Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 58 references

Global and local helicity-preservation in the finite element discretization of magnetic relaxation

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that local helicity conservation in finite element magnetic relaxation is necessary: enforcing only the global helicity lets spurious reconnection drive the field to the wrong steady state.

desk verdict A useful numerical comparison of global vs. local helicity constraints in magnetic relaxation, with an interesting new Lagrange multiplier scheme, but the proof of local helicity conservation is incomplete and the experimental claims rest on one coarse mesh. read the letter →

arxiv 2603.12134 v2 pith:A4K2AVQR submitted 2026-03-12 math.NA cs.NA

Patrick E. Farrell , Mingdong He , Kaibo Hu , Ganghui Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NAcs.NA MSC 65N3065L6076W05
keywords magneticrelaxationhelicitylocalconservationfiniteelementexteriorcalculusstructure-preservingmethodsmagneto-frictionalequationsbraidsglobalconstraint
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

Magnetic relaxation, the process by which a plasma lowers its magnetic energy while preserving topological constraints, is a prime testing ground for structure-preserving finite element methods. This paper compares three discretizations of the magneto-frictional equations: an unconstrained scheme, a projection-based scheme that conserves helicity on every magnetically closed subdomain, and a new Lagrange multiplier scheme that enforces only the total helicity. The central finding is that the level of helicity preservation changes the relaxed state: the unconstrained scheme drives the field to zero, the global-only scheme destroys braided structure and reaches a different nonzero equilibrium for knots, while the local scheme preserves nontrivial topology and reaches a stable nontrivial equilibrium even for a zero-helicity braid. The paper argues that the global-only scheme, despite its numerical reconnections, may serve as a model of relaxation theories in which only total helicity survives.

What carries the argument

The central object is the discrete magnetic helicity on magnetically closed subdomains, together with the discrete helicity-energy bound that prevents the energy from collapsing to zero when helicity is nonzero. Two constructions carry the argument. The first is the projection scheme, which projects the face-element magnetic field into an edge-element curl space through an auxiliary variable; this makes the local helicity a discrete invariant and yields the discrete lower bound. The second is the Lagrange multiplier scheme, which enforces only the global helicity via two real scalar multipliers, allowing local reconnection while keeping the total helicity constant. The contrast between these

What would settle it

Run the projection-based scheme on the E3 braid and measure the computed local helicity on a single hexahedral cell (or any discrete magnetically closed subdomain) over thousands of time steps; a drift larger than the solver tolerance would falsify the claimed local conservation. Conversely, a fine-mesh computation with the Lagrange multiplier scheme that relaxes the E3 braid to a nontrivial steady state would falsify the claim that global-only conservation always yields trivial relaxation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that discrete conservation of local helicity on every magnetically closed subdomain is what prevents spurious numerical reconnection and yields the physically correct relaxed state of the ideal magneto-frictional system. This is established by comparing three schemes. The projection-based scheme introduces an auxiliary magnetic potential in the curl space, which makes the local helicity on any discrete magnetically closed subdomain a conserved invariant and satisfies a discrete helicity-energy bound. The Lagrange multiplier scheme enforces only the global helicity as a scalar constraint, allowing local topology to change through numerical reconnection. Numerical

Load-bearing premise

The proof of local helicity conservation assumes that the discrete vector potential, which lives in a curl-conforming edge-element space, can be used as a test function in the div-conforming Faraday equation; because these two spaces do not nest, this step is not justified as written, and if local conservation fails on some discrete magnetically closed subdomain, the central distinction between the two schemes collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the local conservation result holds, structure-preserving simulation of ideal magnetic relaxation must conserve helicity on every magnetically closed subdomain, not just the domain as a whole.
  • The failure of the global-only scheme on the zero-helicity braid shows that total helicity is not a sufficient topological barrier when the initial field has zero net helicity.
  • The distinct nonzero equilibria for the Hopf knot imply that the computed relaxed state depends on which invariants are preserved, so numerical relaxation studies should state their conservation properties explicitly.
  • The Lagrange multiplier scheme, though less faithful to the ideal equations, qualitatively reproduces the behavior assumed in relaxation theories with only a global constraint, suggesting a deliberate use for resistive relaxation.
  • The discrete helicity-energy bound holds for both structure-preserving schemes, guaranteeing a minimum energy whenever the initial helicity is nonzero.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test of conservation on a single finite element or small patch would either verify or falsify the paper's central distinction; the proof as written leaves this gap because the discrete vector potential belongs to a different finite element space than the test functions in the Faraday equation.
  • If the local-conservation proof is repaired, the same auxiliary-variable technique could be applied to other finite element exterior calculus discretizations, such as extended MHD models, to obtain local helicity preservation there.
  • The paper leaves open whether configurations with zero local but higher-order linking (for example, Borromean rings) would require constraints beyond local helicity; a local-helicity-conserving scheme may still permit changes in triple linking.
  • For solar coronal heating studies, the mesh size or time step of the global-only scheme could be tuned to control the rate of numerical reconnection, turning discretization error into a proxy for physical resistivity.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 manuscript investigates how the level of discrete magnetic-helicity conservation influences the relaxed states computed for the magneto-frictional (MF) equations. Three finite element schemes are compared: a non-conservative discretization, the authors' earlier projection-based scheme that is claimed to preserve helicity on every discrete magnetically closed subdomain, and a newly introduced Lagrange multiplier scheme that enforces only global helicity. The paper proves energy decay, the discrete Gauss law, and a discrete Arnold inequality for the new scheme, and claims local helicity conservation for the projection scheme in Theorem 4.2. Numerical experiments on an E3 braid (zero helicity) and a Hopf knot (nonzero helicity) are used to argue that global-only helicity conservation leads to qualitatively different—and for the braid, trivial—relaxed states, and that the Lagrange multiplier scheme may serve as a numerical model of Taylor relaxation.

Significance. The question addressed—whether global helicity conservation alone is sufficient for faithful numerical magnetic relaxation, or whether local helicity constraints are essential—is timely and consequential. If the results are correct, the paper would demonstrate a striking dependence of the relaxed state on the level of discrete topological constraint and would offer a computationally cheap scheme for simulating Taylor-like relaxation. The manuscript is honest about its limitations: Remark 6.2 explicitly states that the nontrivial steady state for the E3-field is not proven, and Section 7 disclaims any definitive answer on the Taylor-relaxation interpretation. The numerical code is archived on Zenodo. However, the central theoretical result on local helicity conservation is not proven as written, and the E3 conclusion rests on a single coarse-mesh experiment.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Theorem 4.2, Eq. (4.2a), (4.4)] The proof of local helicity conservation takes C_h = A_h^{n+1/2} in the Faraday equation (4.2a), but C_h is required to lie in H^h_0(div), whereas A_h^{n+1/2} is only in H^h_0(curl). In the FEEC de Rham complex these are different spaces (Nédélec edge vs. Raviart–Thomas face) with no inclusion, so the test function is inadmissible as written. Moreover, the potentials A_h^n appearing in (4.4) are not defined in Problem 4.1, and no argument is given for the required tangential-trace conditions on ∂Ω_{s,h}. Since (4.4) is the basis for distinguishing the projection-based scheme from the Lagrange multiplier scheme, this gap is load-bearing. A repair should either derive the strong form of Faraday's law (which does follow from (4.2a) because the test space spans H^h_0(div)) and then integrate by parts, or construct time-consistent potentials via a discrete Poincaré operator with a controlled
  2. [Section 6.1, Figures 6.1–6.2] The conclusion that the Lagrange multiplier scheme converges to the trivial state for the E3-field is supported by a single coarse mesh (4×4×24). Since any consistent discretization of the ideal MF equations should approach the local-helicity-preserving solution as h → 0, the observed decay may reflect resolution-dependent numerical diffusion rather than a fundamental property of global-helicity enforcement. A mesh-refinement study, or at least a quantitative measure of local-helicity violation for the Lagrange multiplier scheme, is needed before drawing the qualitative conclusion stated in Section 1. This is especially important because Remark 6.2 already concedes that the nontrivial steady state of the projection scheme is not rigorously established.
  3. [Section 5.2, Problem 5.3 and Eq. (5.10f)] The symbol E^{n+1}_h is used both for the electric field unknown and for the magnetic energy in the discrete energy law (5.10f). The unknown list at the top of Problem 5.3 includes E^{n+1}_h as an H(curl) field, but (5.10f) is a scalar equation involving the energy. This overloading makes the formulation ambiguous and should be corrected (e.g., use ℰ_h for the magnetic energy). The same ambiguity appears in the continuous derivation in Section 5.1.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Theorem 4.2] The displayed statement 'H^{n+1}_h = (A^n_h, B^n_h)' appears to be a typo; it should likely be 'H^n_h = (A^n_h, B^n_h)'.
  2. [Section 2, Eq. (1.2)] The gauge invariance of local helicity ∫_Ωs A·B on a magnetically closed subdomain is asserted but not stated precisely. A short explanation of the boundary-term cancellation would help the reader.
  3. [Figure captions 6.1 and 6.3] The 'Error' panels plot quantities labeled H_h and ‖∇·B_h‖, but the captions do not specify whether these are absolute errors, relative errors, or solver tolerances. Please clarify.
  4. [Remark 5.5] The switching threshold γ = 9×10^{-5} in the Lagrange multiplier scheme is a free parameter; no sensitivity study is provided. A brief remark on its influence on the reported steady states would strengthen the numerical section.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the new Lagrange-multiplier scheme is analyzed self-containedly, the projection baseline is a published external result, and the headline comparisons are numerical experiments rather than fitted predictions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The novel Lagrange-multiplier scheme (Problem 5.3) is introduced with global helicity and energy constraints, and Theorem 5.4 legitimately verifies that the discrete constraints imply the claimed conservation laws; the multipliers are shown to vanish away from equilibrium in Theorem 5.1 using vector calculus and the continuous equations, not by assuming the conclusion. The projection-based scheme is inherited from the authors' prior work [28], but that is a published, code-supported external result, and the paper independently attempts a local-helicity proof in Theorem 4.2 rather than merely renaming [28]'s conclusion. The central comparisons in Section 6 are numerical integrations of three genuinely different finite element schemes; no parameter is fitted to data and then renamed a prediction, and no equation is shown to reduce to another 'by construction' in a way that manufactures the headline distinction. The manuscript itself flags its limitations: Remark 6.2 states that it remains open to rigorously prove a nontrivial steady state for the projection scheme, and Section 8 says the E3 result 'is justified only by numerical results, not by rigorous proofs.' There is a genuine proof gap in Theorem 4.2 — the Faraday law (4.2a) is posed in H0(div), while the chosen test function A_h^{n+1/2} is asserted to lie in H0(curl) — but that is a correctness risk about an asserted conservation law, not a circular reduction of the paper's conclusions to its inputs. Self-citations to [2], [28], [29], and [33] are standard and do not carry the load of a supposedly external uniqueness or derivation theorem. Accordingly, no circular step is established under the required standard.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard FEEC exactness and discrete Poincare inequalities, on the physical ideal-MHD/magneto-friction model with closed boundary conditions, and on two unproved steps: the discrete local-helicity conservation proof in Theorem 4.2 uses an inadmissible test function, and the E3 nontrivial steady state is only numerically observed. The Lagrange multiplier scheme adds a hand-tuned threshold gamma and experimental parameters (mesh, time steps) that are not derived.

free parameters (3)
  • gamma energy-constraint switching threshold = 9e-5
    In Remark 5.5 the Lagrange multiplier scheme sets lambda_E=0 and drops (5.10f) when the discrete energy decrease per step falls below gamma; the value is chosen by hand and affects long-time convergence.
  • Mesh resolution = 4x4x10 (Hopf) and 4x4x24 (E3) hexahedral cells
    A single intentionally under-resolved coarse mesh is used for all experiments; no convergence study is reported, so the equilibria could depend on this resolution.
  • Time-step and coupling schedule = Delta_t=0.1/1 for 100 steps then Delta_t=100; tau=1 then tau=0.1
    Chosen to accelerate relaxation; not derived from the model and may influence which steady states are reached.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math The de Rham subcomplex (2.1b) is exact on contractible domains and the discrete Poincare inequality holds.
    Used throughout for discrete potentials, the Arnold inequality (Theorem 5.4), and well-posedness of the FEEC discretizations (Sections 2, 4, 5).
  • domain assumption The magneto-frictional equations (1.1) with closed boundary conditions (2.4) are the correct model for ideal magnetic relaxation, and local helicity is conserved on magnetically closed subdomains.
    The paper's central question presumes this physical model; see Sections 1 and 2.
  • ad hoc to paper A discrete vector potential A_h^{n+1/2} in H0(curl, Omega_{s,h}) can be used as the test function C_h in the H0(div) Faraday equation (4.2a).
    In the proof of Theorem 4.2 (eqs. 4.5-4.6) the authors insert an H0(curl) test function into an H0(div) weak equation; no inclusion or interpolation is specified, so the local helicity conservation theorem is not fully established.
  • ad hoc to paper The projection-based scheme reaches a nontrivial steady state for the zero-helicity E3 field.
    Remark 6.2 states this is justified only by numerical results, not by rigorous proofs; the conclusion that local helicity preservation protects zero-helicity topology depends on this.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Global and local helicity-preservation in the finite element discretization of magnetic relaxation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A4K2AVQR

@misc{pith2026260312134,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Global and local helicity-preservation in the finite element discretization of magnetic relaxation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A4K2AVQR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.12134}
}
read the original abstract

Magnetic relaxation drives plasma toward lower-energy equilibria under helicity constraints. In ideal magnetohydrodynamics (MHD), helicity is locally conserved, while resistive theories such as Taylor relaxation preserve only global helicity. This distinction has important implications for structure-preserving numerical methods. We compare three finite element formulations: an unconstrained scheme that does not conserve helicity, a mixed method based on finite element exterior calculus that preserves discrete local helicity on magnetically closed subdomains, and a Lagrange multiplier approach that enforces only global helicity conservation. Numerical experiments with magnetic knots and braids show that helicity-based constraints provide effective topological barriers when the relevant helicity-type invariant is nonzero, but do not fully characterize braided field-line topology when it vanishes. These results clarify both the strengths and the possible limitations of helicity-based structure-preserving finite element methods for magnetic relaxation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.12134 by the authors.

Figure 6
Figure 6. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2.1
Figure 2.1. Illustration of non-trivial topology of magnetic fields. (a) Magnetic knot with non-zero helicity, (b) Magnetic braid with zero helicity and (c) Borromean ring with zero helicity. Here the thin lines represent the magnetic field lines surrounding the high-intensity core tubes. helicity, to describe braided topology [52, 53]. These quantities reveal local winding and stretching even when global helicity is zero. Howe… view at source ↗
Figure 6.1
Figure 6.1. Magnetic braids (E3 -field): evolution of energy and helicity, errors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6_1.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 6.2
Figure 6.2. Figure 6.2: Magnetic braids: comparison of evolution of stream tubes of the magnetic field under different topological constraints, colored by magnetic field strength ∥Bh∥ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6_2.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 6.3
Figure 6.3. Figure 6.3: Magnetic knots (Hopf fibration): evolution of energy and helicity, errors. Based on these numerical results, several conclusions can be drawn. In the absence of the discrete Arnold inequality, the non-conservative scheme permits the magnetic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures…
Figure 6.4
Figure 6.4. Figure 6.4: Magnetic knots: comparison of evolution of stream tubes of the magnetic field under different topological constraints, colored by magnetic field strength ∥Bh∥. energy to decay to (or very near) zero, confirming that without explicit topological protection, the magnet…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [29]

    Hu, Y.-J

    K. Hu, Y.-J. Lee, and J. Xu , Helicity-conservative finite element discretization for incom- pressible MHD systems , Journal of Computational Physics, 436 (2021), p. 110284

    2021

  2. [1]

    P. R. Amestoy, I. S. Duff, J. Koster, and J.-Y. L’Excellent , A fully asynchronous multi- frontal solver using distributed dynamic scheduling , SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications, 23 (2001), pp. 15–41

    2001

  3. [2]

    B. D. Andrews and P. E. F arrell, Enforcing conservation laws and dissipation inequalities numerically via auxiliary variables , SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 47 (2025)

    2025

  4. [3]

    Arnold, R

    D. Arnold, R. F alk, and R. Winther, Finite element exterior calculus: from Hodge theory to numerical stability, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 47 (2010), pp. 281–354

    2010

  5. [4]

    D. N. Arnold , Finite Element Exterior Calculus , Society for Industrial and Applied Mathe- matics, Philadelphia, PA, 2018

    2018

  6. [5]

    D. N. Arnold, R. S. F alk, and R. Winther , Finite element exterior calculus, homological techniques, and applications , Acta Numerica, 15 (2006), pp. 1–155

    2006

  7. [6]

    V. I. Arnold , The asymptotic Hopf invariant and its applications , Vladimir I. Arnold- Collected Works: Hydrodynamics, Bifurcation Theory, and Algebraic Geometry 1965-1972, (1974), pp. 357–375

    1965

  8. [7]

    V. I. Arnold and B. A. Khesin , Topological Methods in Hydrodynamics, vol. 125 of Applied Mathematical Sciences, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2021

    2021

Show all 58 references
  1. [8]

    Balay, S

    S. Balay, S. Abhyankar, M. F. Adams, S. Benson, J. Brown, P. Brune, K. Buschelman, E. Constantinescu, L. Dalcin, A. Dener, V. Eijkhout, J. F aibussowitsch, W. D. GLOBAL AND LOCAL HELICITY-PRESER V ATION 19 Gropp, V. Hapla, T. Isaac, P. Jolivet, D. Karpeev, D. Kaushik, M. G. Kn...

    2024

  2. [9]

    Blickhan, J

    T. Blickhan, J. Stratton, and A. A. Kaptanoglu , MRX: A differentiable 3D MHD equi- librium solver without nested flux surfaces , arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.26986, (2025)

    2025

  3. [10]

    Brezzi, J

    F. Brezzi, J. Douglas, and L. D. Marini , Two families of mixed finite elements for second order elliptic problems , Numerische Mathematik, 47 (1985), pp. 217–235

    1985

  4. [11]

    Candelaresi, D

    S. Candelaresi, D. Pontin, and G. Hornig , Mimetic methods for Lagrangian relaxation of magnetic fields , SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 36 (2014), pp. B952–B968

    2014

  5. [12]

    Candelaresi, D

    S. Candelaresi, D. I. Pontin, and G. Hornig , Magnetic field relaxation and current sheets in an ideal plasma , The Astrophysical Journal, 808 (2015), p. 134

    2015

  6. [13]

    Cheng, C

    Q. Cheng, C. Liu, and J. Shen , A new Lagrange multiplier approach for gradient flows , Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 367 (2020), p. 113070

    2020

  7. [14]

    Cheng and J

    Q. Cheng and J. Shen , Global constraints preserving scalar auxiliary variable schemes for gradient flows, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 42 (2020), pp. A2489–A2513

    2020

  8. [15]

    Chodura and A

    R. Chodura and A. Schl ¨uter, A 3D code for MHD equilibrium and stability , Journal of Computational Physics, 41 (1981), pp. 68–88

    1981

  9. [16]

    I. J. D. Craig and D. Pontin , Current singularities in line-tied three-dimensional magnetic fields, The Astrophysical Journal, 788 (2014), p. 177

    2014

  10. [17]

    I. J. D. Craig and A. D. Sneyd, A dynamic relaxation technique for determining the structure and stability of coronal magnetic fields , The Astrophysical Journal, 311 (1986), pp. 451– 459

    1986

  11. [18]

    , The Parker problem and the theory of coronal heating, Solar Physics, 232 (2005), pp. 41– 62

    2005

  12. [19]

    L. B. Da Veiga, K. Hu, and L. Mascotto , Error estimates for a helicity-preserving fi- nite element discretisation of an incompressible magnetohydrodynamics system , ESAIM: Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Analysis, 59 (2025), pp. 1075–1094

    2025

  13. [20]

    F araco, S

    D. F araco, S. Lindberg, and L. Sz ´ekelyhidi Jr , Magnetic helicity, weak solutions and relaxation of ideal MHD , Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 77 (2024), pp. 2387–2412

    2024

  14. [21]

    P. E. F arrell, M. He, K. Hu, and G. Zhang , Software used in ‘global and local helicity- preservation in finite element magnetic relaxation ’, 2026. 10.5281/zenodo.18837992

    2026 doi

  15. [22]

    M. H. Freedman , A note on topology and magnetic energy in incompressible perfectly con- ducting fluids , Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 194 (1988), pp. 549–551

    1988

  16. [23]

    Garcke, W

    H. Garcke, W. Jiang, C. Su, and G. Zhang , Structure-preserving parametric finite element method for surface diffusion based on Lagrange multiplier approaches , SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 47 (2025), pp. A1983–A2011

    2025

  17. [24]

    Garcke, D

    H. Garcke, D. Trautwein, and G. Zhang , Structure-preserving parametric finite element methods for two-phase Stokes flow based on Lagrange multiplier approaches, arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.12326, (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  18. [25]

    E. S. Gawlik and F. Gay-Balmaz , A finite element method for MHD that preserves energy, cross-helicity, magnetic helicity, incompressibility, and div B = 0 , Journal of Computa- tional Physics, 450 (2022), p. 110847

    2022

  19. [26]

    S. Guo, L. Mei, W. Yan, and Y. Li , Mass-, energy-, and momentum-preserving spectral scheme for Klein–Gordon–Schr¨ odinger system on infinite domains, SIAM Journal on Sci- entific Computing, 45 (2023), pp. B200–B230

    2023

  20. [27]

    D. A. Ham, P. H. J. Kelly, L. Mitchell, C. J. Cotter, R. C. Kirby, K. Sagiyama, N. Bouziani, S. Vorderwuelbecke, T. J. Gregory, J. Betteridge, D. R. Shapero, R. W. Nixon-Hill, C. J. W ard, P. E. F arrell, P. D. Brubeck, I. Marsden, T. H. Gib- son, M. Homolya, T. Sun, A. T. T. ...

    2023

  21. [28]

    M. He, P. F arrell, K. Hu, and B. Andrews, Helicity-preserving finite element discretization for magnetic relaxation, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 48 (2025), pp. B165–B183

    2025

  22. [30]

    K. Hu, Y. Ma, and J. Xu , Stable finite element methods preserving ∇ ·B = 0 exactly for MHD models, Numerische Mathematik, 135 (2017), pp. 371–396

    2017

  23. [31]

    Hu and J

    K. Hu and J. Xu , Structure-preserving finite element methods for stationary MHD models , 20 P. E. F ARRELL, M. HE, K. HU AND G. ZHANG Mathematics of Computation, 88 (2019), pp. 553–581

    2019

  24. [32]

    I. C. F. Ipsen , A note on preconditioning nonsymmetric matrices , SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 23 (2001), pp. 1050–1051

    2001

  25. [33]

    Laakmann, K

    F. Laakmann, K. Hu, and P. E. F arrell , Structure-preserving and helicity-conserving fi- nite element approximations and preconditioning for the Hall MHD equations , Journal of Computational Physics, 492 (2023), p. 112410

    2023

  26. [34]

    Longbottom, G

    A. Longbottom, G. Rickard, I. J. D. Craig, and A. D. Sneyd , Magnetic flux braiding: force-free equilibria and current sheets, The Astrophysical Journal, 500 (1998), p. 471

    1998

  27. [35]

    Y. Ma, K. Hu, X. Hu, and J. Xu , Robust preconditioners for incompressible MHD models , Journal of Computational Physics, 316 (2016), pp. 721–746

    2016

  28. [36]

    Mao and R

    S. Mao and R. Xi, An incompressibility, divB=0 preserving, current density, helicity, energy- conserving finite element method for incompressible MHD systems , Journal of Computa- tional Physics, 538 (2025), p. 114130

    2025

  29. [37]

    W. S. Massey , Higher order linking numbers , Journal of Knot Theory and Its Ramifications, 7 (1998), pp. 393–414

    1998

  30. [38]

    Moffatt, Magnetic relaxation and the Taylor conjecture , Journal of Plasma Physics, 81 (2015), p

    H. Moffatt, Magnetic relaxation and the Taylor conjecture , Journal of Plasma Physics, 81 (2015), p. 905810608

    2015

  31. [39]

    M. F. Murphy, G. H. Golub, and A. J. W athen , A note on preconditioning for indefinite linear systems, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 21 (2000), pp. 1969–1972

    2000

  32. [40]

    N´ed´elec, Mixed finite elements in R3, Numerische Mathematik, 35 (1980), pp

    J.-C. N´ed´elec, Mixed finite elements in R3, Numerische Mathematik, 35 (1980), pp. 315–341

    1980

  33. [41]

    Pontin, S

    D. Pontin, S. Candelaresi, A. Russell, and G. Hornig, Braided magnetic fields: equilibria, relaxation and heating , Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 58 (2016), p. 054008

    2016

  34. [42]

    Raviart and J.-M

    P.-A. Raviart and J.-M. Thomas, A mixed finite element method for 2-nd order elliptic prob- lems, in Mathematical Aspects of Finite Element Methods: Proceedings of the Conference Held in Rome, December 10–12, 1975, Springer, 2006, pp. 292–315

    1975

  35. [43]

    Saad, A flexible inner-outer preconditioned GMRES algorithm , SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 14 (1993), pp

    Y. Saad, A flexible inner-outer preconditioned GMRES algorithm , SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 14 (1993), pp. 461–469

    1993

  36. [44]

    C. B. Smiet, S. Candelaresi, and D. Bouwmeester , Ideal relaxation of the Hopf fibration , Physics of Plasmas, 24 (2017), p. 072110

    2017

  37. [45]

    J. B. Taylor, Relaxation of toroidal plasma and generation of reverse magnetic fields, Physical Review Letters, 33 (1974), p. 1139

    1974

  38. [46]

    Tonnon and R

    W. Tonnon and R. Hiptmair , Semi-Lagrangian finite element exterior calculus for incom- pressible flows, Advances in Computational Mathematics, 50 (2024), p. 11

    2024

  39. [47]

    Wilmot-Smith, G

    A. Wilmot-Smith, G. Hornig, and D. Pontin , Magnetic braiding and parallel electric fields , The Astrophysical Journal, 696 (2009), p. 1339

    2009

  40. [48]

    1288–1295

    , Magnetic braiding and quasi-separatrix layers , The Astrophysical Journal, 704 (2009), pp. 1288–1295

    2009

  41. [49]

    Woltjer, A theorem on force-free magnetic fields, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 44 (1958), pp

    L. Woltjer, A theorem on force-free magnetic fields, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 44 (1958), pp. 489–491

    1958

  42. [50]

    A. R. Yeates , Magnetohydrodynamic relaxation theory , in Topics in Magnetohydrodynamic Topology, Reconnection and Stability Theory, Springer, 2019, pp. 117–143

    2019

  43. [51]

    A. R. Yeates, On the limitations of magneto-frictional relaxation , Geophysical & Astrophys- ical Fluid Dynamics, 116 (2022), pp. 305–320

    2022

  44. [52]

    A. R. Yeates and G. Hornig , Unique topological characterization of braided magnetic fields , Physics of Plasmas, 20 (2013), p. 012102

    2013

  45. [53]

    A. R. Yeates, A. L. Wilmot-Smith, and G. Hornig , Topological constraints on magnetic relaxation, Physical Review Letters, 105 (2010), p. 085002

    2010

  46. [54]

    Zhang, A

    Y. Zhang, A. Palha, M. Gerritsma, and L. G. Rebholz , A mass-, kinetic energy- and helicity-conserving mimetic dual-field discretization for three-dimensional incompressible Navier-Stokes equations, part I: Periodic domains , Journal of Computational Physics, 451 (2022), p. 110868

    2022

  47. [55]

    Zhang, A

    Y. Zhang, A. Palha, M. Gerritsma, and Q. Yao , A MEEVC discretization for two- dimensional incompressible Navier-Stokes equations with general boundary conditions , Journal of Computational Physics, 510 (2024), p. 113080

    2024

  48. [56]

    Zhou, Y.-M

    Y. Zhou, Y.-M. Huang, H. Qin, and A. Bhattacharjee , Formation of current singularity in a topologically constrained plasma , Physical Review E, 93 (2016), p. 023205

    2016

  49. [57]

    , Constructing current singularity in a 3D line-tied plasma , The Astrophysical Journal, 852 (2017), p. 3

    2017

  50. [58]

    Y. Zhou, H. Qin, J. W. Burby, and A. Bhattacharjee , Variational integration for ideal magnetohydrodynamics with built-in advection equations , Physics of Plasmas, 21 (2014)

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.