Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 1 minor 53 references

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge.

T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. The mark states how deep the mechanical check went, never who wrote it. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.3

Physics-informed neural networks perform similarly on shocks whether equations are written in conservative or non-conservative form.

2026-05-25 08:11 UTC pith:B2M5OOBF

load-bearing objection This is a straightforward empirical check on whether PINNs care about conservative vs non-conservative form for shocks, but the benchmarks stay inside the class where both forms exist. the 1 major comments →

arxiv 2506.22413 v3 pith:B2M5OOBF submitted 2025-06-27 physics.flu-dyn cs.NAmath.NA

Physics-Informed Neural Networks: Bridging the Divide Between Conservative and Non-Conservative Equations

Arun Govind Neelan , Ferdin Sagai Don Bosco , Naveen Sagar Jarugumalli , Suresh Balaji Vedarethinam This is my paper
classification physics.flu-dyn cs.NAmath.NA
keywords physics-informed neural networksconservative formnon-conservative formshocksdiscontinuitiesBurgers equationEuler equationscomputational fluid dynamics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Traditional discretization methods for fluid flows require equations in conservative form to capture shocks and discontinuities accurately, but many real phenomena involve inherently non-conservative equations. This paper examines whether Physics-Informed Neural Networks share that requirement by testing both formulations on benchmark problems. The investigation covers the Burgers equation along with steady and unsteady Euler equations to assess any sensitivity in how PINNs locate and resolve these features. If PINNs prove insensitive to the choice, they could directly address a wider class of physical problems without forced reformulation into conservative variables.

Core claim

The work establishes that PINNs exhibit limited sensitivity to the conservative versus non-conservative formulation of the governing PDEs when applied to flows containing shocks and discontinuities, as demonstrated through systematic comparisons on the Burgers equation and both steady and unsteady Euler equations.

What carries the argument

Physics-Informed Neural Networks trained on residuals of the PDE in either conservative or non-conservative form, tested for shock-capturing accuracy on Burgers and Euler equations.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen benchmark problems sufficiently represent the numerical challenges posed by inherently non-conservative PDEs in complex physical phenomena such as multi-phase flows.

What would settle it

A clear and consistent drop in accuracy or increase in shock smearing when switching from conservative to non-conservative form on the Burgers or Euler test cases would falsify the claim of limited sensitivity.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • PINNs could be applied directly to non-conservative formulations arising in multi-phase or other complex flows without needing to rewrite the equations.
  • The usual restriction that standard numerical solvers impose on equation form would not apply to PINN-based solvers for these problems.
  • Discontinuities in compressible flows could be handled by PINNs regardless of whether the underlying equations are presented in divergence or non-divergence form.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the insensitivity holds, PINNs might reduce the need for specialized conservative-variable transformations that are common in traditional CFD codes.
  • The same tests could be repeated on equations from other domains, such as non-conservative forms in magnetohydrodynamics or viscoelastic flows, to check generality.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript investigates the sensitivity of Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINNs) to conservative versus non-conservative PDE formulations for problems involving shocks and discontinuities. It motivates the study by noting that many complex flows (e.g., multi-phase) are inherently non-conservative and conducts empirical tests on the Burgers equation together with steady and unsteady Euler equations.

Significance. If the empirical results were to show that PINNs are insensitive to formulation choice near discontinuities while traditional discretizations are not, the work would offer a practical route to handling non-conservative products without ad-hoc regularization. The current text, however, presents only the intent and benchmark list; no error metrics, loss curves, or comparative tables are supplied, so the significance cannot yet be evaluated.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract / Benchmark selection] The central claim that the chosen benchmarks 'provide a comprehensive understanding' of PINN behavior for inherently non-conservative systems rests on an untested assumption. Burgers and both Euler systems remain hyperbolic conservation laws that admit equivalent conservative and non-conservative forms; they therefore do not probe the structural difficulty of non-conservative products that cannot be rewritten in divergence form (the motivating case of multi-phase flows).
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states the investigative goal but supplies neither quantitative results nor error metrics; a results-oriented abstract would better convey the paper's contribution.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful comments. We address the major comment below and indicate where revisions will be made.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Benchmark selection] The central claim that the chosen benchmarks 'provide a comprehensive understanding' of PINN behavior for inherently non-conservative systems rests on an untested assumption. Burgers and both Euler systems remain hyperbolic conservation laws that admit equivalent conservative and non-conservative forms; they therefore do not probe the structural difficulty of non-conservative products that cannot be rewritten in divergence form (the motivating case of multi-phase flows).

    Authors: We acknowledge that the referee's observation is correct. The Burgers equation and the Euler equations are hyperbolic conservation laws that admit mathematically equivalent conservative and non-conservative formulations. Our empirical tests therefore examine sensitivity to formulation choice within this class of problems rather than the stricter case of non-conservative products that cannot be expressed in divergence form. We will revise the abstract and introduction to remove the phrasing 'provide a comprehensive understanding' and to explicitly qualify the scope of the benchmarks, noting that they serve as an initial investigation into PINN behavior for shock-containing flows rather than a direct probe of inherently non-rewritable non-conservative systems. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical benchmark study with no derivations or fitted predictions

full rationale

The paper presents an empirical investigation of PINN performance on Burgers and Euler equations in conservative vs. non-conservative forms. No derivation chain, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, self-citation load-bearing premises, or ansatz smuggling is present. The central claim rests on numerical experiments across stated benchmarks rather than any reduction of outputs to inputs by construction. The skeptic concern about benchmark representativeness is a question of external validity, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are described in the abstract; the work is an empirical sensitivity study on existing PINN methodology.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5725 in / 1043 out tokens · 33152 ms · 2026-05-25T08:11:19.386811+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In the realm of computational fluid dynamics, traditional numerical methods, which heavily rely on discretization, typically necessitate the formulation of partial differential equations (PDEs) in conservative form to accurately capture shocks and other discontinuities in compressible flows. Conversely, utilizing non-conservative forms often introduces significant errors near these discontinuities or results in smeared shocks. This dependency poses a considerable limitation, particularly as many PDEs encountered in complex physical phenomena, such as multi-phase flows, are inherently non-conservative. This inherent non-conservativity restricts the direct applicability of standard numerical solvers designed for conservative forms. This work aims to thoroughly investigate the sensitivity of Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINNs) to the choice of PDE formulation (conservative vs. non-conservative) when solving problems involving shocks and discontinuities. We have conducted this investigation across a range of benchmark problems, specifically the Burgers equation and both steady and unsteady Euler equations, to provide a comprehensive understanding of PINNs capabilities in this critical area.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.22413 by Arun Govind Neelan, Ferdin Sagai Don Bosco, Naveen Sagar Jarugumalli, Suresh Balaji Vedarethinam.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Steps used in Adaptive weight and viscosity PINNs architecture [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Solution of Burgers equation with smooth initial condition [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Solution of Burgers equation with discontinuous initial condition [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Solution of Burgers equation at t = 0.2 s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Solution of Burgers equation using numerical methods based on non-conservative scheme with artificial [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Pressure solution of Sod shock tube problem over time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Pressure solution of Sod shock tube problem over time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Pressure solution of supersonic flow over wedge [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Pressure at y=0.5 in supersonic flow over wedge [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Three-level order-adaptive weighted essentially non-oscillatory schemes

    A Arun Govind Neelan, Manoj T Nair, and Raimund Bürger. Three-level order-adaptive weighted essentially non-oscillatory schemes. Results in Applied Mathematics, 12:100217, 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Higher-order conservative discretizations on arbitrarily varying non-uniform grids

    A Arun Govind Neelan, Raimund Bürger, Manoj T Nair, and Samala Rathan. Higher-order conservative discretizations on arbitrarily varying non-uniform grids. Computational and Applied Mathematics, 44(1):27, 2025

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Eleuterio F. Toro. Riemann Solvers and Numerical Methods for Fluid Dynamics: A Practical Introduction . Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 3rd edition, 2009

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    Non-conservative and conservative formulations of characteristics-based numerical reconstructions for incompressible flows

    Evgeniy Shapiro and Dimitris Drikakis. Non-conservative and conservative formulations of characteristics-based numerical reconstructions for incompressible flows. International journal for numerical methods in engineering, 66(9):1466–1482, 2006

    work page 2006

  5. [5]

    On the behavior of upwind schemes in the low mach number limit

    Hervé Guillard and Claude Viozat. On the behavior of upwind schemes in the low mach number limit. Computers & Fluids, 28(1):63–86, 1999. 17 A PREPRINT - SEPTEMBER 4, 2025 Figure 9: Pressure at y=0.5 in supersonic flow over wedge

    work page 1999

  6. [6]

    Preconditioning techniques in computational fluid dynamics

    Eli Turkel. Preconditioning techniques in computational fluid dynamics. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 31(1):385–416, 1999

    work page 1999

  7. [7]

    Conservative and non

    JG Verwer. Conservative and non. conservative schemes for the solution of the nonlinear schrodinger equation. IMA journal of Numerical analysis, 6:25–42, 1986

    work page 1986

  8. [8]

    A path-conservative ader discontinuous galerkin method for non-conservative hyperbolic systems: Applications to shallow water equations

    Yujie Li, Jiahui Zhang, Yinhua Xia, and Yan Xu. A path-conservative ader discontinuous galerkin method for non-conservative hyperbolic systems: Applications to shallow water equations. Mathematics, 12(16):2601, 2024

    work page 2024

  9. [9]

    R. J. LeVeque. Finite Volume Methods for Hyperbolic Problems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2002

    work page 2002

  10. [10]

    M. R. Baer and J. W. Nunziato. A two-phase mixture theory for the deflagration-to-detonation transition (ddt) in reactive granular materials. International Journal of Multiphase Flow, 12(6):861–889, 1986

    work page 1986

  11. [11]

    S. K. Godunov and E. I. Romenskii. Elements of Continuum Mechanics and Conservation Laws . Springer, Springer, 2003

    work page 2003

  12. [12]

    F. Kemm, D. Kröner, C. D. Munz, T. Schnitzer, and M. Wesenberg. Hyperbolic divergence cleaning for the mhd equations. Journal of Computational Physics, 175(2):645–673, 2002

    work page 2002

  13. [13]

    second order

    A. Aw and M. Rascle. Resurrection of “second order” models of traffic flow. SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics, 60(3):916–938, 2000

    work page 2000

  14. [14]

    Celia, Elias T

    Michael A. Celia, Elias T. Bouloutas, and Ronald L. Zarba. A general mass-conservative numerical solution for the unsaturated flow equation, volume 26. Wiley, AGU, 1990

    work page 1990

  15. [15]

    Tanner and Ken Walters

    Roger I. Tanner and Ken Walters. Rheology: An Historical Perspective. Elsevier, 2013

    work page 2013

  16. [16]

    Classical Mechanics

    Herbert Goldstein, Charles Poole, and John Safko. Classical Mechanics. University of Toronto, 3rd edition

    work page

  17. [17]

    Well-balanced high-order finite volume methods for systems of balance laws

    Mariano Castro and Carlos Parés. Well-balanced high-order finite volume methods for systems of balance laws. Journal of Scientific Computing, 27(1-3):107–131, 2006

    work page 2006

  18. [18]

    Definition and weak stability of nonconservative products

    Gianni Dal Maso, Philippe G LeFloch, and François Murat. Definition and weak stability of nonconservative products. Journal de Mathématiques Pures et Appliquées, 74(6):483–548, 1995. 18 A PREPRINT - SEPTEMBER 4, 2025

    work page 1995

  19. [19]

    Accurate numerical discretizations of non-conservative hyperbolic systems

    Ulrik Skre Fjordholm and Siddhartha Mishra. Accurate numerical discretizations of non-conservative hyperbolic systems. ESAIM: Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Analysis, 46(1):187–206, 2012

    work page 2012

  20. [20]

    Augmented roe schemes for nonconservative hyperbolic systems

    Christophe Berthon and Frédéric Coquel. Augmented roe schemes for nonconservative hyperbolic systems. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 29(6):2370–2397, 2007

    work page 2007

  21. [21]

    Greenberg and A.Y

    J.M. Greenberg and A.Y . LeRoux. Well-balanced schemes for conservation laws with source terms.SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 33(1):1–16, 1996

    work page 1996

  22. [22]

    Upstream differencing and godunov-type schemes for hyperbolic conservation laws

    Ami Harten. Upstream differencing and godunov-type schemes for hyperbolic conservation laws. SIAM Review, 25(1):35–61, 1983

    work page 1983

  23. [23]

    Berger and Phillip Colella

    Marsha J. Berger and Phillip Colella. Local adaptive mesh refinement for shock hydrodynamics. Journal of Computational Physics, 82(1):64–84, 1989

    work page 1989

  24. [24]

    A general technique for eliminating spurious oscillations in conservative schemes for multiphase and multispecies euler equations

    Ronald Fedkiw, X-D Liu, and Stanley Osher. A general technique for eliminating spurious oscillations in conservative schemes for multiphase and multispecies euler equations. International Journal of Nonlinear Sciences and Numerical Simulation, 3(2):99–106, 2002

    work page 2002

  25. [25]

    A data-driven approach to predict artificial viscosity in high-order solvers

    Deep Ray. A data-driven approach to predict artificial viscosity in high-order solvers. In 2022 Spring Central Sectional Meeting. AMS, 2021

    work page 2022

  26. [26]

    An optimal control deep learning method to design artificial viscosities for discontinuous galerkin schemes

    Léo Bois, Emmanuel Franck, Laurent Navoret, and Vincent Vigon. An optimal control deep learning method to design artificial viscosities for discontinuous galerkin schemes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.11795, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  27. [27]

    Physics-informed neural networks with adaptive localized artificial viscosity

    Emilio Jose Rocha Coutinho, Marcelo Dall’Aqua, Levi McClenny, Ming Zhong, Ulisses Braga-Neto, and Eduardo Gildin. Physics-informed neural networks with adaptive localized artificial viscosity. Journal of Computational Physics, 489:112265, 2023

    work page 2023

  28. [28]

    Physics-informed neural networks and higher- order high-resolution methods for resolving discontinuities and shocks: A comprehensive study

    Arun Govind Neelan, G Sai Krishna, and Vinoth Paramanantham. Physics-informed neural networks and higher- order high-resolution methods for resolving discontinuities and shocks: A comprehensive study. Journal of Computational Science, 83:102466, 2024

    work page 2024

  29. [29]

    Distributed physics informed neural network for data-efficient solution to partial differential equations

    Vikas Dwivedi, Nishant Parashar, and Balaji Srinivasan. Distributed physics informed neural network for data-efficient solution to partial differential equations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.08967, 2019

    work page Pith review arXiv 1907

  30. [30]

    Parallel physics-informed neural networks via domain decomposition

    Khemraj Shukla, Ameya D Jagtap, and George Em Karniadakis. Parallel physics-informed neural networks via domain decomposition. Journal of Computational Physics, 447:110683, 2021

    work page 2021

  31. [31]

    Conservative physics-informed neural networks on discrete domains for conservation laws: Applications to forward and inverse problems

    Ameya D Jagtap, Ehsan Kharazmi, and George Em Karniadakis. Conservative physics-informed neural networks on discrete domains for conservation laws: Applications to forward and inverse problems. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 365:113028, 2020

    work page 2020

  32. [32]

    Extended physics-informed neural networks (xpinns): A generalized space-time domain decomposition based deep learning framework for nonlinear partial differential equations

    Ameya D Jagtap and George Em Karniadakis. Extended physics-informed neural networks (xpinns): A generalized space-time domain decomposition based deep learning framework for nonlinear partial differential equations. Communications in Computational Physics, 28(5), 2020

    work page 2020

  33. [33]

    hp-vpinns: Variational physics-informed neural networks with domain decomposition

    Ehsan Kharazmi, Zhongqiang Zhang, and George Em Karniadakis. hp-vpinns: Variational physics-informed neural networks with domain decomposition. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 374:113547, 2021

    work page 2021

  34. [34]

    Meshfree variational-physics-informed neural networks (mf-vpinn): An adaptive training strategy

    Stefano Berrone and Moreno Pintore. Meshfree variational-physics-informed neural networks (mf-vpinn): An adaptive training strategy. Algorithms, 17(9):415, 2024

    work page 2024

  35. [35]

    Integral pinns for hyperbolic conservation laws

    Manvendra P Rajvanshi and David I Ketcheson. Integral pinns for hyperbolic conservation laws. In ICLR 2024 Workshop on AI4DifferentialEquations In Science, 2024

    work page 2024

  36. [36]

    Finite basis physics-informed neural networks (fbpinns): a scalable domain decomposition approach for solving differential equations

    Ben Moseley, Andrew Markham, and Tarje Nissen-Meyer. Finite basis physics-informed neural networks (fbpinns): a scalable domain decomposition approach for solving differential equations. Advances in Computational Mathematics, 49(4):62, 2023

    work page 2023

  37. [37]

    Self-adaptive loss balanced physics-informed neural networks

    Zixue Xiang, Wei Peng, Xu Liu, and Wen Yao. Self-adaptive loss balanced physics-informed neural networks. Neurocomputing, 496:11–34, 2022

    work page 2022

  38. [38]

    Variationally mimetic operator networks

    Dhruv Patel, Deep Ray, Michael RA Abdelmalik, Thomas JR Hughes, and Assad A Oberai. Variationally mimetic operator networks. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 419:116536, 2024

    work page 2024

  39. [39]

    Learning nonlinear operators via deeponet based on the universal approximation theorem of operators

    Lu Lu, Pengzhan Jin, Guofei Pang, Zhongqiang Zhang, and George Em Karniadakis. Learning nonlinear operators via deeponet based on the universal approximation theorem of operators. Nature machine intelligence, 3(3):218–229, 2021. 19 A PREPRINT - SEPTEMBER 4, 2025

    work page 2021

  40. [40]

    Physics-informed neural operator for learning partial differential equations

    Zongyi Li, Hongkai Zheng, Nikola Kovachki, David Jin, Haoxuan Chen, Burigede Liu, Kamyar Azizzadenesheli, and Anima Anandkumar. Physics-informed neural operator for learning partial differential equations. ACM/JMS Journal of Data Science, 1(3):1–27, 2024

    work page 2024

  41. [41]

    Fourier Neural Operator for Parametric Partial Differential Equations

    Zongyi Li, Nikola Kovachki, Kamyar Azizzadenesheli, Burigede Liu, Kaushik Bhattacharya, Andrew Stuart, and Anima Anandkumar. Fourier neural operator for parametric partial differential equations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.08895, 2020

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  42. [42]

    Physics-informed neural networks for high-speed flows

    Zhiping Mao, Ameya D Jagtap, and George E Karniadakis. Physics-informed neural networks for high-speed flows. Journal of Computational Physics, 412:109439, 2020

    work page 2020

  43. [43]

    Learning shock waves in multiphase flows using physics-informed neural networks

    Renzheng Wang, Yang Wang, and George E Karniadakis. Learning shock waves in multiphase flows using physics-informed neural networks. Physics of Fluids, 33(8):087114, 2021

    work page 2021

  44. [44]

    Physics-informed neural networks for transonic flows around an airfoil

    Simon Wassing, Stefan Langer, and Philipp Bekemeyer. Physics-informed neural networks for transonic flows around an airfoil. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.17364, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

    Continuous and discontinuous compressible flows in a converging–diverging channel solved by physics-informed neural networks without exogenous data

    Hong Liang, Zilong Song, Chong Zhao, and Xin Bian. Continuous and discontinuous compressible flows in a converging–diverging channel solved by physics-informed neural networks without exogenous data. Scientific Reports, 14(1):3822, 2024

    work page 2024

  46. [46]

    Physics informed neural networks for fluid flow analysis with repetitive parameter initialization

    Jongmok Lee, Seungmin Shin, Taewan Kim, Bumsoo Park, Ho Choi, Anna Lee, Minseok Choi, and Seungchul Lee. Physics informed neural networks for fluid flow analysis with repetitive parameter initialization. Scientific Reports, 15(1):1–16, 2025

    work page 2025

  47. [47]

    Learning an optimised stable taylor-galerkin convection scheme based on a local spectral model for the numerical error dynamics

    Luciano Drozda, Pavanakumar Mohanamuraly, Lionel Cheng, Corentin Lapeyre, Guillaume Daviller, Yuval Realpe, Amir Adler, Gabriel Staffelbach, and Thierry Poinsot. Learning an optimised stable taylor-galerkin convection scheme based on a local spectral model for the numerical error dynamics. Journal of Computational Physics, 493:112430, 2023

    work page 2023

  48. [48]

    Learning numerical viscosity using artificial neural regression network

    Ritesh Kumar Dubey, Anupam Gupta, Vikas Kumar Jayswal, and Prashant Kumar Pandey. Learning numerical viscosity using artificial neural regression network. In Computational Sciences-Modelling, Computing and Soft Computing: First International Conference, CSMCS 2020, Kozhikode, Kerala, India, September 10-12, 2020, Revised Selected Papers 1, pages 42–55. Sp...

    work page 2020

  49. [49]

    An efficient three-level weighted essentially non-oscillatory scheme for hyperbolic equations

    A Arun Govind Neelan, R Jishnu Chandran, Manuel A Diaz, and Raimund Bürger. An efficient three-level weighted essentially non-oscillatory scheme for hyperbolic equations. Computational and Applied Mathematics, 42(2):70, 2023

    work page 2023

  50. [50]

    Higher-order slope limiters for euler equation

    Arun Govind Neelan and Manoj T Nair. Higher-order slope limiters for euler equation. Journal of Applied and Computational Mechanics, 8(3):904–917, 2022

    work page 2022

  51. [51]

    Hyperbolic runge–kutta method using evolutionary algorithm

    A Arun Govind Neelan and Manoj T Nair. Hyperbolic runge–kutta method using evolutionary algorithm. Journal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics, 13(10):101003, 2018

    work page 2018

  52. [52]

    Numerical solution of the euler equations by finite volume methods using runge kutta time stepping schemes

    Antony Jameson, Wolfgang Schmidt, and Eli Turkel. Numerical solution of the euler equations by finite volume methods using runge kutta time stepping schemes. In 14th fluid and plasma dynamics conference, page 1259, 1981

    work page 1981

  53. [53]

    Discontinuity computing using physics-informed neural networks

    Li Liu, Shengping Liu, Hui Xie, Fansheng Xiong, Tengchao Yu, Mengjuan Xiao, Lufeng Liu, and Heng Yong. Discontinuity computing using physics-informed neural networks. Journal of Scientific Computing, 98(1):22, 2024. 20

    work page 2024