundary layers at that scale would require a different boundary treatment.
Because the proof uses only positivity of the form (2.6), the same sufficient condition should carry over to higher-order SBP-SAT operators with the same boundary norm structure, provided the boundary closure does not alter the quadratic form.
For practical computation, (1.6) acts as a mild CFL-type restriction linking $\Delta x$ to $\varepsilon$ in the stiff regime; an adaptive choice of the penalty vector $\Phi$ could potentially remove it, which the paper does not explore.

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

The stress-test note is correct, and it cuts to the spine of the paper. Take a=4, Bu=1, Bv=-1, α=-6, β=1, Δx/ε=10. These satisfy Definition 1.1 and (1.6), but the quadratic form F in (2.6) becomes 48u² - 58uv + 12v², whose matrix has determinant -265. So F(1,2) = -20 < 0 and no c>0 can make F ≥ cI. Proposition 3.1 is false, and the proof's bridge—Lemma A.5, inequality (3.8)—fails for exactly this reason. Lemma A.5 is stated without the Δx ≥ δ0ε restriction that Theorem 1.1(b) does impose; the counterexample has Δx/ε=10, which satisfies (1.6) but not the stronger bound δ0 > -4aB_u^{-1}Bv = 16.

What the paper does well: the SBP-SAT formulation is a natural extension of the earlier ghost-value scheme, the SAT parameter set (1.10)-(1.11) is an explicit attempt to characterize an admissible penalty family, and the energy method with the symmetrizer H = diag(a,1) is clean. The implicit time-discrete extension Theorem 1.2 follows the same logic and is a legitimate new element. I also appreciate that the authors are honest about the status of the continuous SKC and its discrete counterpart.

The soft spots: beyond the false lemma, the abstract overclaims uniform stability 'regardless of the spatial step size.' Part (b) of both theorems reserves a Δx ≥ δ0ε condition for Bv≤0, so the abstract should be rewritten. The numerical experiments are illustrative only; no code or data, and the convergence statements in Section 4.2 are not reproducible without them. That is a minor issue compared to the proof gap.

Who this is for: researchers working on SBP-SAT boundary treatment for hyperbolic relaxation systems. The paper is worth engaging, but only as a starting point. The correct move is to add the ratio bound to Lemma A.5 and Proposition 3.1, then verify the energy argument again. If that repair works, the restricted theorem may still be true.

Recommendation: I would not desk-reject this. Send it to a referee, flag the gap in Lemma A.5, and ask whether the restricted version of Proposition 3.1 can be proven. It has a plausible path to a solid, more modest paper.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an SBP-SAT semi-discrete scheme and an implicit time-discrete scheme for the linear damped wave equation on the half-line, with boundary condition imposed weakly through a SAT penalty term. The main claim is that, under the discrete strict dissipativity condition 2aBv + (Δx/ε)Bu > 0 and the SAT-parameter restrictions of Definition 1.1, the schemes satisfy uniform-in-ε (and in some regimes uniform-in-Δx) energy estimates, giving stiff stability as the relaxation parameter tends to zero. The proofs proceed by an energy method; the key technical step is Proposition 3.1, which asserts that a certain boundary quadratic form F is positive definite, and this is justified using the technical lemmas of Appendix A.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the paper would provide a useful extension of the authors' earlier work [2] to SBP-SAT boundary treatment, and would give a concrete sufficient condition for stiffness-uniform stability of a characteristic-boundary relaxation problem. However, the main theorem is not established as stated: the key positivity claim (Proposition 3.1) is false for a nonempty set of SAT-parameters satisfying Definition 1.1 and (1.6). The paper does contain a substantial amount of correct and detailed energy-method algebra, and the defect appears local and repairable by strengthening the ratio condition in the Bv<0 case, but the current claims are overbroad.

major comments (3)

[Section 3, Proposition 3.1] This is a load-bearing error: Proposition 3.1 is the only bridge from the SAT-parameter inequalities to the energy estimate. The proof of Theorem 1.1 explicitly invokes this proposition at the start of Section 2.1, and Theorem 1.2 inherits the same dependency.
[Appendix A, Lemma A.5] The failure is not a mere technicality: the quadratic form is genuinely indefinite for such parameters, so no repair within the existing energy proof is possible without changing the assumptions.
[Theorem 1.1(b) and abstract] The same issue applies to Theorem 1.2(b), which relies on Proposition 3.1 via the same energy argument.

minor comments (5)

[Section 1.1 / abstract] The abstract overclaims uniformity 'regardless of the spatial step size' for the whole paper; this is only valid for Bv>0. Please adjust the wording to match the theorem statements.
[Section 4] The text contains typographical errors such as 'wich' for 'which' and 'polynmial' for 'polynomial' in Lemma A.4; the paper would benefit from a careful proofreading pass.
[Remark after Proposition 3.1] The remark asserting that the SAT-parameter restrictions are 'optimal (i.e. maximal)' is speculative and, in light of the counterexample to Proposition 3.1, is not supported by the present analysis; please either prove or remove it.
[Section 2.1, around (2.5)] There is a typo in the sentence 'from there we now that there exists c > 0'; 'now' should read 'know'.
[Theorem 1.2 statement] The fully discrete estimate (1.14) sums the boundary term from n=1 to N but the data term from n=1 to N as well; please check the indexing for consistency, especially at n=0.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the stability proof is a direct algebraic derivation from explicit hypotheses.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a conditional stability estimate for a specific semi-discrete SBP-SAT scheme. The SAT parameters are not fitted to data or to the target estimate: Definition 1.1 gives explicit algebraic inequalities, and Proposition 3.1 verifies that the boundary quadratic form is positive definite under the stated hypothesis (1.6). The energy estimate in Theorem 1.1 is then obtained by a direct summation-by-parts computation from the scheme (1.7), so the conclusion is not identical to an input. The discrete strict dissipativity condition (1.6) is taken from the authors' earlier work [2], but it is used as a hypothesis rather than as a proof of the theorem; the lemmas in Appendix A re-derive the needed inequalities from it. Xin and Xu's SKC is cited as continuous motivation, not as the mechanism of the discrete proof. No quantity is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is invoked to force a choice. The skeptic's counterexample targets the validity of Lemma A.5 and hence the correctness of Proposition 3.1; if correct it would break the derivation, but breaking a derivation is not circular equivalence with the paper's inputs. Thus no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumed dissipativity condition (1.6), the feasibility of the SAT-parameter inequalities, and standard SBP-SAT algebraic identities. The SAT weights alpha and beta and the margin delta0 are hand-chosen algorithmic degrees of freedom, not quantities fixed by physics or data. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)

SAT penalty weight alpha = alpha = (3 + 2 sqrt(2)) min(Bv^{-1}, 0) - 2 in the numerical experiments
Chosen by hand to satisfy inequality (1.10); the stability proof only requires the inequality, so the exact value is a free algorithmic choice.
SAT penalty weight beta = beta = -a(1 - Bv alpha) Bu^{-1} in the numerical experiments
Chosen by hand to satisfy inequality (1.11); the admissible set is an open interval, so the exact value is a free algorithmic choice.
Dissipativity margin delta0 = Any value greater than -4 a Bu^{-1} Bv for Bv < 0, and any positive value for Bv = 0
Introduced in Theorem 1.1(b) and Lemma A.7 to quantify the required mesh-to-relaxation-scale ratio; the stability constant depends on it, and it is chosen by hand rather than derived from data.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The boundary parameters satisfy the discrete strict dissipativity condition (1.6): 2a Bv + (Delta x / epsilon) Bu > 0.
Assumed in Theorems 1.1 and 1.2 and in Proposition 3.1; it is a constraint on the boundary data and the mesh-to-stiffness ratio, not a consequence of the continuous Stiff Kreiss Condition.
ad hoc to paper The SAT-parameter set in Definition 1.1 is nonempty and the quadratic form F in (2.6) is positive definite, as asserted in Proposition 3.1.
The energy estimate reduces to this algebraic positivity; its validity is established by technical lemmas A.1 through A.7, which are specific to this paper.
domain assumption a > 0 and Bu > 0.
a > 0 is the subcharacteristic condition for the relaxation model; Bu > 0 is assumed without loss of generality by multiplying the boundary condition by -1, as stated in Section 1.1.
standard math The SBP operator (1.8) satisfies the summation-by-parts identity (2.3).
Algebraic identity for this specific difference operator, used to cancel the interior hyperbolic terms in the energy balance.
standard math The symmetrizer H = diag(a,1) makes HA symmetric and HS negative semi-definite.
Standard symmetrization for the 2x2 wave system, used throughout the energy proof.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A stiffly stable semi-discrete scheme for the damped wave equation on the half-line using SBP and SAT techniques." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3LCN6BBV

@misc{pith2026241116388,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A stiffly stable semi-discrete scheme for the damped wave equation on the half-line using SBP and SAT techniques},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3LCN6BBV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16388}
}

read the original abstract

This paper investigates the stability of both the semi-discrete and the implicit central scheme for the linear damped wave equation on the half-line, where the spatial boundary is characteristic for the limiting equation. The proposed schemes incorporate a discrete boundary condition designed to guarantee the uniform stability of the IBVP, regardless of the stiffness of the source term or the spatial step size. Stability estimates for the semi-discrete scheme are established using the summation-by-parts (SBP) and simultaneous-approximation-term (SAT) penalty techniques, building on the continuous framework analyzed by Xin and Xu (2000).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16388 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Evolution of the energy E(t) for ε = 10−2 (left) and ε = 102 (right). The legends are the parameters ε/Bu/Bv/J. results. • In the proof of Theorem 1.1, we observe that the energy E(t) decreases for a vanishing boundary condition b = 0, provided the parameters satisfy the discrete strict dissipativity condition (1.6). The numerical experiments strongly support this observation, including the case when BuBv < 0, such … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Space-time behaviour of u, v, √ au+v and √ au−v (from top to bottom). Relaxation parameter: ε = 102 , ε = 5.10−2 , ε = 10−3 (from left to right). Fixed parameters: J = 800. B = (1,1) T . 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** In the legends are the parameters ε/J. Fixed boundary parameter: B = (1,1) T . Representation at time t = 0.6 of uj and v j , then for t ∈ [0,0.6] of E(t), BU0(t)−b(t) and BU1(t)−b(t) (from top to bottom). Relaxation parameters: ε = 102 , ε = 5.10−2 , ε = 10−3 (from left to right). 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

[2]

Boutin, T

B. Boutin, T. H. T. Nguyen, and N. Seguin. A stiffly stable semi-discrete scheme for the characteristic linear hyperbolic relaxation with boundary. ESAIM: Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Analysis, 54:1569–1596, July 2020

work page 2020
[1]

Benzoni-Gavage and D

S. Benzoni-Gavage and D. Serre. Multidimensional hyperbolic partial differential equations: first-order systems and applications. Oxford mathematical monographs. Clarendon Press, Oxford ; New York, 2007

work page 2007
[3]

Cao and W.-A

X. Cao and W.-A. Yong. Construction of boundary conditions for hyperbolic relaxation approximations II: Jin- Xin relaxation model. Quarterly of Applied Mathematics, 80:787–816, 2022

work page 2022
[4]

M. H. Carpenter, D. Gottlieb, and S. Abarbanel. Time-Stable Boundary Conditions for Finite-Difference Schemes Solving Hyperbolic Systems: Methodology and Application to High-Order Compact Schemes. Journal of Com- putational Physics, 111:220–236, Apr. 1994

work page 1994
[5]

M. H. Carpenter, J. Nordstr ¨om, and D. Gottlieb. A stable and conservative interface treatment of arbitrary spatial accuracy. Journal of Computational Physics, 148:341–365, 1999

work page 1999
[6]

J. F. Clarke. Gas dynamics with relaxation effects. Reports on Progress in Physics, 41:807–864, June 1978

work page 1978
[7]

Colella, A

P. Colella, A. Majda, and V . Roytburd. Theoretical and numerical structure for reacting shock waves.Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. Journal on Scientific and Statistical Computing, 7:1059–1080, 1986

work page 1986
[8]

Coquel, S

F. Coquel, S. Jin, J.-G. Liu, and L. Wang. Well-posedness and singular limit of a semilinear hyperbolic relaxation system with a two-scale discontinuous relaxation rate. Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, 214:1051– 1084, Dec. 2014

work page 2014

Show all 30 references

[9]

Gustafsson, H.-O

B. Gustafsson, H.-O. Kreiss, and J. Oliger. Time-dependent problems and difference methods. Pure and Applied Mathematics (Hoboken). John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, 2 edition, 2013

2013
[10]

Hanouzet and R

B. Hanouzet and R. Natalini. Global existence of smooth solutions for partially dissipative hyperbolic systems with a convex entropy. Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, 169:89–117, 2003

2003
[11]

A. C. Hindmarsh. ODEPACK, a systematized collection of ODE solvers. In Scientific computing (Montreal, Que., 1982), volume I of IMACS Trans. Sci. Comput., pages 55–64. IMACS, New Brunswick, NJ, 1983

1982
[12]

Huang, R

J. Huang, R. Li, and Y . Zhou. Coupling conditions for linear hyperbolic relaxation systems in two-scale problems. Mathematics of Computation, 92:2133–2165, Sept. 2023

2023
[13]

Inglard, F

M. Inglard, F. Lagouti `ere, and H. H. Rugh. Ghost solutions with centered schemes for one-dimensional transport equations with Neumann boundary conditions. Annales de la Facult´e des Sciences de Toulouse. Math´ematiques. S´erie 6, 29:927–950, 2020

2020
[14]

Jin and Z

S. Jin and Z. Xin. The relaxation schemes for systems of conservation laws in arbitrary space dimensions. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 48:235–276, 1995

1995
[15]

Kreiss and G

H.-O. Kreiss and G. Scherer. Finite element and finite difference methods for hyperbolic partial differential equations. Mathematical Aspects of Finite Elements in Partial Differential Equations, Dec. 1974

1974
[16]

Liu and W.-A

H. Liu and W.-A. Yong. Time-asymptotic stability of boundary-layers for a hyperbolic relaxation system. Com- munications in Partial Differential Equations, 26:1323–1343, June 2001

2001
[17]

T.-P. Liu. Hyperbolic conservation laws with relaxation. Communications in Mathematical Physics , 108:153– 175, 1987

1987
[18]

L. Petzold. Automatic selection of methods for solving stiff and nonstiff systems of ordinary differential equa- tions. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. Journal on Scientific and Statistical Computing , 4:137– 148, 1983. 22

1983
[19]

J. J. Stoker. Water waves. the mathematical theory with applications. reprint of the 1957 original. New York, NY: Wiley, reprint of the 1957 original edition, 1992

1957
[20]

B. Strand. Summation by parts for finite difference approximations for d/dx. Journal of Computational Physics, 110:47–67, 1994

1994
[21]

L. N. Trefethen. Instability of difference models for hyperbolic initial-boundary value problems.Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 37:329–367, 1984

1984
[22]

G. B. Whitham. Linear and nonlinear waves. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 1974

1974
[23]

Xin and W.-Q

Z. Xin and W.-Q. Xu. Stiff well-posedness and asymptotic convergence for a class of linear relaxation systems in a quarter plane. Journal of Differential Equations, 167:388–437, Nov. 2000

2000
[24]

W.-A. Yong. Singular perturbations of first-order hyperbolic systems with stiff source terms. Journal of Differ- ential Equations, 155:89–132, 1999

1999
[25]

W.-A. Yong. Entropy and global existence for hyperbolic balance laws. Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, 172:247–266, May 2004

2004
[26]

Yong and Y

W.-A. Yong and Y . Zhou. Recent Advances on Boundary Conditions for Equations in Nonequilibrium Thermo- dynamics. Symmetry, 13:1710, Sept. 2021

2021
[27]

W. Zhao, J. Huang, and W.-A. Yong. Boundary conditions for kinetic theory based models I: Lattice Boltzmann models. Multiscale Modeling & Simulation. A SIAM Interdisciplinary Journal, 17:854–872, 2019

2019
[28]

Zhao and W.-A

W. Zhao and W.-A. Yong. Boundary conditions for kinetic theory-based models II: A linearized moment system. Mathematical Methods in the Applied Sciences, 44:14148–14172, 2021

2021
[29]

Zhou and W.-A

Y . Zhou and W.-A. Yong. Boundary conditions for hyperbolic relaxation systems with characteristic boundaries of type I. Journal of Differential Equations, 281:289–332, 2021

2021
[30]

Zhou and W.-A

Y . Zhou and W.-A. Yong. Boundary conditions for hyperbolic relaxation systems with characteristic boundaries of type II. Journal of Differential Equations, 310:198–234, 2022. 23

2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [2]

Boutin, T

B. Boutin, T. H. T. Nguyen, and N. Seguin. A stiffly stable semi-discrete scheme for the characteristic linear hyperbolic relaxation with boundary. ESAIM: Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Analysis, 54:1569–1596, July 2020

work page 2020

[2] [1]

Benzoni-Gavage and D

S. Benzoni-Gavage and D. Serre. Multidimensional hyperbolic partial differential equations: first-order systems and applications. Oxford mathematical monographs. Clarendon Press, Oxford ; New York, 2007

work page 2007

[3] [3]

Cao and W.-A

X. Cao and W.-A. Yong. Construction of boundary conditions for hyperbolic relaxation approximations II: Jin- Xin relaxation model. Quarterly of Applied Mathematics, 80:787–816, 2022

work page 2022

[4] [4]

M. H. Carpenter, D. Gottlieb, and S. Abarbanel. Time-Stable Boundary Conditions for Finite-Difference Schemes Solving Hyperbolic Systems: Methodology and Application to High-Order Compact Schemes. Journal of Com- putational Physics, 111:220–236, Apr. 1994

work page 1994

[5] [5]

M. H. Carpenter, J. Nordstr ¨om, and D. Gottlieb. A stable and conservative interface treatment of arbitrary spatial accuracy. Journal of Computational Physics, 148:341–365, 1999

work page 1999

[6] [6]

J. F. Clarke. Gas dynamics with relaxation effects. Reports on Progress in Physics, 41:807–864, June 1978

work page 1978

[7] [7]

Colella, A

P. Colella, A. Majda, and V . Roytburd. Theoretical and numerical structure for reacting shock waves.Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. Journal on Scientific and Statistical Computing, 7:1059–1080, 1986

work page 1986

[8] [8]

Coquel, S

F. Coquel, S. Jin, J.-G. Liu, and L. Wang. Well-posedness and singular limit of a semilinear hyperbolic relaxation system with a two-scale discontinuous relaxation rate. Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, 214:1051– 1084, Dec. 2014

work page 2014