Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 64 references

Intrinsic local Gauss's law preserving PIC method: A self-consistent field-particle update scheme for plasma simulations

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes GP-PIC, a particle-in-cell update that keeps the discrete Gauss's law exact to machine precision at every time step while updating the electric field locally and avoiding Poisson or Ampère solvers.

desk verdict The core idea is a genuine new direction for PIC, but the printed Step-1 field update is inconsistent with the stated shape-function normalization, so the exact-Gauss-law claim needs a correction before it can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02407 v1 pith:CMORW5GR submitted 2025-06-03 physics.plasm-ph physics.comp-ph

Zhonghua Qiao , Zhenli Xu , Qian Yin , Shenggao Zhou This is my paper
classification physics.plasm-phphysics.comp-ph MSC 65Z0565M7535Q83 PACS 52.65.Rr
keywords Gauss'slawpreservationparticle-in-cellmethodVlasov-AmpèreequationsVlasov-Poissonlocalrelaxationcurl-freeelectricfieldchargeconservationplasmasimulation
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 tries to establish that a particle-in-cell method can keep the discrete Gauss's law exact at every time step without solving the Poisson or Ampère equations. The field is updated locally as particles move, with particle motion split along mesh directions so the edge fields crossed by the trajectory absorb exactly the charge that moves. A separate local relaxation then pushes the field toward the curl-free state while never leaving the Gauss-law manifold. If the construction is right, the global electrostatic solve that dominates conventional PIC cost disappears, and long-time simulations do not accumulate the Gauss-law error that degrades Ampère-based schemes. Numerical tests on Landau damping, two-stream instability, and diocotron instability show the new method tracking a Poisson-based reference while an Ampère-based comparison drifts.

What carries the argument

The central object is the discrete Gauss-law manifold on a Yee mesh, the set of edge electric fields whose vertex divergences match the deposited charge. The method stays on it through two local operations. First, the trajectory flux update splits particle motion into mesh-parallel sub-steps and modifies exactly those edge fields crossed by the trajectory, using the partition-of-unity identity for the shape function so every vertex's charge balance changes consistently. Second, the free-energy relaxation applies cell rotations, adding $\eta$ to two opposite edges and $-\eta$ to the other two with $\eta = -(E^{(q)}_{i+1/2,j} - E^{(q)}_{i+1/2,j+1} + E^{(q)}_{i+1,j+1/2} - E^{(q)}_{i,j+1/2})/2$, and row/column line shifts with $\eta$ equal to the negative mean field. Each operation preserves all vertex fluxes, so Gauss's law holds after every sweep, and iterating them minimizes $\lambda^2 \int E^2/2\, dx$ on the manifold, whose unique minimizer is the curl-free field. All of this is local, so one pass over the mesh costs linear work.

What would settle it

Run the relaxation alone on an $N\times N$ mesh with a manufactured charge distribution, starting from a field that satisfies Gauss's law but has a known nonzero circulation, and count the sweeps needed to reduce the curl residual below a tolerance $\tau$ as both $N$ and $\tau$ vary. If the sweep count grows faster than a modest constant independent of $N$, or if the residual stalls before reaching $\tau$, then the linear-complexity and curl-free-accuracy premises of the method fail; separately, a long-time double-precision run in which the Gauss residual grows above round-off would refute Theorem 3.1.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For the electrostatic Vlasov system on a Yee mesh, the authors construct Algorithm 3.1 (GP-PIC). In Step 1, each particle's displacement is split into an x-move and a y-move; after each move the electric-field components on the cell edges crossed by the particle are updated, with increments fixed by the shape function, so that the discrete divergence at every affected vertex changes exactly by the deposited charge. Step 2 relaxes the resulting field, which already satisfies Gauss's law, by sweeping cells and row/column lines with increments chosen to minimize the electrostatic free energy $\lambda^2 \int E^2/2\, dx$; each sweep preserves the flux balance at every vertex. Theorem 3.1 asserts that if Gauss's law held at the start of the step, it holds at the end up to round-off error, while the curl-free condition is approached only to the relaxation tolerance $\tau$. This is the paper's central claim: Gauss's law is intrinsic to the update, not restored by a correction or engineered current deposition.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the local relaxation in Step 2 converges to the unique curl-free minimizer on the Gauss-law manifold with a bounded number of sweeps per time step; the convergence proof is delegated to the companion preprint, and the paper does not analyze how the sweep count scales with mesh size or tolerance.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • PIC simulations can maintain Gauss's-law residuals at machine precision over long runs without any Poisson solve, divergence cleaning, or charge-conserving current-deposition scheme.
  • Because each time step uses only local operations and linear work per sweep, the method removes the global field solve that typically dominates PIC cost and is a natural candidate for massively parallel electrostatic simulations.
  • The split-motion field update is not tied to the leapfrog integrator; the paper argues it can be combined with other temporal discretizations, with energy-conserving velocity corrections, and with dimension splitting in three dimensions.
  • The relaxation tolerance $\tau$ controls only how close the field is to curl-free; the Gauss-law guarantee holds at any tolerance, so users can trade curl-free accuracy for speed without violating the charge constraint.
  • In the reported benchmarks the method reproduces the Poisson-reference damping and growth rates, whereas the Ampère-with-interpolated-current comparison shows growing Gauss-law residuals, total-energy drift, and distorted phase-space vortices.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not test how the number of relaxation sweeps scales with mesh size and tolerance; a scaling study would determine whether the per-step cost stays linear in practice, since low-frequency modes on large meshes typically slow iterative relaxations.
  • In the two-stream experiment, the results at tolerances $10^{-4}$ and $10^{-7}$ suggest that Gauss-law compliance matters more for long-time phase-space fidelity than a tightly curl-free field; a targeted test with a very loose tolerance would make that dependence explicit.
  • The Step 1 update is a discrete path sum of shape-function differences, which suggests the same charge-tracking idea could be carried to higher-order or non-product shape functions and to unstructured meshes, if a Gauss-preserving local smoother replaces the cell/line relaxation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a structure-preserving particle-in-cell scheme for electrostatic Vlasov-Ampère/Vlasov-Poisson simulations. The electric field is updated locally as particles move, by splitting each particle displacement into x and y substeps and adjusting edge fields so that the discrete Gauss law remains satisfied; a subsequent local relaxation minimizes the electrostatic free energy over fields satisfying Gauss's law, aiming to recover a curl-free field without solving Poisson or Ampère equations. The main claims are Theorem 3.1 (exact discrete Gauss-law preservation up to round-off), linear complexity per time step, and good behavior on Landau damping, two-stream instability, and diocotron instability. The exposition is clear and the algorithm is easy to implement, and the paper includes comparisons against Ampère-based and Poisson-based PIC updates.

Significance. If correct, the proposed local update would be a valuable addition to PIC methodology: it avoids global elliptic solves, is compatible with local and parallel implementations, and enforces Gauss's law intrinsically rather than by post-hoc correction. The paper contains no fitted parameters, presents an explicit algorithm, and tests standard benchmarks. However, the central theorem rests on a normalization inconsistency in the printed update formulas, and the convergence and complexity of the curl-free relaxation stage are delegated to a same-author preprint. The contribution is therefore promising but not yet established by the manuscript as written.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.2, Eqs. (3.6)–(3.11); proof of Theorem 3.1] With the normalization S(x)=max{0,1−|x|/h}/h stated in §2.2, the products Sx Sy scale as h^{-2} and the field increments in Step 1 are too small by a factor h^2. For the boundary-crossing case of Fig. 1(c), the density at node (i,j) changes by Δn_{i,j} = −ω_p Sx(d^m_{x,i})Sy(d^m_{y,j}); equation (3.3) requires λ²δE_{i+1/2,j}/h = −Δn_{i,j}, which gives δE = +(h/λ²)ω_p Sx(d^m_{x,i})Sy(d^m_{y,j}). The printed update (3.6) instead gives δE = +(1/(λ²h))ω_p Sx(d^m_{x,i})Sy(d^m_{y,j}), which is h^2 smaller. The same factor appears in (3.7)–(3.11) and in the within-cell formulas in §3.2. The proof of Theorem 3.1 silently uses the h/λ² normalization when it writes λ²δE/h = −ω_p[−Sx]Sy; hence the theorem is not established for Algorithm 3.1 as written. Since Step 2 preserves the Gauss-law residual, it cannot repair an inconsistency created by Step 1. Please replace 1/(λ²h) by h/λ² in all Step-1 updates (or change the shape-function normalization consistently) and re-verify the numerical results in §4.
  2. [§3.3, Algorithm 3.1, Step 2] The manuscript does not demonstrate the convergence of the local curl-free relaxation or the claimed linear complexity. Step 2 loops over all cells, rows, and columns; each sweep is O(N²), so the total cost per time step is O(R_s N²), where R_s is the number of iterations. Figures 4(d) and 6(d) plot R_s only versus physical time for fixed N; no study of R_s versus N or versus tolerance is provided. The text delegates the convergence and the Gauss-law-preserving property of Step 2 to the same-author preprint [32]. Since the linear-complexity advantage over a Poisson solver is a central selling point, the paper needs a convergence-rate estimate, or at least a numerical scaling study of R_s as a function of N, together with a self-contained or published proof for the relaxation stage.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.2, Eqs. (3.10)–(3.11)] On the right-hand side of (3.10) and (3.11), E_{i+1/2,j} and E_{i+1/2,j+1} should be E_{l+1/2,j} and E_{l+1/2,j+1}; as printed, the update writes into the initial edge rather than the final edge.
  2. [§3.1] For a periodic domain with N unique grid points, the relation h=L/(N−1) is inconsistent with the N×N Yee mesh and the loops over i,j=0,...,N−1; the conventional periodic spacing is h=L/N (or the indexing should count intervals rather than points). Please clarify.
  3. [§3.3] There is a typographical error: 'supscript' should be 'superscript'. Also, the minimum in (3.15) should be written with parentheses: η = −(∑_{i=0}^{N-1} E^{(q)}_{i+1/2,b})/N.
  4. [Proof of Theorem 3.1] The proof says the within-cell case is omitted 'for brevity'; since the within-cell update is one of the two cases covered by the theorem and is affected by the same normalization issue, it should be included or moved to an appendix.
  5. [§4] The numerical section does not state the mesh spacing h used in the runs. Given the h^2 discrepancy identified above, reporting h and the exact shape-function normalization in the implementation is necessary for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The Step 1 Gauss-law update is derived self-containedly, but the final field's exact Gauss-law and curl-free properties are imported from the same authors' prior works [32,49], making the central claim partially dependent on self-citation.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 3.3, proof of Theorem 3.1 (final paragraph)]
    "Thus, the electric field E∗ satisfies Gauss's law in Step 1. For the relaxation stage from E∗ to Em+1 in Step 2, the Gauss's law preserving property is proved in [32]."

    Theorem 3.1 is the paper's central claim that the whole GP-PIC algorithm maintains the discrete Gauss's law exactly. The proof checks Step 1 directly, but the Step 2 part of the guarantee, the step that actually produces the output field Em+1, is not proved here; it is referred to [32], an arXiv preprint whose authors include Q. Yin and S. Zhou, two of the present authors. Thus the exact-Gauss-law certificate for the final electric field reduces to a self-citation. The preprint is not machine-checked, code-reproduced, or independently benchmarked within this paper, so it does not count as external evidence under the review rules. The fact that the preservation is easily checkable from equations (3.12)-(3.16) does not change what the printed proof actually cites.

  2. uniqueness imported from authors [Section 3.3, first paragraph (free-energy relaxation setup)]
    "It can be shown by the Lagrange multiplier method that the unique minimizer of the constrained optimization problem is the desired solution satisfying the curl-free condition [49]."

    This sentence supplies the bridge from a locally relaxed, Gauss-law-preserving field to a physically admissible electrostatic field: the minimizer of the electric free energy under the Gauss-law constraint is asserted to be the unique curl-free solution. The citation [49] is Qiao, Xu, Yin, and Zhou, the same group as the present paper. The current manuscript does not derive this equivalence; it imports it from the authors' prior work and then treats the output of the Section 3.3 relaxation as the desired curl-free field. This is the uniqueness-imported-from-authors pattern. Although the Lagrange-multiplier fact is standard and could be proved independently, the paper's argument as written leans on a self-citation for a load-bearing identification.

full rationale

The paper contains no fitted parameters renamed as predictions and no benchmark that is forced by construction; the numerical tests compare GP-PIC with Poisson and Ampère references and with theoretical damping/growth rates. The Step 1 field update of Algorithm 3.1 is a self-contained algebraic construction: equations (3.6)-(3.11) are checked against the discrete Gauss law (3.3) using the density changes induced by (2.11). That part is not circular. The circularity concerns are concentrated in the two bridges to the final field. The proof of Theorem 3.1 delegates the Gauss-law-preservation of Step 2 to [32], a same-author preprint, so the exact-Gauss-law guarantee for the actual output field Em+1 is not established within the paper. Likewise, the claim that minimizing the free energy under Gauss's law yields the unique curl-free field is cited to the authors' own [49] rather than proved. The convergence of the relaxation and the scaling of the iteration count with mesh size and tolerance are also delegated to prior local-algorithm literature; the paper's 'linear complexity per time step' claim is not supported by an iteration-count analysis. These are load-bearing self-citations, but they sit on top of an independent Step 1 and standard external methodology, so the appropriate score is 4 rather than a higher 'reduces by construction' score.

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

The method introduces no new physical entities and no fitted physical constants. Its exactness rests on two mathematical assumptions: a shape-function cancellation identity and convergence of the local relaxation stage, the latter borrowed from the authors' prior work. The free-parameter count is zero, but the externalized proof is the main weakness in the ledger.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The shape functions used for charge assignment satisfy an exact partition-of-unity identity of the form Sx(d_i)+Sx(d_{i+1}) = Sx(d'_i)+Sx(d'_{i+1}) for every particle displacement; this identity is used in the proof of Theorem 3.1 after Eqs. (3.6)-(3.11).
    The exactness of the local field update depends on cancellation of overlap terms in the shape function. The paper does not state how the identity changes if higher-order or wider-support shape functions are used.
  • domain assumption The local relaxation updates in Step 2 preserve the discrete Gauss law at every vertex and converge to the unique curl-free minimizer of the electrostatic free energy under the Gauss-law constraint.
    Section 3.3 states this is proved in [32], a same-author preprint, and the current paper does not reproduce the proof or its hypotheses. This is the main external dependency of the central claim.
  • domain assumption The computational setting is a uniform periodic Yee mesh with immobile neutralizing background ions and particle motion confined to the electrostatic limit.
    All numerical tests and the Gauss-law analysis are presented only for this setting. Extension to general boundary conditions or non-uniform meshes is not demonstrated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Intrinsic local Gauss's law preserving PIC method: A self-consistent field-particle update scheme for plasma simulations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CMORW5GR

@misc{pith2026250602407,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Intrinsic local Gauss's law preserving PIC method: A self-consistent field-particle update scheme for plasma simulations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CMORW5GR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02407}
}
read the original abstract

In order to perform physically faithful particle-in-cell (PIC) simulations, the Gauss's law stands as a critical requirement, since its violation often leads to catastrophic errors in long-term plasma simulations. This work proposes a novel method that intrinsically enforces the Gauss's law for the Vlasov-Amp\`ere/Vlasov-Poisson system without requiring auxiliary field corrections or specialized current deposition techniques. The electric field is managed to get updated locally and consistently with the motion of particles via splitting the motion into sub-steps along each dimension of the computational mesh. To further obtain a curl-free electric field, a local update scheme is developed to relax the electric-field free energy subject to the Gauss's law. The proposed method avoids solving the Poisson's or Amp\`ere's equation, resulting in a local algorithm of linear complexity for each time step which can be flexibly combined with various temporal discretization for particle motion in PIC simulations. Theoretical analysis verifies that the proposed method indeed maintains the discrete Gauss's law exactly. Numerical tests on classical benchmarks, including the Landau damping, two-stream instability and Diocotron instability, demonstrate the key advantages of the proposed method. It is expected that the local nature of the proposed method makes it a promising tool in parallel simulations of large-scale plasmas.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.02407 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Electric-field update with particle motion. (a) The particle mot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The correction of the electric field. (a): Local curl-free re [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The square root of electric energy in the simulation of Landau [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Simulation results for the case of the Landau damping with ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The square root of electric energy in the simulation of two-st [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Simulation results for the case of the two-stream instability w [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The x−vx phase space distribution for the case of two-stream instability with λ = 1 and ∆t = 0.05 at time t = 0, 20, 50, 80. The first row shows the results computed by the Amp`ere’s equation. The second row (τ = 10−4 ) and the third row (τ = 10−7 ) are obtained by the…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The distribution of electron in the case of Diocotron instability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The distribution of electron in the case of Diocotron instability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages

  1. [32]

    B. Li, Q. Yin, and S. Zhou. Finite-difference approximat ions and local algorithm for the Poisson and Poisson-Boltzmann electrostatics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.15796 , 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    S. E. Anderson, W. T. Taitano, L. Chac´ on, and A. N. Simako v. An efficient, conservative, time-implicit solver for the fully kinetic arbitrary-spec ies 1D-2V Vlasov-Amp` ere system. J. Comput. Phys. , 419:109686, 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [2]

    Baptista, R

    M. Baptista, R. Schmitz, and B. D¨ unweg. Simple and robus t solver for the Poisson-Boltzmann equation. Phys. Rev. E , 80:016705, 2009

    work page 2009

  4. [3]

    Besse and E

    N. Besse and E. Sonnendr¨ ucker. Semi-Lagrangian scheme s for the Vlasov equation on an unstructured mesh of phase space. J. Comput. Phys. , 191(2):341–376, 2003

    work page 2003

  5. [4]

    C. K. Birdsall and A. B. Langdon. Plasma physics via computer simulation . CRC press, 2018

    work page 2018

  6. [5]

    J. P. Boris. Relativistic plasma simulation-optimizat ion of a hybrid code. In Proc. Fourth Conf. Num. Sim. Plasmas , pages 3–67, 1970

    work page 1970

  7. [6]

    Chac´ on and G

    L. Chac´ on and G. Chen. A curvilinear, fully implicit, co nservative electromagnetic PIC algo- rithm in multiple dimensions. J. Comput. Phys. , 316:578–597, 2016

    work page 2016

  8. [7]

    Chen and L

    G. Chen and L. Chac´ on. A multi-dimensional, energy-and charge-conserving, nonlinearly im- plicit, electromagnetic Vlasov–Darwin particle-in-cell algorithm. Comput. Phys. Commun. , 197:73–87, 2015

    work page 2015

Show all 64 references
  1. [8]

    G. Chen, L. Chac´ on, and D. C. Barnes. An energy- and charg e-conserving, implicit, electrostatic particle-in-cell algorithm. J. Comput. Phys. , 230(18):7018–7036, 2011. 20

    2011

  2. [9]

    G. Chen, L. Chac´ on, L. Yin, B. J. Albright, D. J. Stark, an d R. F. Bird. A semi-implicit, energy-and charge-conserving particle-in-cell algorith m for the relativistic Vlasov-Maxwell equations. J. Comput. Phys. , 407:109228, 2020

    2020

  3. [10]

    Chen and G

    Y. Chen and G. T´ oth. Gauss’s law satisfying energy-con serving semi-implicit particle-in-cell method. J. Comput. Phys. , 386:632–652, 2019

    2019

  4. [11]

    Cheng, A

    Y. Cheng, A. J. Christlieb, and X. Zhong. Energy-conser ving discontinuous Galerkin methods for the Vlasov–Amp` ere system. J. Comput. Phys. , 256:630–655, 2014

    2014

  5. [12]

    B. I. Cohen, A. B. Langdon, and A. Friedman. Implicit tim e integration for plasma simulation. J. Comput. Phys. , 46(1):15–38, 1982

    1982

  6. [13]

    Colonna and A

    G. Colonna and A. D’Angola. Plasma Modeling: Methods and Applications . IOP Publishing, 2022

    2022

  7. [14]

    Cottet and P.-A

    G.-H. Cottet and P.-A. Raviart. Particle methods for th e one-dimensional Vlasov–Poisson equations. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. , 21(1):52–76, 1984

    1984

  8. [15]

    Crouseilles, G

    N. Crouseilles, G. Latu, and E. Sonnendr¨ ucker. A paral lel Vlasov solver based on local cubic spline interpolation on patches. J. Comput. Phys. , 228(5):1429–1446, 2009

    2009

  9. [16]

    Degond, F

    P. Degond, F. Deluzet, L. Navoret, A.-B. Sun, and M.-H. V ignal. Asymptotic-preserving Particle-In-Cell method for the Vlasov–Poisson system nea r quasineutrality. J. Comput. Phys., 229(16):5630–5652, 2010

    2010

  10. [17]

    Fahrenberger and C

    F. Fahrenberger and C. Holm. Computing the Coulomb inte raction in inhomogeneous dielectric media via a local electrostatics lattice algorithm. Phys. Rev. E , 90(6):063304, 2014

    2014

  11. [18]

    Fahrenberger, Z

    F. Fahrenberger, Z. Xu, and C. Holm. Simulation of elect ric double layers around charged colloids in aqueous solution of variable permittivity. J. Chem. Phys. , 141(6):064902, 2014

    2014

  12. [19]

    F. Filbet. Convergence of a finite volume scheme for the V lasov–Poisson system. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. , 39(4):1146–1169, 2001

    2001

  13. [20]

    Filbet and L

    F. Filbet and L. M. Rodrigues. Asymptotically stable pa rticle-in-cell methods for the Vlasov– Poisson system with a strong external magnetic field. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. , 54(2):1120– 1146, 2016

    2016

  14. [21]

    Filbet, E

    F. Filbet, E. Sonnendr¨ ucker, and P. Bertrand. Conserv ative numerical schemes for the Vlasov equation. J. Comput. Phys. , 172(1):166–187, 2001

    2001

  15. [22]

    A. Gu, Y. He, and Y. Sun. Hamiltonian Particle-in-Cell m ethods for Vlasov–Poisson equations. J. Comput. Phys. , 467:111472, 2022

    2022

  16. [23]

    Guo and J.-M

    W. Guo and J.-M. Qiu. A conservative low rank tensor meth od for the Vlasov dynamics. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. , 46(1):A232–A263, 2024

    2024

  17. [24]

    G. J. M. Hagelaar and L. C. Pitchford. Solving the Boltzm ann equation to obtain electron transport coefficients and rate coefficients for fluid models. Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. , 14(4):722–733, 2005

    2005

  18. [25]

    L. Ji, Z. Yang, Z. Li, D. W u, S. Jin, and Z. Xu. An asymptoti c-preserving and energy-conserving particle-in-cell method for Vlasov–Maxwell equations. J. Math. Phys. , 64(6):063503, 2023

    2023

  19. [26]

    Jiang and Z

    J. Jiang and Z. W ang. Improved local lattice monte carlo simulation for charged systems. J. Chem. Phys. , 148(11):114105, 2018

    2018

  20. [27]

    Kirchhart and R

    M. Kirchhart and R. P. Wilhelm. The numerical flow iterat ion for the Vlasov–Poisson equation. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. , 46(3):A1972–A1997, 2024

    2024

  21. [28]

    Kormann and E

    K. Kormann and E. Sonnendr¨ ucker. A dual grid geometric electromagnetic particle in cell method. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. , 46(5):B621–B646, 2024

    2024

  22. [29]

    A. B. Langdon. On enforcing Gauss’ law in electromagnet ic particle-in-cell codes. Comput. Phys. Commun. , 70(3):447–450, 1992

    1992

  23. [30]

    G. Lapenta. Kinetic plasma simulation: Particle in cel l method. XII Carolus Magnus Summer School on Plasma and Fusion Energy Physics , pages 76–85, 2015

    2015

  24. [31]

    G. Lapenta. Exactly energy conserving semi-implicit p article in cell formulation. J. Comput. Phys., 334:349–366, 2017

    2017

  25. [33]

    Z. Li, Z. Xu, and Z. Yang. An energy-conserving Fourier p article-in-cell method with asymptotic-preserving preconditioner for Vlasov-Amp` ere system with exact curl-free con- straint. J. Comput. Phys. , 495:112529, 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    Liang, Z

    J. Liang, Z. Xu, and Y. Zhao. Energy stable scheme for ran dom batch molecular dynamics. J. Chem. Phys. , 160(3):034101, 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    Liu and K

    C. Liu and K. Xu. A unified gas kinetic scheme for continuu m and rarefied flows v: Multiscale and multi-component plasma transport. Commun. Comput. Phys. , 22(5):1175–1223, 2017

    2017

  28. [36]

    H. Liu, X. Cai, Y. Cao, and G. Lapenta. An efficient energy c onserving semi-Lagrangian kinetic scheme for the Vlasov-Amp` ere system. J. Comput. Phys. , 492:112412, 2023

    2023

  29. [37]

    A. C. Maggs. Dynamics of a local algorithm for simulatin g Coulomb interactions. J. Chem. 21 Phys., 117(5):1975–1981, 2002

    1975

  30. [38]

    A. C. Maggs and V. Rossetto. Local simulation algorithm s for Coulomb interactions. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 88:196402, 2002

    2002

  31. [39]

    P. J. Mardahl and J. P. Verboncoeur. Charge conservatio n in electromagnetic PIC codes; spec- tral comparison of Boris/DADI and Langdon-Marder methods. Comput. Phys. Commun. , 106(3):219–229, 1997

    1997

  32. [40]

    B. Marder. A method for incorporating Gauss’ law into el ectromagnetic PIC codes. J. Comput. Phys., 68(1):48–55, 1987

    1987

  33. [41]

    R. J. Mason. Implicit moment particle simulation of pla smas. J. Comput. Phys. , 41(2):233–244, 1981

    1981

  34. [42]

    Medaglia, L

    A. Medaglia, L. Pareschi, and M. Zanella. Stochastic Ga lerkin particle methods for kinetic equations of plasmas with uncertainties. J. Comput. Phys. , 479:112011, 2023

    2023

  35. [43]

    R. L. Morse and C. W. Nielson. Numerical simulation of th e weibel instability in one and two dimensions. Phys. Fluids , 14:830–840, 1971

    1971

  36. [44]

    B. J. Muga and J. F. Wilson. Particle-in-cell method. In Dynamic Analysis of Ocean Structures , pages 105–116. Springer, 1970

    1970

  37. [45]

    C.-D. Munz, P. Omnes, R. Schneider, E. Sonnendr¨ ucker, and U. Voss. Divergence correction techniques for Maxwell solvers based on a hyperbolic model. J. Comput. Phys. , 161(2):484– 511, 2000

    2000

  38. [46]

    Myers, P

    A. Myers, P. Colella, and B. V. Straalen. A 4th-order par ticle-in-cell method with phase-space remapping for the Vlasov–Poisson equation. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. , 39(3):B467–B485, 2017

    2017

  39. [47]

    Pasichnyk and B

    I. Pasichnyk and B. D¨ unweg. Coulomb interactions via l ocal dynamics: A molecular-dynamics algorithm. J. Phys: Condens. Matter , 16:S3999, 2004

    2004

  40. [48]

    M. C. Pinto and F. Charles. Uniform convergence of a line arly transformed particle method for the Vlasov–Poisson system. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. , 54(1):137–160, 2016

    2016

  41. [49]

    Z. Qiao, Z. Xu, Q. Yin, and S. Zhou. A Maxwell–Amp` ere Ner nst–Planck framework for modeling charge dynamics. SIAM J. Appl. Math. , 83(2):374–393, 2023

    2023

  42. [50]

    Z. Qiao, Z. Xu, Q. Yin, and S. Zhou. Structure-preservin g numerical method for Maxwell- Amp` ere Nernst-Planck model.J. Comput. Phys. , 475:111845, 2023

    2023

  43. [51]

    Z. Qiao, Z. Xu, Q. Yin, and S. Zhou. Local structure-pres erving relaxation method for equi- librium of charged systems on unstructured meshes. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. , 46(4):A2248– A2269, 2024

    2024

  44. [52]

    Qiu and C.-W

    J.-M. Qiu and C.-W. Shu. Conservative Semi-Lagrangian finite difference WENO formulations with applications to the Vlasov equation. Commun. Comput. Phys. , 10(4):979–1000, 2011

    2011

  45. [53]

    L. F. Ricketson and A. J. Cerfon. Sparse grid techniques for particle-in-cell schemes. Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion , 59(2):024002, 2016

    2016

  46. [54]

    L. F. Ricketson and G. Chen. A pseudospectral implicit p article-in-cell method with exact energy and charge conservation. Comput. Phys. Commun. , 291:108811, 2023

    2023

  47. [55]

    L. F. Ricketson and J. Hu. An explicit, energy-conservi ng particle-in-cell scheme. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.09605, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Rottler and A

    J. Rottler and A. C. Maggs. A continuum, O (N) Monte Carlo algorithm for charged particles. J. Chem. Phys. , 120(7):3119–3129, 2004

    2004

  49. [57]

    Rottler and A

    J. Rottler and A. C. Maggs. Local molecular dynamics wit h Coulombic interactions. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 93(17):170201, 2004

    2004

  50. [58]

    I. V. Sokolov. Alternating-order interpolation in a ch arge-conserving scheme for particle-in-cell simulations. Compu. Phys. Commun. , 184(2):320–328, 2013

    2013

  51. [59]

    Taflove, K.R

    A. Taflove, K.R. Umashankar, B. Beker, F. Harfoush, and K . S. Yee. Detailed FD-TD analysis of electromagnetic fields penetrating narrow slots and lapp ed joints in thick conducting screens. IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat. , 36:247–257, 1988

    1988

  52. [60]

    W. T. Taitano, J. W. Burby, and A. Alekseenko. A conditio nal formulation of the Vlasov- Amp` ere equations: A conservative, positivity, asymptoti c, and Gauss law preserving scheme. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.20106 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Villasenor and O

    J. Villasenor and O. Buneman. Rigorous charge conserva tion for local electromagnetic field solvers. Comput. Phys. Commun. , 69(2-3):306–316, 1992

    1992

  54. [62]

    W ang, G

    B. W ang, G. H. Miller, and P. Colella. A particle-in-cel l method with adaptive phase-space remapping for kinetic plasmas. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. , 33(6):3509–3537, 2011

    2011

  55. [63]

    K. Yee. Numerical solution of initial boundary value pr oblems involving Maxwell’s equations in isotropic media. IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagat. , 14(3):302–307, 1966

    1966

  56. [64]

    S. Zhou, Z. W ang, and B. Li. Mean-field description of ion ic size effects with non-uniform ionic sizes: A numerical approach. Phys. Rev. E , 84:021901, 2011. 22

    2011

Pith tools

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