Uniqueness & Weak-BV Stability in the Large for Isothermal Gas Dynamics

Jeffrey Cheng

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

Uniqueness & Weak-BV Stability in the Large for Isothermal Gas Dynamics

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that every entropic BV solution of the isothermal Euler system is stable and unique inside the much larger class of weak entropy solutions with strong traces, with no smallness assumption on the BV solution.

desk verdict Extends the Chen-Krupa-Vasseur weak-BV stability framework to large BV data for isothermal Euler; the weight construction is genuine new work, but one load-bearing estimate is deferred to an unpublished preprint. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.16244 v2 pith:7TFDYBMA submitted 2025-01-27 math.AP

Jeffrey Cheng This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.AP MSC 35L6535B3535L4576N15

keywords isothermalgasdynamicsp-systemweak-BVstabilityfronttrackingrelativeentropya-contractionwithshiftstotalvariationdiminishinguniqueness

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 proves that a shock solution of the one-dimensional isothermal Euler equations, once its total variation is finite, is the only entropy-respecting weak solution that can carry the same initial data. The perturbations are allowed to be much wilder than the solution itself: they need not have bounded variation, only strong traces on every Lipschitz curve. The method builds a piecewise-constant 'shadow' solution by a modified front-tracking algorithm and assigns each shock a weight; as long as the weight stays bounded between two positive constants, the relative-entropy inequality forces the shadow and the wild solution to remain close in $L^2$ on every cone of information. The main contribution is showing that this weight can be constructed when the shocks are large, not merely small.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a weight function $a(t,x)=C^{L(t)}Q(t)\prod_i \xi_i(t,x)$ attached to a modified front-tracking approximant $\psi$. The factor $L(t)$ counts the finitely many interactions in which big shocks merge or change classification; $Q(t)$ multiplies the 'small-shock numbers' accumulated when small shocks interact; each $\xi_i$ encodes, for one shock, the a-contraction-with-shifts coefficient (a weighted relative-entropy contraction with a moving shift): $1\pm C_0\sigma_i$ for a small shock of strength $\sigma_i$, and $C_1$ or $1/C_1$ for a big shock. Proposition 6.1 shows the weight is uniformly bounded above and below, is non-increasing at every wave interaction, and has exactly the jump ratios required by the shock contraction estimates. The companion input is the TVD field $w=-\ln\tau$: by Lemma 2.1 its variation $D(w_1,w_3)\le D(w_1,w_2)+D(w_2,w_3)$ never increases across interactions, which limits how often shocks can switch between 'big' and 'small' labels and keeps $L$ and $Q$ under control.

What would settle it

Test Proposition 4.1 directly: fix a shock $(u_l,u_r)$ with both states in the compact set $D$, take $u\in S_{\mathrm{weak}}$ to be a nontrivial wild solution, and check whether, for every Lipschitz shift $h$ with $h(0)=x_0$, the weighted flux functional $a_1(\dot h\,\eta(u_-|u_l)-q(u_-;u_l))-a_2(\dot h\,\eta(u_+|u_r)-q(u_+;u_r))$ is positive on a set of positive measure; one shock and one $u$ for which it is always positive disproves the global $a$-contraction estimate and collapses the proof.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1.1. Let $u$ be an entropy solution of the $p$-system $\partial_t\tau-\partial_x v=0$, $\partial_t v+\partial_x(1/\tau)=0$ with bounded variation, initial data $u_0$, and strong traces; let $\{u_n\}$ be any sequence in $S_{\mathrm{weak}}$, the class of weak entropy solutions with strong traces, whose initial data converge to $u_0$ in $L^2(\mathbb{R})$. Then $u_n\to u$ in $L^\infty([0,T];L^2([-R,R]))$ for every $T,R>0$, and $u$ is the unique solution in $S_{\mathrm{weak}}$ with data $u_0$. No smallness is assumed on the BV solution: the only regularity demanded of the competitors is the strong-trace property. A parallel statement for the Eulerian isothermal Euler system follows by the standard equivalence of the two coordinate frames.

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument hinges on a global contraction estimate, imported from two prior papers, which says that every large shock (both states in a fixed compact set) admits a moving shift making a weighted relative-entropy flux non-positive; the paper uses the known local versions of this estimate and defers the local-to-global compactness step to a separate preprint by the same author, and if that deferred step fails for large shocks the weight construction and dissipation argument collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Entropic BV solutions of the isothermal p-system are unique inside $S_{\mathrm{weak}}$: any weak entropy solution with strong traces and the same initial data must coincide with the BV solution.
The stability estimate transfers to Eulerian coordinates (Theorem 1.2), so the same uniqueness holds for the isothermal Euler system in its original variables.
The result holds for arbitrarily large but finite total variation, extending the weak-small-BV stability principle of the prior 2x2 theory to a genuinely large-BV statement for this system.
Because $S_{\mathrm{weak}}$ contains solutions produced by compensated compactness, BV solutions are stable against that entire family of wild solutions whenever strong traces are available.
The front-tracking approximants are not exact solutions; they serve only as a BV shadow that propagates $L^2$ closeness, so the theorem does not require the approximating scheme itself to converge to the BV solution.

Reading between the lines

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

If the deferred local-to-global compactness step in Remark 4.2 goes through, the same weight construction is likely portable to any 2x2 system with a TVD field and the same wave-curve structure; the author supplies isothermal Euler, but the role of the TVD field is general enough to suggest other candidates such as isothermal Euler-Poisson.
A sharper version of Theorem 1.1 might quantify the rate of convergence: the constants in Lemmas 6.1–6.3 and Proposition 6.1 depend explicitly on $\|u_0\|_{BV}$, $\|u_0\|_{L^\infty}$, and $\beta$, so the proof likely yields an explicit modulus of continuity in the initial $L^2$ error, though the paper does not track it.
The strong-trace assumption on the wild solutions is likely close to necessary: without it, the boundary terms in the relative-entropy computation are uncontrolled, so uniqueness could fail for merely $L^\infty$ entropy solutions; an explicit counterexample of that kind would delineate the true boundary of $S_{\mathrm{weak}}$.
The classification threshold $\epsilon$ between 'big' and 'small' shocks is chosen so the two contraction regimes in Proposition 4.1 overlap; testing the overlap numerically for large shocks would provide a cheap check of the whole construction before attempting the deferred compactness proof.

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 paper is a credible extension of Chen–Krupa–Vasseur's small-BV weak-strong stability result to large BV data for isothermal gas dynamics, with the weight construction as the real technical novelty. It deserves serious refereeing, though the referee should press on the deferred global a-contraction statement.

What is new: the author uses the TVD field w = -ln(tau) to control how often shocks can change between 'small' and 'big' classifications, then builds a weight a(t,x) whose L(t) and Q(t) components stay uniformly bounded away from zero and infinity. Lemmas 5.2, 5.3, 6.1, and 6.3 form a coherent argument for those bounds, and the final relative-entropy cone estimate in Section 7 is a careful adaptation of the standard tool. Appendix A, converting back to Eulerian coordinates, is a useful addition. The interaction tables are detailed and mostly check out, and the paper is honest about what is imported.

Where the soft spots are: Proposition 4.1, the global a-contraction-with-shifts estimate for shocks with states in a compact set D, is the single most load-bearing input. The cited results are local around a fixed shock, and Remark 4.2 explicitly defers the local-to-global extension to the author's own unpublished preprint [18], which is in the scalar setting. The paper does not prove that the constants C0, C1, epsilon, and lambda-hat remain uniform over all large shocks in D, or that the shift can be constructed on a time horizon that does not shrink as the shock varies. If that extension fails, the weight ratio bounds in Proposition 6.1 and the dissipation inequality in Section 7 collapse, and Theorem 1.1 with them. On the evidence in front of me, this is a gap in what is proved here, not evidence of a false theorem, but it is exactly where the referee should concentrate.

Also worth noting: Lemma 7.1 is quoted with a proof omitted, and a few interaction estimates (e.g., type 5B and type 10) are asserted with 'one may show' rather than demonstrated. Those are minor by comparison.

The paper is for researchers working in conservation laws and weak-strong stability. It extends an established program rather than opening a new one, so the novelty is incremental but substantial for this specific system. The central argument hangs together if the deferred global contraction estimate is true. It deserves a serious referee rather than a desk rejection.

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proves Theorem 1.1: for the one-dimensional isothermal p-system, any BV entropy solution is stable and unique within the class S_weak of weak entropy solutions with strong traces, with no smallness assumption on the BV solution. The proof uses a modified front tracking algorithm together with a-weighted relative entropy with shifts. The weight is constructed so that it decays across every wave interaction and remains bounded away from zero and infinity uniformly in the approximation parameter. The paper also transfers the result to Eulerian coordinates in Theorem 1.2.

Significance. If correct, the result is a significant advance: it extends the weak-small-BV stability principle of Chen–Krupa–Vasseur to large BV data for isothermal gas dynamics, exploiting the TVD field w = -ln(tau). The paper contains a detailed interaction table (Section 5.2), a quantitative weight construction with explicit exponential bounds (Lemmas 6.1--6.3 and Proposition 6.1), and a largely self-contained front-tracking well-posedness proof (Appendix B). These are genuine strengths. The main theorem is falsifiable in the usual mathematical sense and does not rely on data fitting or numerical experiments.

major comments (3)

[§4, Proposition 4.1 and Remark 4.2] Proposition 4.1 is the only input that supplies a-contraction-with-shifts inequalities for every shock with states in the compact set D, and it is used globally in the Riemann solver (Section 5.1, (19)) and for the shock contribution to the cone estimate in Section 7. The cited results [30, Prop. 5.1] and [27, Thm. 1] are local statements around a fixed shock, and [27] is specifically for small extremal shocks. Remark 4.2 explicitly defers the local-to-global compactness extension to the author's own unpublished preprint [18], which is in the scalar setting. The proof of Theorem 1.1 therefore rests on a global statement that is not proved or stated with hypotheses in the present manuscript. If, for large shocks in D, the admissible weight ratio a2/a1 cannot be kept within the fixed bounds C1 and 1/C1, or the shift can be constructed only on a time horizon that shrinks as the shock varies over D, then the inequalities F_i^+ - F_i^- <= 0 in Section 7 and the weight bounds in Proposition 6.1 would collapse. Please either prove the global version here or replace the reference to [18] with a published global result.
[§6, Proposition 6.1] The verification of the weight monotonicity (32) for interactions of type 4B and 9B is not carried out correctly as written. For type 4B the displayed chain reads 'a(t+,x) = C1 a(t+,x*−) = C1 a(t−,x*−) = C1(1−C0(wm−wl))(1−C0(wr−wm)) a(t+,x) < a(t+,x)', which has the same quantity a(t+,x) on both sides and is therefore circular; the type 9B line similarly mixes t+ and t− on both sides. Since (32) is used in Section 7 together with Lemma 7.1 to pass from t_j^- to t_j^+, the monotonicity at these interactions is a load-bearing step. Please rewrite the computation with the correct left/right states and factors of C1 and 1/C1.
[§7, proof of Proposition 3.1] The chain of inequalities after 'Consider any 0<t<T' contains several apparent notation errors that make the telescoping argument hard to verify: inside the ap-limits the integrand is written with u(t,x) and ψ(t,x) even though the limits are in s at times t_j, and the same symbol is used for the time argument in the integral and the time of the ap-limit (e.g. 'ap lim_{s→t^+_j} ∫ ... η(u(t,x)|ψ(t,x)) dx'). The argument needs to use η(u(s,x)|ψ(t_j,x)) with s→t_j^± and the correct intervals [−R+lt_j, R−lt_j]. Please correct these displayed formulas; the intended telescoping argument appears sound, but as written it is not checkable.

minor comments (7)

[Title and abstract] There are several OCR-style typos in the title and abstract ('ST ABILITY', 'Stro ng Trace', 'entropic'); please clean these up.
[§4, Proposition 4.1] The notation uses t both for the initial time and for the current time in 'for almost every t ∈ [t, ∞)'; please use e.g. t0 for the initial time.
[§5.3, (23)] The approximating initial data ψ0_δ is defined on R, but the construction by averages on a partition of [−R,R] should specify how the approximation is extended outside [−R,R] so that the BV and L∞ bounds (23) hold on all of R.
[§7] The symbol R is used both for the radius of the cone and for the set of rarefaction indices ('Denote R to be the set of i corresponding to rarefactions'); use a different symbol, e.g. script R, for the set of indices.
[Lemma 5.3] The line 'by taking ǫ ≤ V' should be justified more carefully: since ǫ can be chosen arbitrarily small by Remark 4.3, one can choose ǫ ≤ V before fixing the scheme; please state this explicitly.
[§7, Lemma 7.1] Lemma 7.1 is quoted from [31] without proof; since it is used at every ap-lim step, please state the precise hypotheses (e.g. that u has strong traces) and either give a proof or point to the exact lemma in [31].
[Proof of Theorem 1.1] The sentence 'Taking R′ sufficiently large in (16)' should be made quantitative: choosing R′ = R + lT suffices to obtain convergence in L∞([0,T];L2([−R,R])).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No equation-level circularity: the theorem is not an input and no parameter is fitted to the target quantity. The only self-referential element is Remark 4.2, where the global form of the load-bearing a-contraction estimate is deferred to the author's own preprint [18].

full rationale

The derivation of Theorem 1.1 from Proposition 3.1 is a relative-entropy and modified-front-tracking argument, and each of its quantitative inputs is imported from external sources: Proposition 4.1 from [30] and [27], Proposition 4.2 and Lemma 7.2 from [15], Lemma 2.1 from [37], Lemma 7.1 from [31], and the BV-uniqueness and compactness tools from [19]/[10] and [15]. None of these restates the paper's own theorem, and no parameter is fitted to the L2-distance that Theorem 1.1 predicts. The weight function a in Section 6 is constructed from the constants C0, C1, epsilon, and lambda supplied by Proposition 4.1, and the dissipation inequality in Section 7 is then verified rather than assumed. The single flagged item is Remark 4.2: the local-to-global compactness extension of Proposition 4.1 is not proved in this paper and is referred to the author's own preprint [18], which is in the scalar setting. This is an omitted proof and a self-citation, but it is not a circular reduction because the external local theorems carry the analytic content and the theorem being proved is not used as an input. Accordingly, the circularity score is low but not zero.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities and no data-fitted parameters. The free parameters listed are proof constants chosen by hand, not empirical fits. The listed axioms are the imported analytical inputs; the most fragile is the global a-contraction estimate of Proposition 4.1, whose extension is deferred to an unpublished preprint.

free parameters (4)

epsilon (big/small shock threshold) = sufficiently small, with C0*epsilon <= 1/2
Partitions shocks into big and small; all estimates on weight decay and number of interactions in Lemmas 5.2, 5.3, and 6.1 depend on it.
delta (front tracking mesh/rarefaction partition parameter) = 0 < delta < epsilon/2, then sent to 0
Controls rarefaction fan approximation; the final estimate requires delta small enough so that rarefaction error is bounded by 1/(pT).
C0, C1 = from Proposition 4.1, with C0*epsilon <= 1/2
Constants in the a-contraction weight intervals; imported from prior shock stability theory and used throughout the weight construction.
l (cone speed) = greater than the maximal wave speed and the constant C from Lemma 7.2
Defines the cone of information boundaries and ensures boundary flux terms have the correct signs.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Strong Trace property (Definition 1.1) for all solutions in S_weak
Needed to take one-sided limits along curves in the relative entropy computation, as used in Lemma 7.1 and Section 7.
domain assumption Global a-contraction with shifts for shocks, Proposition 4.1, imported from [30] and [27] and extended to compact D
The entire weight construction and interaction estimates rely on these dissipation inequalities for shocks; the global extension is asserted in Remark 4.2.
standard math TVD field structure for w = -ln(tau), including Lemma 2.1 and boundedness of W'
Gives BV bounds and controls S(t) by B(t); standard for the isothermal p-system, cited from [17] and [37].
domain assumption Uniqueness of BV solutions from Theorem 2.1, a synthesis of results from [19] and [10]
Used at the end of the proof of Theorem 1.1 to identify the limit of the front tracking approximations with the target BV solution u.
domain assumption Equivalence of Eulerian and Lagrangian formulations for weak solutions, from [43]
Used to transfer Theorem 1.1 to the Eulerian frame in Theorem 1.2; requires bounded weak solutions bounded away from vacuum.
standard math Finite speed of propagation and L1-Lipschitz in time for front tracking patterns, Lemma 5.1 and Appendix B
Needed for compactness via Theorem 2.2 and for the cone argument in Section 7.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Uniqueness & Weak-BV Stability in the Large for Isothermal Gas Dynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7TFDYBMA

@misc{pith2026250116244,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Uniqueness & Weak-BV Stability in the Large for Isothermal Gas Dynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7TFDYBMA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.16244}
}

abstract

For the $1$-d isothermal Euler system, we consider the family of entropic BV solutions with possibly large, but finite, total variation. We show that these solutions are stable with respect to large perturbations in a class of weak solutions to the system which may not even be BV. The method is based on the construction of a modified front tracking algorithm, in which the theory of $a$-contraction with shifts for shocks is used as a building block. The main contribution is to construct the weight in the modified front tracking algorithm in a large-BV setting.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Stability of Riemann Shocks for isothermal Euler by Inviscid limits of global-in-time large Navier-Stokes flows
math.AP 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Small isothermal Euler shocks are stable and unique in the class of vanishing viscosity limits, even under large perturbations of finite relative entropy.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[18]

L 2-stability & minimal entropy conditions for scalar conserv ation laws with concave- convex ﬂuxes

Jeﬀrey Cheng. L 2-stability & minimal entropy conditions for scalar conserv ation laws with concave- convex ﬂuxes. Preprint on Arxiv , 2024

work page 2024
[27]

Golding, Sam G

William M. Golding, Sam G. Krupa, and Alexis F. Vasseur. Sharp a-contraction estimates for small extremal shocks. J. Hyperbolic Diﬀer. Equ. , 20(3):541–602, 2023

work page 2023
[1]

Global BV solutions and relaxation limit for a system of con- servation laws

Debora Amadori and Graziano Guerra. Global BV solutions and relaxation limit for a system of con- servation laws. Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A , 131(1):1–26, 2001

work page 2001
[2]

W ave-front tracking for the equations of isentropic gas dynamics

Fumioki Asakura. W ave-front tracking for the equations of isentropic gas dynamics. Quart. Appl. Math. , 63(1):20–33, 2005

work page 2005
[3]

Bahkvalov

Nikolai S. Bahkvalov. The existence in the large of a regu lar solution of a quasilinear hyperbolic system. Ž. Vyčisl. Mat i Mat. Fiz. , 10:969–980, 1970

work page 1970
[4]

Front tracking for a 2 × 2 system of conservation laws

Paolo Baiti and Edda Dal Santo. Front tracking for a 2 × 2 system of conservation laws. Electron. J. Diﬀerential Equations , pages No. 220, 14, 2012

work page 2012
[5]

Vanishing visco sity solutions of nonlinear hyperbolic systems

Stefano Bianchini and Alberto Bressan. Vanishing visco sity solutions of nonlinear hyperbolic systems. Ann. of Math. (2) , 161(1):223–342, 2005

work page 2005
[6]

Hyperbolic systems of conservation laws , volume 20 of Oxford Lecture Series in Math- ematics and its Applications

Alberto Bressan. Hyperbolic systems of conservation laws , volume 20 of Oxford Lecture Series in Math- ematics and its Applications . Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2000. The one-dimension al Cauchy problem

work page 2000

Show all 43 references

[7]

W ell-posedness of the Cauchy problem for n × n systems of conservation laws

Alberto Bressan, Graziano Crasta, and Benedetto Piccol i. W ell-posedness of the Cauchy problem for n × n systems of conservation laws. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. , 146(694):viii+134, 2000

2000
[8]

A remark on the uni queness of solutions to hyperbolic conser- vation laws

Alberto Bressan and Camillo De Lellis. A remark on the uni queness of solutions to hyperbolic conser- vation laws. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. , 247(6):Paper No. 106, 12, 2023. 26 JEFFREY CHENG

2023
[9]

Oleinik type estimate s and uniqueness for n × n conservation laws

Alberto Bressan and Paola Goatin. Oleinik type estimate s and uniqueness for n × n conservation laws. J. Diﬀerential Equations , 156(1):26–49, 1999

1999
[10]

Unique solutions to hyperbolic conservation laws with a strictly convex entropy

Alberto Bressan and Graziano Guerra. Unique solutions to hyperbolic conservation laws with a strictly convex entropy. J. Diﬀerential Equations , 387:432–447, 2024

2024
[11]

Uniqueness of we ak solutions to systems of conservation laws

Alberto Bressan and Philippe LeFloch. Uniqueness of we ak solutions to systems of conservation laws. Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. , 140(4):301–317, 1997

1997
[12]

A uniqueness condit ion for hyperbolic systems of conservation laws

Alberto Bressan and Marta Lewicka. A uniqueness condit ion for hyperbolic systems of conservation laws. Discrete Contin. Dynam. Systems , 6(3):673–682, 2000

2000
[13]

L1 stability estimates for n × n conservation laws

Alberto Bressan, Tai-Ping Liu, and Tong Yang. L1 stability estimates for n × n conservation laws. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. , 149(1):1–22, 1999

1999
[14]

No TVD ﬁelds for 1- D isentropic gas ﬂow

Geng Chen and Helge Kristian Jenssen. No TVD ﬁelds for 1- D isentropic gas ﬂow. Comm. Partial Diﬀerential Equations , 38(4):629–657, 2013

2013
[15]

Krupa, and Alexis F

Geng Chen, Sam G. Krupa, and Alexis F. Vasseur. Uniquene ss and weak-BV stability for 2 × 2 conser- vation laws. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. , 246(1):299–332, 2022

2022
[16]

Convergence of the Lax-Friedrichs sche me for isentropic gas dynamics

Gui Qiang Chen. Convergence of the Lax-Friedrichs sche me for isentropic gas dynamics. III. Acta Math. Sci. (English Ed.) , 6(1):75–120, 1986

1986
[17]

The Cauchy problem for th e Euler equations for compressible ﬂuids

Gui-Qiang Chen and Dehua W ang. The Cauchy problem for th e Euler equations for compressible ﬂuids. In Handbook of mathematical ﬂuid dynamics, Vol. I , pages 421–543. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 2002

2002
[19]

Colombo and Nils H

Rinaldo M. Colombo and Nils H. Risebro. Continuous depe ndence in the large for some equations of gas dynamics. Comm. Partial Diﬀerential Equations , 23(9-10):1693–1718, 1998

1998
[20]

Dafermos

Constantine M. Dafermos. Polygonal approximations of solutions of the initial value problem for a conservation law. J. Math. Anal. Appl. , 38:33–41, 1972

1972
[21]

Dafermos

Constantine M. Dafermos. The second law of thermodynam ics and stability. Arch. Rational Mech. Anal., 70(2):167–179, 1979

1979
[22]

Dafermos

Constantine M. Dafermos. Hyperbolic conservation laws in continuum physics , volume 325 of Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamen tal Principles of Mathematical Sciences] . Springer-Verlag, Berlin, fourth edition, 2016

2016
[23]

Convergence of the Lax-Friedrichs scheme for isentropic gas dynamics

Xia Xi Ding, Gui Qiang Chen, and Pei Zhu Luo. Convergence of the Lax-Friedrichs scheme for isentropic gas dynamics. I, II. Acta Math. Sci. (English Ed.) , 5(4):415–432, 433–472, 1985

1985
[24]

Ronald J. DiPerna. Uniqueness of solutions to hyperbol ic conservation laws. Indiana Univ. Math. J. , 28(1):137–188, 1979

1979
[25]

Ronald J. DiPerna. Convergence of the viscosity method for isentropic gas dynamics. Comm. Math. Phys., 91(1):1–30, 1983

1983
[26]

Solutions in the large for nonlinear hyper bolic systems of equations

James Glimm. Solutions in the large for nonlinear hyper bolic systems of equations. Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 18:697–715, 1965

1965
[28]

Convergence of viscosity so lutions for isothermal gas dynamics

Feimin Huang and Zhen W ang. Convergence of viscosity so lutions for isothermal gas dynamics. SIAM J. Math. Anal. , 34(3):595–610, 2002

2002
[29]

Moon-Jin Kang and Alexis F. Vasseur. Criteria on contra ctions for entropic discontinuities of systems of conservation laws. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. , 222(1):343–391, 2016

2016
[30]

Sam G. Krupa. Finite time stability for the Riemann prob lem with extremal shocks for a large class of hyperbolic systems. J. Diﬀerential Equations , 273:122–171, 2021

2021
[31]

Krupa and Alexis F

Sam G. Krupa and Alexis F. Vasseur. On uniqueness of solu tions to conservation laws verifying a single entropy condition. J. Hyperbolic Diﬀer. Equ. , 16(1):157–191, 2019

2019
[32]

L2 stability estimates for shock solutions of scalar conserva tion laws using the relative entropy method

Nicholas Leger. L2 stability estimates for shock solutions of scalar conserva tion laws using the relative entropy method. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. , 199(3):761–778, 2011

2011
[33]

Nicholas Leger and Alexis F. Vasseur. Relative entropy and the stability of shocks and contact dis- continuities for systems of conservation laws with non-BV p erturbations. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. , 201(1):271–302, 2011

2011
[34]

Souganidis

Pierre-Louis Lions, Benoît Perthame, and Panagiotis E . Souganidis. Existence and stability of entropy solutions for the hyperbolic systems of isentropic gas dyna mics in Eulerian and Lagrangian coordinates. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. , 49(6):599–638, 1996. WEAK-BV STABILITY FOR I...

1996
[35]

Kinetic formulation of the isentropic gas dynamics and p-systems

Pierre-Louis Lions, Benoit Perthame, and Eitan Tadmor . Kinetic formulation of the isentropic gas dynamics and p-systems. Comm. Math. Phys. , 163(2):415–431, 1994

1994
[36]

Global solution for an initial bounda ry value problem of a quasilinear hyperbolic system

Takaaki Nishida. Global solution for an initial bounda ry value problem of a quasilinear hyperbolic system. Proc. Japan Acad., 44:642–646, 1968

1968
[37]

G lobal solutions to the isothermal Euler-Poisson system with arbitrarily large data

Frédéric Poupaud, Michel Rascle, and Jean-Paul Vila. G lobal solutions to the isothermal Euler-Poisson system with arbitrarily large data. J. Diﬀerential Equations , 123(1):93–121, 1995

1995
[38]

The propagation of planar air waves o f ﬁnite amplitude [Abh

Bernhard Riemann. The propagation of planar air waves o f ﬁnite amplitude [Abh. Ges. Wiss. Göttin- gen 8 (1860), 43–65]. In Classic papers in shock compression science , High-press. Shock Compression Condens. Matter, pages 109–128. Springer, New York, 1998

1998
[39]

N. H. Risebro and F. W eber. A note on front tracking for th e Keyﬁtz-Kranzer system. J. Math. Anal. Appl., 407(2):190–199, 2013

2013
[40]

Denis Serre and Alexis F. Vasseur. L2-type contraction for systems of conservation laws. J. Éc. polytech. Math., 1:1–28, 2014

2014
[41]

Compensated compactness and applications to partial diﬀerential equations

Luc Tartar. Compensated compactness and applications to partial diﬀerential equations. In Nonlinear analysis and mechanics: Heriot-Watt Symposium, Vol. IV , volume 39 of Res. Notes in Math. , pages 136–212. Pitman, Boston, Mass.-London, 1979

1979
[42]

Alexis F. Vasseur. Recent results on hydrodynamic limi ts. In Handbook of diﬀerential equations: evolu- tionary equations. Vol. IV , Handb. Diﬀer. Equ., pages 323–376. Elsevier/North-Holla nd, Amsterdam, 2008

2008
[43]

David H. W agner. Equivalence of the Euler and Lagrangia n equations of gas dynamics for weak solu- tions. J. Diﬀerential Equations , 68(1):118–136, 1987. Department of Mathematics, The University of Texas at Austi n, Austin, TX 78712. Email address : jeffrey.cheng@utexas.edu

1987

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [18]

L 2-stability & minimal entropy conditions for scalar conserv ation laws with concave- convex ﬂuxes

Jeﬀrey Cheng. L 2-stability & minimal entropy conditions for scalar conserv ation laws with concave- convex ﬂuxes. Preprint on Arxiv , 2024

work page 2024

[2] [27]

Golding, Sam G

William M. Golding, Sam G. Krupa, and Alexis F. Vasseur. Sharp a-contraction estimates for small extremal shocks. J. Hyperbolic Diﬀer. Equ. , 20(3):541–602, 2023

work page 2023

[3] [1]

Global BV solutions and relaxation limit for a system of con- servation laws

Debora Amadori and Graziano Guerra. Global BV solutions and relaxation limit for a system of con- servation laws. Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A , 131(1):1–26, 2001

work page 2001

[4] [2]

W ave-front tracking for the equations of isentropic gas dynamics

Fumioki Asakura. W ave-front tracking for the equations of isentropic gas dynamics. Quart. Appl. Math. , 63(1):20–33, 2005

work page 2005

[5] [3]

Bahkvalov

Nikolai S. Bahkvalov. The existence in the large of a regu lar solution of a quasilinear hyperbolic system. Ž. Vyčisl. Mat i Mat. Fiz. , 10:969–980, 1970

work page 1970

[6] [4]

Front tracking for a 2 × 2 system of conservation laws

Paolo Baiti and Edda Dal Santo. Front tracking for a 2 × 2 system of conservation laws. Electron. J. Diﬀerential Equations , pages No. 220, 14, 2012

work page 2012

[7] [5]

Vanishing visco sity solutions of nonlinear hyperbolic systems

Stefano Bianchini and Alberto Bressan. Vanishing visco sity solutions of nonlinear hyperbolic systems. Ann. of Math. (2) , 161(1):223–342, 2005

work page 2005

[8] [6]

Hyperbolic systems of conservation laws , volume 20 of Oxford Lecture Series in Math- ematics and its Applications

Alberto Bressan. Hyperbolic systems of conservation laws , volume 20 of Oxford Lecture Series in Math- ematics and its Applications . Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2000. The one-dimension al Cauchy problem

work page 2000