Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

A Galerkin Alternating Projection Method for Kinetic Equations in the Diffusive Limit

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The GAP scheme is a dynamical low-rank integrator that provably preserves the diffusion limit of the radiative transfer equation, with the K-step becoming the heat equation as the Knudsen number goes to zero.

desk verdict GAP is a genuine and useful DLRA integrator with a clean error analysis, but its AP proof is formal and needs uniform remainder bounds before the CFL-free and no-well-prepared-data claims are fully backed. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.19929 v1 pith:5DUS4JFL submitted 2025-05-26 math.NA cs.NA

Gianluca Ceruti , Nicolas Crouseilles , Lukas Einkemmer This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NAcs.NA MSC 65M7035Q2082C4065M1265L0565F30
keywords kineticequationsdynamicallow-rankapproximationasymptotic-preservingmethodsradiativetransferequationGalerkinalternatingprojectiondiffusivelimitexponentialintegratorsintegrator
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 introduces the Galerkin Alternating Projection (GAP) scheme, an integrator for kinetic equations that works inside the dynamical low-rank approximation framework by alternating two Galerkin steps: one that updates the angular basis with a frozen spatial basis, and one that updates the spatial factor with a frozen angular basis. The authors prove that GAP has the same first-order global accuracy as established DLRA integrators, and that for the scaled radiative transfer equation it is asymptotic-preserving: as the Knudsen number $\varepsilon$ goes to zero, the low-rank solution converges to the density solving the diffusion equation $\partial_t\rho = \frac{1}{3}\partial_{xx}\rho$. In that limit the K-step of the algorithm becomes the limit equation itself, so the scheme needs no CFL-type time-step restriction, no well-prepared initial data, and can reach arbitrary order in the diffusive regime. The significance is that a single low-rank scheme can cover both kinetic and diffusive regimes without a separate macro step or a stiff solve beyond the small factor systems.

What carries the argument

The GAP scheme alternates two Galerkin projections. In the L-step the spatial basis $X$ is frozen and the angular factor $\ell$ evolves under the projected operator $\partial_t\ell = P_X[L(\ell)]$, producing a new angular basis $V_1$ (in the diffusive limit $V_1 \propto 1$ and $V_2 \propto \mu$); in the K-step the angular basis is frozen and the spatial factor $k$ evolves under $\partial_t k = P_{V_1}[L(k)]$, producing new spatial basis and coefficients. The identity that carries the argument is the closing relation $K_2 = -\varepsilon\langle\mu V_1 V_2\rangle\partial_x K_1 + O(\varepsilon^2)$, which turns the first moment equation into $\partial_t K_1 - \langle\mu V_1 V_2\rangle^2 \partial_{xx}K_1 = O(\varepsilon^2)$; with the angular basis normalized so that $V_1 \propto 1$ and $V_2 \propto \mu$, the angular integral $\langle\mu V_1 V_2\rangle^2$ equals exactly $\frac{1}{3}$, producing the diffusion coefficient.

What would settle it

Run the GAP scheme at $\varepsilon = 10^{-6}$ on the 1x1v RTE with a sharp-front initial datum, and compare $\langle y_{\mathrm{GAP}}(T) \rangle_\mu$ with the discrete diffusion-limit solution $\exp(\tfrac{T}{3}D_{xx})\langle f_0\rangle_\mu$; if the relative error does not reach the smooth-data plateau, or if halving $\varepsilon$ only gives $O(\varepsilon)$ improvement instead of $O(\varepsilon^2)$, the uniformity assumption behind Theorem 4.2 fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 4.2: for the 1x1v scaled radiative transfer equation $\partial_t f^\varepsilon + \frac{1}{\varepsilon}\mu\partial_x f^\varepsilon = \frac{1}{\varepsilon^2}(\rho^\varepsilon - f^\varepsilon)$ with $\rho^\varepsilon = \frac{1}{2}\langle f^\varepsilon\rangle_\mu$, the GAP approximation $\kappa^\varepsilon$ satisfies $\lim_{\varepsilon\to 0} \kappa^\varepsilon(t,x,\mu) = \rho(t,x)$, where $\rho$ solves the diffusion equation $\partial_t\rho = \frac{1}{3}\partial_{xx}\rho$. The proof shows that the L-substep, which evolves the angular factor with the spatial basis frozen, drives the angular basis toward $\{1,\mu\}$ up to $O(\varepsilon^2)$ corrections; the K-substep, which evolves the spatial factor with the angular basis frozen, reduces to the moment equation $\partial_t K_1 + \frac{1}{\varepsilon}\langle\mu V_1 V_2\rangle\partial_x K_2 = 0$. The flux closure $K_2 = -\varepsilon\langle\mu V_1 V_2\rangle\partial_x K_1 + O(\varepsilon^2)$ then yields $\partial_t K_1 - \langle\mu V_1 V_2\rangle^2 \partial_{xx}K_1 = O(\varepsilon^2)$, with $\langle\mu V_1 V_2\rangle^2 = \frac{1}{3}$. This means the low-rank factors are directly interpretable as the angular moments of the solution in the diffusive limit.

Load-bearing premise

The diffusion-limit proof depends on the $O(\varepsilon^2)$ remainder terms of the formal expansion being uniformly small in space and time; if the solution develops sharp gradients, that uniformity can break and the scheme may lose the diffusion limit.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Because the K-step converges to the diffusion equation as $\varepsilon \to 0$, time steps in the diffusive regime are not bounded by a parabolic CFL condition.
  • The angular basis is prepared automatically in the diffusive limit, so no well-prepared initial data are required.
  • Choosing the time integrator for the K-step determines the order in the diffusive limit, so arbitrarily high order is available there, unlike semi-implicit and implicit DLRA schemes.
  • The local error estimate matches the projector-splitting integrator, $\|\mathrm{y}_{\mathrm{GAP}}(t_1)-f(t_1)\| \lesssim \Delta t^2 + \eta\Delta t + \delta_0\Delta t$, with a global bound $\lesssim \Delta t + \eta + \delta_0$.
  • Both substeps are linear evolution equations for the factors, so the fully discrete scheme can be stepped by exponentials or L-stable implicit solvers without stiffness limits.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: the alternating-projection structure should transfer to other collision-dominated limits, such as the Euler or Navier–Stokes limits of kinetic equations, whenever the collision nullspace is spanned by a small, known set of moments.
  • Inference: the rate at which neglected angular modes $V_j$ for $j\ge 3$ decay at finite $\varepsilon$ sets the practical rank; monitoring $\varepsilon\langle\mu V_2 V_j\rangle\partial_x K_j$ during a run could give an a posteriori indicator for the AP behavior.
  • Inference: viewing $K_2 = -\varepsilon\langle\mu V_1 V_2\rangle\partial_x K_1 + O(\varepsilon^2)$ as a discrete Chapman–Enskog closure suggests a nonlinear extension in which the projection is replaced by a local equilibrium solve.
  • Inference: the proof suggests a convergence-rate diagnostic for the AP property—engineer data where the uniform $O(\varepsilon^2)$ remainder provably fails, to map the scheme's validity boundary.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the Galerkin Alternating Projection (GAP) scheme, a two-step dynamical low-rank integrator for evolution equations, and analyzes it in the context of the scaled 1x1v radiative transfer equation. Section 2 defines GAP as a variant of PSI/BUG; Section 3 proves local and global error bounds (Theorem 3.3 and Corollary 3.4) under the standard DLRA assumptions; Section 4 claims that GAP is asymptotic-preserving, i.e., as epsilon tends to zero the GAP solution converges to the solution of the diffusion equation (Theorem 4.2); Section 5 presents a fully discrete implementation using matrix exponentials; Section 6 reports numerical experiments on the AP property and on first-order time convergence.

Significance. The GAP integrator is a natural and potentially attractive addition to the DLRA toolbox: it avoids the backward step of PSI, is simpler than BUG in structure, and Section 3 provides a genuine error analysis that correctly transfers the known PSI local-error bound to the new scheme under the stated assumptions. If the AP claim were rigorously established, the method would be of clear interest for kinetic problems, since the limiting K-step would be CFL-free, would not require well-prepared initial data, and could be paired with high-order implicit or exponential integrators. The numerical experiments in Section 6 support the formal AP statement and first-order accuracy. The main advertised result, however, is the proof of asymptotic preservation, and that proof is formal; the missing uniform remainder estimates are load-bearing and prevent the paper from substantiating the abstract's strongest claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Theorem 4.2, Eqs. (4.4)-(4.7)] The proof of the AP property is formal and contains a one-order inconsistency. From (4.5), the exact relation for i>=2 is epsilon^2*dt Ki + epsilon*<mu Vi V1>*dx K1 + epsilon*sum_{j>=2}<mu Vi Vj>*dx Kj = -Ki, so Ki = -epsilon*<mu Vi V1>*dx K1 - epsilon*sum_{j>=2}<mu Vi Vj>*dx Kj - epsilon^2*dt Ki. The paper's 'O(epsilon^2)' remainder therefore requires uniform bounds on dt Ki and on sum_{j>=3}<mu V2 Vj>*dx Kj; no such bounds are stated or proved. Near sharp spatial gradients these terms are not small, and for non-well-prepared initial data epsilon^2*dt Ki can be O(1) in an initial layer. Even if the asserted O(epsilon^2) remainder were valid, substituting K2 = -epsilon*<mu V1 V2>*dx K1 + O(epsilon^2) into (4.7) gives dt K1 - <mu V1 V2>^2*dx^2 K1 = O(epsilon), not O(epsilon^2), because (4.7) contains (1/epsilon)*dx K2. In addition, the conclusion that K_j tends to 0 for j>=3 is asserted in Remark 4.3 rather than proved. Since Theorem 4.2 is the basis for the abstract's AP, CFL-free, and arbitrary-order claims, the AP property is not rigorously established.
  2. [Section 4, Eq. (4.4) and Remark 4.3] The structural claim that the ell-step produces an angular basis with V1 proportional to 1 and V2 proportional to mu is also only formal. The rearrangement L = (1/2)<L>_mu - epsilon*mu*L*<dx X^T X>_x + O(epsilon^2) uses the fact that epsilon^2*dt L is O(epsilon^2), which requires uniform control of dt L; but dt L itself contains terms of size epsilon^{-2} from the collision operator. The statement that the range of L is spanned by {1,mu} up to O(epsilon^2) is therefore an asymptotic ansatz, not a proven property of the GAP step. This point is load-bearing because the K-step derivation and Remark 4.3 ('in the diffusion limit we then get explicitly lim K_1 = rho and all other components of K vanish') depend on that basis alignment.
  3. [Section 5, Remark 5.1 and Algorithm 5.1] The paper claims in Remark 5.1 that the fully discrete scheme is AP because the flow is evaluated with the matrix exponential ('this time-integration strategy preserves the AP property'), and in Section 5 that 'the asymptotic analysis applies in the discrete setting as well.' Neither statement is proved. In particular, the discrete operators A_L and A_K involve the discrete spatial derivative D_x and angular quadrature, and the discrete analogue of the limiting diffusion coefficient (1/3)*dx^2 depends on the stencil; the paper itself notes in Section 6.1 that the induced discrete diffusion differs from the standard three-point stencil used for the AP-limit. The discrete AP claim therefore needs either a proof or an explicit statement that it is a numerical observation, especially since the continuous AP theorem is already formal.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.3, Algorithm 2.2] The text says the BUG scheme is recalled 'as originally presented in [25]', but [25] is the projector-splitting paper; the BUG integrator was introduced in [6].
  2. [Section 4, Theorem 4.2 proof] The displayed 'range of L' formula is confusing because the first row contains a scalar quantity (1/2)<L>_mu + O(epsilon^2) while the second row contains a vector quantity -epsilon*L*<dx X^T X>_x; the intended dimensions should be clarified.
  3. [Algorithms 2.1-2.3] The word 'orthonomal' is misspelled; it should be 'orthonormal'.
  4. [Section 6.1, Figure 1] The right panel of Figure 1 should state explicitly that both axes are logarithmic, and the explanation of the saturation plateau at about 10^-6 should be quantified with respect to the spatial discretization error of the reference solution.
  5. [Section 5.2] The definitions of the Kronecker operators A_L and A_K should be accompanied by the vectorization convention used, since the transposes appearing in B_mu and C_mu depend on whether rows or columns are vectorized.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the GAP scheme's error and asymptotic-preserving claims are derived from the scheme's own evolution equations and checked against external benchmarks, with no fitted input or self-citation chain doing load-bearing work.

full rationale

The central derivations are self-contained. In Theorem 4.2, the angular basis property V1 ∝ 1, V2 ∝ μ is not assumed from prior work; it is derived from the ℓ-step equation (4.4), which gives L = 1/2⟨L⟩_μ − εμL⟨∂xX^T X⟩_x + O(ε²). The κ-step calculation then starts from the GAP substep equation (4.5) and algebraically obtains ∂tK1 − (1/3)∂xxK1 = O(ε²), with the coefficient 1/3 emerging from the normalization of 1 and μ and ⟨μ²⟩ = 2/3. No parameter is fitted to the diffusion limit, and the diffusion equation is not inserted as an input; it is recovered from the algorithm's own equations. The external load-bearing results are the classical RTE diffusion limit, cited from independent literature [23,19,2], and the PSI local error bound from [20], which is also independent of the present authors. The self-citations ([6], [9], and related works) appear only in the introduction as background and comparison and are not used to justify the error analysis or the AP property. The formal O(ε²) remainder in the AP proof is not accompanied by uniform bounds, which is a rigor/correctness concern about the asymptotic expansion, but it is not a circular reduction: the claimed limit equation is not assumed as an input. The numerical experiments compare against the discrete diffusion limit computed independently, so the verification is external to the fitted values. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

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

No fitted parameters; the rank r is a truncation parameter, not fitted. The central claims rest on standard DLRA assumptions and on the formal asymptotic expansion in the AP proof.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption DLRA assumptions (a)-(d): product measure, L bounded and Lipschitz, model error small, initial error small.
    Invoked in Section 2.1 and used in error analysis (Theorem 3.3, Corollary 3.4).
  • domain assumption RTE converges to the diffusion equation ∂tρ = (1/3)∂xxρ as ε→0 (Theorem 4.1).
    Standard result from [23,19,2], used as the target limit in the AP property proof.
  • ad hoc to paper Formal asymptotic expansion: as ε→0, the remainder terms in the expansions of L and K are uniformly small, and low-rank projection commutes with the limit.
    The AP proof (Theorem 4.2) relies on neglecting O(ε) and O(ε^2) terms without bounding them rigorously; this regularity of the remainder is assumed rather than proven.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Galerkin Alternating Projection Method for Kinetic Equations in the Diffusive Limit." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5DUS4JFL

@misc{pith2026250519929,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Galerkin Alternating Projection Method for Kinetic Equations in the Diffusive Limit},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5DUS4JFL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.19929}
}
read the original abstract

The numerical approximation of high-dimensional evolution equations poses significant computational challenges, particularly in kinetic theory and radiative transfer. In this work, we introduce the Galerkin Alternating Projection (GAP) scheme, a novel integrator derived within the Dynamical Low-Rank Approximation (DLRA) framework. We perform a rigorous error analysis, establishing local and global accuracy using standard ODE techniques. Furthermore, we prove that GAP possesses the Asymptotic-Preserving (AP) property when applied to the Radiative Transfer Equation (RTE), ensuring consistent behavior across both kinetic and diffusive regimes. In the diffusive regime, the K-step of the GAP integrator directly becomes the limit equation. In particular, this means that we can easily obtain schemes that even in the diffusive regime are free of a CFL condition, do not require well prepared initial data, and can have arbitrary order in the diffusive limit (in contrast to the semi-implicit and implicit schemes available in the literature). Numerical experiments support the theoretical findings and demonstrate the robustness and efficiency of the proposed method.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. An Asymptotic-Preserving Dynamical Low-Rank Semi-Lagrangian Method for Multiscale Linear Kinetic Transport Equations

    math.NA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    An asymptotic-preserving dynamical low-rank semi-Lagrangian solver with QDEIM angular sampling cuts the cost of multiscale kinetic transport simulations while preserving the diffusion limit.

  2. An Inexact Low-Rank Source Iteration for Steady-State Radiative Transfer Equation with Diffusion Synthetic Acceleration

    math.NA 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A low-rank source iteration with diffusion synthetic acceleration solves multidimensional steady-state radiative transfer with up to two orders of magnitude fewer degrees of freedom than full-rank solvers.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Bachmayr, H

    M. Bachmayr, H. Eisenmann, E. Kieri, and A. Uschmajew, Existence of dynamical low-rank approximations to parabolic problems, Mathematics of Computation, 90 (2021), pp. 1799– 1830

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Bouchut, F

    F. Bouchut, F. Golse, and M. Pulvirenti , Kinetic equations and asymptotic theory , Else- vier, 2000

    work page 2000

  3. [3]

    Ceruti, L

    G. Ceruti, L. Einkemmer, J. Kusch, and C. Lubich , A robust second-order low-rank BUG integrator based on the midpoint rule , BIT Numerical Mathematics, 64 (2024), p. 30

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Ceruti, J

    G. Ceruti, J. Kusch, and C. Lubich , A rank-adaptive robust integrator for dynamical low- rank approximation, BIT Numerical Mathematics, 62 (2022), pp. 1149–1174

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Ceruti, J

    G. Ceruti, J. Kusch, and C. Lubich , A parallel rank-adaptive integrator for dynamical low- rank approximation, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 46 (2024), pp. B205–B228

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Ceruti and C

    G. Ceruti and C. Lubich , An unconventional robust integrator for dynamical low-rank ap- proximation, BIT Numerical Mathematics, 62 (2022), pp. 23–44

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Coughlin and J

    J. Coughlin and J. Hu , Efficient dynamical low-rank approximation for the Vlasov-Amp` ere- Fokker-Planck system, J. Comput. Phys., 470 (2022), p. 111590, https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jcp.2022.111590

    arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Z. Ding, L. Einkemmer, and Q. Li, Dynamical Low-Rank Integrator for the Linear Boltzmann Equation: Error Analysis in the Diffusion Limit , SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 59 (2021), https: //doi.org/10.1137/20M1380788

    work page doi:10.1137/20m1380788 2021

Show all 27 references
  1. [9]

    Einkemmer, J

    L. Einkemmer, J. Hu, and J. Kusch , Asymptotic-preserving and energy stable dynamical low-rank approximation, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 62 (2024), pp. 73–92

    2024

  2. [10]

    Einkemmer, J

    L. Einkemmer, J. Hu, and Y. W ang , An asymptotic-preserving dynamical low-rank method 22 G. CERUTI, N. CROUSEILLES, L. EINKEMMER for the multi-scale multi-dimensional linear transport equation , Journal of Computational Physics, 439 (2021), p. 110353

    2021

  3. [11]

    Einkemmer, J

    L. Einkemmer, J. Hu, and L. Ying , An efficient dynamical low-rank algorithm for the Boltzmann-BGK equation close to the compressible viscous flow regime , SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 43 (2021), pp. B1057–B1080

    2021

  4. [12]

    Einkemmer, J

    L. Einkemmer, J. Hu, and S. Zhang , Asymptotic-preserving dynamical low-rank method for the stiff nonlinear Boltzmann equation , arXiv:2502.08951, (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Einkemmer and C

    L. Einkemmer and C. Lubich, A low-rank projector-splitting integrator for the Vlasov–Poisson equation, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 40 (2018), pp. B1330–B1360

    2018

  6. [14]

    Einkemmer and C

    L. Einkemmer and C. Lubich , A quasi-conservative dynamical low-rank algorithm for the Vlasov equation, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 41 (2019), pp. B1061–B1081

    2019

  7. [15]

    Hairer, C

    E. Hairer, C. Lubich, and G. W anner , Geometric Numerical Integration: Structure- Preserving Algorithms for Ordinary Differential Equations , vol. 31 of Springer Se- ries in Computational Mathematics, Springer, 2 ed., 2006, https://doi.org/10.1007/ 3-540-30666-8

    2006

  8. [16]

    Hairer, S

    E. Hairer, S. P. Nørsett, and G. W anner, Solving Ordinary Differential Equations I: Non- stiff Problems, vol. 8 of Springer Series in Computational Mathematics, Springer, 2nd ed., 1993

    1993

  9. [17]

    N. J. Higham , Accuracy and Stability of Numerical Algorithms , SIAM, 2nd ed., 2002

    2002

  10. [18]

    Hochbruck and A

    M. Hochbruck and A. Ostermann , Exponential integrators , Acta Numerica, 19 (2010), pp. 209–286

    2010

  11. [19]

    Jin , Efficient asymptotic-preserving (AP) schemes for some multiscale kinetic equations , SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 21 (1999), pp

    S. Jin , Efficient asymptotic-preserving (AP) schemes for some multiscale kinetic equations , SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 21 (1999), pp. 441–454

    1999

  12. [20]

    Kieri, C

    E. Kieri, C. Lubich, and H. W alach , Discretized dynamical low-rank approximation in the presence of small singular values , SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 54 (2016), pp. 1020–1038

    2016

  13. [21]

    Koch and C

    O. Koch and C. Lubich, Dynamical low-rank approximation, SIAM Journal on Matrix Analy- sis and Applications, 29 (2007), pp. 434–454

    2007

  14. [22]

    Kusch, S

    J. Kusch, S. Schotth ¨ofer, and A. W alter , An augmented backward-corrected projector splitting integrator for dynamical low-rank training , arXiv:2502.03006, (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    E. W. Larsen and J. B. Keller, Asymptotic solution of neutron transport problems for small mean free paths, Journal of Mathematical Physics, 15 (1974), pp. 75–81

    1974

  16. [24]

    Lubich, Time integration in the multiconfiguration time-dependent Hartree method of mo- lecular quantum dynamics , Applied Mathematics Research eXpress, 2015 (2015), pp

    C. Lubich, Time integration in the multiconfiguration time-dependent Hartree method of mo- lecular quantum dynamics , Applied Mathematics Research eXpress, 2015 (2015), pp. 311– 328

    2015

  17. [25]

    Lubich and I

    C. Lubich and I. V. Oseledets , A projector-splitting integrator for dynamical low-rank ap- proximation, BIT Numerical Mathematics, 54 (2014), pp. 171–188

    2014

  18. [26]

    Patwardhan, M

    C. Patwardhan, M. Frank, and J. Kusch, Asymptotic-preserving and energy stable dynam- ical low-rank approximation for thermal radiative transfer equations , arXiv:2402.16746, (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Sands, W

    W. Sands, W. Guo, J.-M. Qiu, and T. Xiong, High-order adaptive rank integrators for multi- scale linear kinetic transport equations in the hierarchical tucker format, arXiv:2406.19479, (2024)

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.