Compact finite-difference scheme for some Sobolev type equations with Dirichlet boundary conditions

Lavanya V Salian; Rakesh Kumar; Samala Rathan

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Compact finite-difference scheme for some Sobolev type equations with Dirichlet boundary conditions

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper constructs a sixth-order compact finite-difference scheme, Compact6, and claims O(τ + h^6) accuracy with a von Neumann stability bound for Sobolev-type equations under Dirichlet conditions.

desk verdict The stability theorem is vacuous and the boundary closure assumes data that a two-point Dirichlet problem does not provide; the numerical study is extensive and useful, but the theory needs major repair. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18445 v2 pith:EYCELQFJ submitted 2024-11-27 math.NA cs.NA

Lavanya V Salian , Samala Rathan , Rakesh Kumar This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.NAcs.NA MSC 65M0665M12

keywords compactfinitedifferenceSobolev-typeequationsequal-widthequationBenjamin-Bona-Mahony-BurgersDirichletboundaryconditionsvonNeumannstabilitysixth-orderaccuracyforwardEuler

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

The paper constructs a sixth-order compact finite-difference scheme, Compact6, for one-dimensional Sobolev-type equations of the form $u_t + f(u)_x - \gamma u_{xx} - \delta u_{xxt} = g$ with Dirichlet boundary conditions, combining compact spatial stencils with explicit forward-Euler time stepping. It claims a local truncation error of order $O(\tau + h^6)$ and, for the linear equation $u_t + \alpha u_x = \gamma u_{xx} + \delta u_{xxt}$, establishes through von Neumann analysis an $L^2$-stability condition on the time step plus exponential decay of the semi-discrete amplification factor. The scheme is then demonstrated on the equal-width and Benjamin–Bona–Mahony–Burgers equations, covering solitary-wave propagation, two- and three-wave interactions, undular bore formation, and one- and two-dimensional advection and advection-diffusion tests. A sympathetic reader would care because the compact stencils reach sixth-order spatial accuracy on narrow, sparse matrices, and the numerical tests confirm that accuracy while preserving the conserved quantities of the equal-width equation over long integration times.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Compact6 differentiation pair: sixth-order compact (Hermitian) finite-difference approximations of $u_x$ and $u_{xx}$ on a cell-node grid, written as $A_1 u' = h^{-1}B_1 u$ and $A_2 u'' = h^{-2}B_2 u$ with tridiagonal $A$ and pentadiagonal $B$ matrices, closed near the boundaries by sixth-order one-sided formulas at $x_3$ and $x_{N-2}$. These assemble into the implicit-explicit time-stepping system (2.10), in which forward Euler advances the nonlinear and diffusive terms while the $\delta u_{xxt}$ term makes the update implicit through $(I - \delta h^{-2}D_2)$. The stability argument operates on the Fourier symbol $\mathcal{C}(\theta)$ obtained by substituting $u_j(t) = \hat{u}(t)e^{ij\theta}$ into the compact stencils; the real part of $\mathcal{C}(\theta)$ governs exponential decay and condition (3.11) comes from requiring $|L(\theta)|^2 \le 1 + 2C\tau$.

What would settle it

Using the paper's Example 4.1 on $[0,30]$ with initial data $\sin(x)$, impose homogeneous Dirichlet conditions at the two endpoints and supply the two near-boundary values on each side not from the exact solution but from the compact stencil itself; if the observed convergence rate at the near-boundary points drops below sixth order, or the method is not well-posed, then the claimed Dirichlet treatment does not realize sixth-order accuracy for the stated problem class.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Spatial derivatives are approximated by a sixth-order compact (Hermitian) stencil pair: the first derivative by $\frac{1}{3}u'_{j-1}+u'_j+\frac{1}{3}u'_{j+1} = \frac{14}{9}\frac{u_{j+1}-u_{j-1}}{2h} + \frac{1}{9}\frac{u_{j+2}-u_{j-2}}{4h}$ and the second derivative by the analogous $2/11$ stencil, with sixth-order one-sided closures at $x_3$ and $x_{N-2}$. Assembled as $A_1 u' = h^{-1}B_1 u$ and $A_2 u'' = h^{-2}B_2 u$, these operators turn the Sobolev-type equation into the matrix system (2.10), where the mixed derivative $\delta u_{xxt}$ enters through the factor $(I - \delta h^{-2}D_2)$. The paper's central claims are: (i) the fully discrete scheme has local truncation error $O(\tau + h^6)$; (ii) for the linearized equation, the Fourier amplification factor $\mathcal{C}(\theta)$ has the form (3.7), and stability holds under the time-step bound (3.11) with the semi-discrete solution decaying as $e^{\operatorname{Re}\mathcal{C}(\theta)t}$; (iii) the numerical experiments verify sixth-order spatial and first-order temporal convergence, the predicted stability threshold, and good conservation of the three equal-width invariants.

Load-bearing premise

The boundary closure assumes that the values $u_1^n, u_2^n, u_{N-1}^n, u_N^n$ are supplied by the Dirichlet condition, but a two-point Dirichlet condition only prescribes the two endpoints, so the scheme as stated depends on near-boundary data the problem does not provide.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

As $h \to 0$, the spatial error falls at sixth order, so grids of a few hundred points reach errors near $10^{-6}$–$10^{-8}$ on smooth solutions in both 1D and 2D.
The time step must obey the stability bound (3.11); in the tested examples the threshold is about $\tau=2$, and stepping to $\tau=2.1$ produces blow-up by $T=1000$ while $\tau=2$ stays bounded to $T=10000$.
For the linear equation the numerical solution satisfies the exponential-decay estimate $\|u(t)\|_\infty \le e^{\operatorname{Re}\mathcal{C}(\theta)t}\|u_0\|_\infty$, and the tests confirm the magnitude stays inside that bound.
On the equal-width equation, the scheme propagates single, double, and triple solitary waves and forms undular bores, keeping the three invariants $I_1,I_2,I_3$ within small percentage errors over the simulated times.
Because time stepping is first-order Euler, the overall method is $O(\tau + h^6)$; the numerical tables show first-order temporal convergence at fixed spatial resolution.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural extension is to replace forward Euler with a higher-order or implicit-explicit time integrator so that the temporal error no longer dominates; the compact spatial operators and their boundary closures would carry over unchanged.
The Dirichlet treatment as written relies on four solution values near each edge; for a genuine two-point Dirichlet problem, those interior values must be produced by some other rule, which may downgrade the observed sixth-order boundary accuracy unless a compatible extrapolation is supplied.
The stability condition (3.11) is expressed through $\theta$-dependent quantities $P$ and $Q$; verifying that a single positive constant $C$ can satisfy the inequality for every Fourier mode is a necessary check before the linear $L^2$-stability claim is fully settled.
The same differentiation matrices could be applied to other third-order dispersion models such as the regularized long-wave equation by changing only the nonlinear flux, suggesting the compact stencil pair is a transferable building block.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things you should know before reading closely. Theorem 3.2, the paper's central stability result, is vacuous: the constant C defined in its proof is non-positive for every θ (because P ≤ 0 and the denominator is positive), so condition (3.11) reduces to τ ≤ 0. The stability thresholds quoted in the examples, e.g. τ ≤ 2(1 + 7h²/48), come from setting C = 0, not from the theorem. And the boundary closure in Section 2 treats u₂ and u_{N−1} as known from the Dirichlet condition; for a standard two-point Dirichlet problem only the endpoint values are prescribed. The exact-solution tests mask this by supplying the missing near-boundary data.

What is genuinely useful is the numerical study. The authors apply Lele's sixth-order compact spatial discretization to the equal-width and BBMB equations with forward Euler in time, and they report clean sixth-order spatial convergence across many test problems, including 2D, solitary-wave interactions, and undular bores. The comparisons with the earlier B-spline quasi-interpolation methods are honest, and Compact6 gives smaller errors. If the code really achieves what the tables show, the scheme is a practical alternative for this class of equations.

The soft spots go beyond the stability theorem. The boundary formulas in Section 2 appear to be lower-order than claimed: (2.14) is the standard fourth-order five-point second-derivative stencil, and the six-point first-derivative formula is fifth-order by my count. Yet the tables show sixth-order convergence. Either the implementation differs from the text, or the boundary-point errors are somehow not dominating; either way the description is unreliable. The stability proof is not a minor typo: substituting the defined C into (3.11) gives a zero numerator. The C = 0 bound is the classical von Neumann condition, which is fine, but it is not what the theorem states.

Who is this for? Someone working on high-order compact methods for Sobolev-type equations might find the numerical experiments a useful starting point, but not citable as is. The paper should not be desk-rejected; a serious referee should require a corrected stability analysis and a valid Dirichlet boundary closure using only endpoint data with matching-order one-sided formulas. If those are fixed, the numerical core is publishable.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a sixth-order compact finite-difference method (Compact6) for Sobolev-type equations of the form u_t + f(u)_x - γu_xx - δu_xxt = g with Dirichlet boundary conditions, using Lele-type compact stencils in space and forward Euler in time. It states a local truncation error result O(τ + h^6), a von Neumann L2-stability theorem for the linearized problem, and a broad collection of 1D and 2D numerical tests, including equal-width and Benjamin-Bona-Mahony-Burgers equations. The central theoretical claims are Theorem 2.1 on accuracy and Theorem 3.2 on stability.

Significance. If the results were correct, the paper would provide a useful high-order compact scheme with an explicit stability condition for a class of Sobolev equations, supported by extensive numerical comparisons with B-spline methods. The numerical experiments are a clear strength: the convergence tables are clean, the empirical stability threshold is consistent with the limiting von Neumann bound, and the invariant-conservation checks for the equal-width equation are informative. However, the main stability theorem is algebraically inconsistent, and the boundary treatment assumes near-boundary data that are not available in a standard two-point Dirichlet problem. These defects bear directly on the central claims, so the contribution as presented cannot be accepted.

major comments (3)

[Section 3, Theorem 3.2 and Eq. (3.11)] The stability condition is vacuous as stated. The proof defines D = 1 - δP/(2h^2) and sets C = Re(γP/(2h^2) - iαQ/(6h))/D = γP/(2h^2 D). Since P = (48 cos θ + 3 cos 2θ - 51)/(11 + 4 cos θ) = 6(cos θ - 1)(cos θ + 9)/(11 + 4 cos θ) ≤ 0 for all real θ and D > 1, this C is non-positive and cannot serve as the positive constant required in (3.11). Substituting this C into (3.11) gives numerator factor C D - γP/(2h^2) = 0, so the bound reduces to τ ≤ 0. The thresholds quoted in Examples 4.1 and 4.3, e.g. τ ≤ 2(1 + 7h^2/48), are obtained by setting C = 0 in (3.11), not by Theorem 3.2.
[Section 2, before Eq. (2.13) and in Eqs. (2.13), (2.17)] The boundary treatment is not a Dirichlet treatment. The text states that u_j^n for j = 1, 2, N-1, N are obtained from the boundary condition and treated as known, and Eqs. (2.13) and (2.17) move u_2^n and u_{N-1}^n into the source terms. For an initial-boundary value problem with two-point Dirichlet conditions, only u_1^n and u_N^n are prescribed; u_2^n and u_{N-1}^n are unknowns. The exact-solution experiments in Section 4 mask this by supplying these near-boundary values from the manufactured solution, while the equal-width and BBMB examples prescribe only endpoint zero or sech data. Thus the scheme as presented solves a different problem, and the reported sixth-order rates do not demonstrate convergence for the stated Dirichlet initial-boundary value problem.
[Section 2, Eq. (2.14)] The formula labeled a sixth-order one-sided approximation for the second derivative at x_3 and x_{N-2} is the standard five-point centered formula with fourth-order truncation error; its leading error term is -(h^4/90) u^{(6)}. Since these rows are part of the discrete system, the claimed local truncation error O(τ + h^6) in Theorem 2.1 does not follow for the scheme as written. The clean sixth-order rates in Tables 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 12 require an explanation, such as a different boundary closure in the actual implementation.

minor comments (4)

[Eq. (2.15)] Equation (2.15) writes A_2 u'' = (1/h)(B_2 u^n + C_2^n); from Eqs. (2.5)-(2.6) and (2.14), the factor should be 1/h^2.
[Abstract and title] The abstract contains the duplicated phrase 'cases of cases', and the title and body contain typographical artifacts such as 'Com pact' and 'EQUA TIONS'.
[Example 4.9] The initial condition is stated twice in Eq. (4.19): 'u(x,0) = u(x,0) = sech(x)'.
[Tables 8 and 10] Several entries have broken exponent formatting, such as '1.5552e-0 3', which should be corrected for readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Compact6 discretization is imported from Lele and the stability analysis is attempted from first principles; Theorem 3.2 has an internal sign error, but that is a correctness defect, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained. The spatial derivative matrices and their truncation errors are taken from Lele's independent compact-scheme paper [21], and the near-boundary one-sided formulas are derived in the manuscript by Taylor expansion. Theorem 2.1's O(tau + h^6) local truncation error follows by substituting Taylor expansions into the forward-Euler-in-time, Compact6-in-space scheme; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The stability section constructs the amplification factor L(theta) from the Fourier mode of the same discretization and derives condition (3.11) algebraically. Although Theorem 3.2 contains a serious internal inconsistency -- the constant C defined in its proof is nonpositive for typical parameter values, so the claimed positive-C stability condition does not follow, and the Examples 4.1 and 4.3 thresholds use C = 0 -- this is an error in a mathematical proof rather than a circular dependency: the numerical convergence tests are checked against exact solutions, and the comparisons with CBSQI/ICBSQI are independent benchmarks. The self-citations to the authors' earlier B-spline works [19,20] and compact/WENO papers [31,32] appear in related-work and comparison contexts; they are not load-bearing for the derivative approximation or the stability claim. The boundary treatment does assume u_2 and u_{N-1} are supplied as data, which is a Dirichlet-implementation concern, not a self-referential prediction.

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

The scheme introduces no new parameters or physical entities. The main unstated premises are the availability of four near-boundary values from Dirichlet conditions, and the applicability of periodic von Neumann analysis to the non-periodic boundary closure. The smoothness and invertibility assumptions are standard background, but the boundary-data assumption is specific to this paper and is not satisfied by a genuine two-point Dirichlet problem.

assumptions (4)

standard math The exact solution belongs to C^8_2((a,b) x [0,T]) for the truncation error estimate.
Invoked in Theorem 2.1 to assert the local truncation error O(tau + h^6). Smoothness of the exact solution is a standard assumption in finite difference analysis.
domain assumption The compact derivative matrices A1 and A2 are invertible, and the one-sided boundary closures preserve sixth-order accuracy.
The scheme is defined by solving systems with A1 and A2, and the boundary rows in (2.12) and (2.16) replace the interior compact relations with explicit one-sided formulas. No proof is given that these boundary closures maintain the claimed global accuracy.
ad hoc to paper Values u^n_j for j=1,2,N-1,N are known from the Dirichlet boundary condition.
Stated in Section 2 under 'Boundary conditions'. A standard two-point Dirichlet problem fixes only the two endpoints, so this assumption is not valid for the general problem class claimed in the title and abstract.
domain assumption The von Neumann analysis on an unbounded or periodic domain describes the bounded-domain scheme with the one-sided boundary closures.
The stability derivations in Section 3 use a single Fourier mode and ignore the boundary closures. The transfer from the periodic analysis to the actual Dirichlet problem is not justified.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Compact finite-difference scheme for some Sobolev type equations with Dirichlet boundary conditions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EYCELQFJ

@misc{pith2026241118445,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Compact finite-difference scheme for some Sobolev type equations with Dirichlet boundary conditions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EYCELQFJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18445}
}

abstract

This study aims to construct a stable, high-order compact finite difference method for solving Sobolev-type equations with Dirichlet boundary conditions in one-space dimension. Approximation of higher-order mixed derivatives in some specific Sobolev-type equations requires a bigger stencil information. One can approximate such derivatives on compact stencils, which are higher-order accurate and take less stencil information but are implicit and sparse. Spatial derivatives in this work are approximated using the sixth-order compact finite difference method (Compact6), while temporal derivatives are handled with the explicit forward Euler difference scheme. We examine the accuracy and convergence behavior of the proposed scheme. Using the von Neumann stability analysis, we establish $L_2-$stability theory for the linear case. We derive conditions under which fully discrete schemes are stable. Also, the amplification factor $\mathcal{C}(\theta)$ is analyzed to ensure the decay property over time. Real parts of $\mathcal{C}(\theta)$ lying on the negative real axis confirm the exponential decay of the solution. A series of numerical experiments were performed to verify the effectiveness of the proposed scheme. These tests include both one dimensional and two-dimensional cases of cases of advection-free and advection-diffusion flows. They also cover applications to the equal width equation, such as the propagation of a single solitary wave, interactions between two and three solitary waves, undular bore formation, and the Benjamin-Bona-Mahony-Burgers equation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18445 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** (i) Absolute error distribution for the Compact6 method in Example 4.1 at T = 1. (ii) Comparison of the numerical solution from the Compact6 method (o symbols) with the exact solution (solid line) at T = 1. with initial condition u(x, y, 0) = sin(x) sin(y). The exact solution is given by u(x, y, t) = e −2t/3 sin(x) sin(y) in the same domain. The numerical results at T = 1 over the spatial region [0, 30]× [0, 30] are… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Comparison of CBSQI, ICBSQI and Compact6 schemes in terms of L∞ errors (in log10 scale) for Example 4.1 at T = 1 and τ = 0.0001. 0 5 10 15 t 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 LHS using Compact6 RHS (i) Exponential Decay Validation 3.4995 3.5 3.5005 t 0.1736 0.1737 0.1738 LHS using Compact6 RHS (ii) Decay Estimate Close-Up [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (11 more)

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: (i) Numerical validation of the exponential decay from Theorem 3.1 using the Compact6 method. (ii) Zoom around t = 3.5 showing the decay estimate (3.8). -o- line: left-hand side of (3.8), dashed line: right-hand side. the L∞, L 1 , and L 2 errors, which indicate that t…

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Numerical solutions obtained using the Compact6 method for Example 4.1 with N = 100: (a) τ = 2 and (b) τ = 2.1 at T = 1000, and (c) τ = 2 and (d) τ = 2.1 at T = 10, 000. the others, yielding significantly smaller errors and showcasing its superior accuracy and robustn…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Numerical solution and corresponding contour plot obtained using the Compact6 scheme Example 4.2 at final time T = 1, with a grid resolution of Nx × Ny = 320 × 320. We then examine linear stability under the conditions specified by equation 3.11, where the stability cr…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Numerical solutions using the Compact6 method for Example in 4.3 at T = 1000 with N = 100: (i) τ = 2, (ii) τ = 2.1. Example 4.4. (Advection-Diffusion Flow) We extend the study to two dimensions by considering the 2D linear Sobolev-type equation (4.4) ut + ux + uy = uxx…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Comparison of CBSQI, ICBSQI and Compact6 schemes in terms of L∞ errors (in log10 scale) for Example 4.3 at T = 1 and τ = 0.0001 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: (a) Absolute error distribution for the Compact6 method in Example 4.5 at T = 200. (b) Comparison of the numerical solution from the Compact6 method (o symbols) with the exact solution (solid line) at T = 200 with N = 100. Example 4.6. (Interaction of two solitary wave…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Comparison of CBSQI, ICBSQI and Compact6 schemes in terms of L∞ errors (in log10 scale) for Example 4.5 at T = 200 and τ = 0.0001. The relative changes in the invariants I1, I2, and I3 at t = 25 for the current method are 3.3634e03%, 5.5535e-02%, and 8.9002e-02%, resp…

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Numerical solution of EW equation with N = 300 and 0 ≤ T ≤ 100 for Example 4.6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Numerical solution of EW equation with N = 300 and 0 ≤ T ≤ 15 for Example 4.7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_11.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Numerical solution of EW equation with N = 200 for Example 4.16. Example 4.9. Here, we examine the inhomogeneous BBMB equation (1.4), using the initial condition (4.19) u(x, 0) = u(x, 0) = sech(x), −10 < x < 10, and the boundary conditions (4.20) u(a, t) = sech(a − t…

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: Comparison of CBSQI, ICBSQI and Compact6 schemes in terms of L∞ errors (in log10 scale) for Example 4.9 at T = 1 and τ = 0.0001. 5. Conclusion In this study, we developed a sixth-order compact finite difference scheme, Compact6, aimed at achieving high-accuracy numeri…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Spectral Analysis of Node- and Cell-Centered Higher-Order Compact Schemes for Fully Discrete One and Two-Dimensional Convection-Dispersion Equation
math.NA 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

For three high-order compact spatial schemes coupled with SSPRK3 time stepping, the paper identifies stability limits and dispersion-error regions for 1D and 2D convection-dispersion (KdV-type) equations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Abbasbandy and A

S. Abbasbandy and A. Shirzadi. The ﬁrst integral method f or modiﬁed benjamin–bona–mahony equation. Com- munications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation , 15(7):1759–1764, 2010

work page 2010
[2]

Achouri, N

T. Achouri, N. Khiari, and K. Omrani. On the convergence o f diﬀerence schemes for the benjamin–bona–mahony (bbm) equation. Applied mathematics and computation , 182(2):999–1005, 2006

work page 2006
[3]

B. S. Bahrami, H. Abdollahzadeh, I. Berijani, D. Ganji, a nd M. Abdollahzadeh. Exact travelling solutions for some nonlinear physical models by (g‘/g)-expansion method . Pramana, 77:263–275, 2011

work page 2011
[4]

G. I. Barenblatt, I. P. Zheltov, and I. Kochina. Basic con cepts in the theory of seepage of homogeneous liquids in ﬁssured rocks [strata]. Journal of applied mathematics and mechanics , 24(5):1286–1303, 1960

work page 1960
[5]

Bruz´ on

M. Bruz´ on. Weak self-adjointness and conservation laws for a family of benjamin-bona-mahony-burgers equations. Discontinuity and Complexity in Nonlinear Physical System s, pages 23–34, 2014

work page 2014
[6]

Bruz´ on and M

M. Bruz´ on and M. Gandarias. Conservation laws for a fami ly of benjamin-bona-mahony-burgers equations. In 2012 IEEE 4th International Conference on Nonlinear Scienc e and Complexity (NSC) , pages 155–160. IEEE, 2012

work page 2012
[7]

Bruz´ on, T

M. Bruz´ on, T. Garrido, and R. De la Rosa. Conservation la ws and exact solutions of a generalized benjamin– bona–mahony–burgers equation. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals , 89:578–583, 2016

work page 2016
[8]

Dehghan, M

M. Dehghan, M. Abbaszadeh, and A. Mohebbi. The numerical solution of nonlinear high dimensional general- ized benjamin–bona–mahony–burgers equation via the meshl ess method of radial basis functions. Computers & Mathematics with Applications , 68(3):212–237, 2014

work page 2014

Show all 41 references

[9]

A. Esen. A numerical solution of the equal width wave equa tion by a lumped galerkin method. Applied mathe- matics and computation , 168(1):270–282, 2005

2005
[10]

R. E. Ewing. A coupled non-linear hyperbolic-sobolev s ystem. Annali di Matematica Pura ed Applicata , 114:331– 349, 1977

1977
[11]

Ganji, D

Z. Ganji, D. Ganji, and H. Bararnia. Approximate genera l and explicit solutions of nonlinear bbmb equations by exp-function method. Applied Mathematical Modelling , 33(4):1836–1841, 2009

2009
[12]

F. Gao, J. Cui, and G. Zhao. Weak galerkin ﬁnite element m ethods for sobolev equation. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics , 317:188–202, 2017. 28 LA V ANYA V SALIAN § , SAMALA RATHAN § AND RAKESH KUMAR †

2017
[13]

Gao and X

F. Gao and X. Wang. A modiﬁed weak galerkin ﬁnite element method for sobolev equation. Journal of Compu- tational Mathematics , pages 307–322, 2015

2015
[14]

Gardner, G

L. Gardner, G. Gardner, F. Ayoub, and N. Amein. Simulati ons of the ew undular bore. Communications in Numerical Methods in Engineering , 13(7):583–592, 1997

1997
[15]

Guo and S

C. Guo and S. Fang. Optimal decay rates of solutions for a multidimensional generalized benjamin–bona–mahony equation. Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications , 75(7):3385–3392, 2012

2012
[16]

Hamdi, W

S. Hamdi, W. H. Enright, W. E. Schiesser, and J. Gottlieb . Exact solutions of the generalized equal width wave equation. In International Conference on Computational Science and Its Applications, pages 725–734. Springer, 2003

2003
[17]

S. R. Jena and A. Senapati. On numerical soliton and conv ergence analysis of benjamin-bona-mahony-burger equation via octic b-spline collocation. Arab Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences , 30(1):146–163, 2023

2023
[18]

Joshi, M

P. Joshi, M. Pathak, and J. Lin. Numerical study of gener alized 2-d nonlinear benjamin–bona–mahony–burgers equation using modiﬁed cubic b-spline diﬀerential quadrat ure method. Alexandria Engineering Journal , 67:409– 424, 2023

2023
[19]

Kumar and S

R. Kumar and S. Baskar. B-spline quasi-interpolation b ased numerical methods for some sobolev type equations. Journal of computational and applied mathematics , 292:41–66, 2016

2016
[20]

Kumar, A

R. Kumar, A. Choudhary, and S. Baskar. Modiﬁed cubic b-s pline quasi-interpolation numerical scheme for hy- perbolic conservation laws. Applicable Analysis, 99(1):158–179, 2020

2020
[21]

S. K. Lele. Compact ﬁnite diﬀerence schemes with spectr al-like resolution. Journal of computational physics , 103(1):16–42, 1992

1992
[22]

R. LeVeque. Finite volume methods for hyperbolic probl ems, 2002

2002
[23]

Morrison, J

P. Morrison, J. Meiss, and J. Cary. Scattering of regula rized-long-wave solitary waves. Physica D: nonlinear phenomena, 11(3):324–336, 1984

1984
[24]

M. A. Noor, K. I. Noor, A. Waheed, and E. A. Al-Said. Some n ew solitonary solutions of the modiﬁed benjamin– bona–mahony equation. Computers & Mathematics with Applications , 62(4):2126–2131, 2011

2011
[25]

P. J. Olver. Euler operators and conservation laws of th e bbm equation. In Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society , volume 85, pages 143–160. Cambridge University Press, 197 9
[26]

D. H. Peregrine. Calculations of the development of an u ndular bore. Journal of Fluid Mechanics , 25(2):321–330, 1966

1966
[27]

Qinghua and C

X. Qinghua and C. Zhengzheng. Degenerate boundary laye r solutions to the generalized benjamin-bonamahony- burgers equation. Acta Mathematica Scientia , 32(5):1743–1758, 2012

2012
[28]

K. R. Raslan. A computational method for the equal width equation. International Journal of Computer Math- ematics, 81(1):63–72, 2004

2004
[29]

B. Saka. A ﬁnite element method for equal width equation . Applied Mathematics and Computation , 175(1):730– 747, 2006

2006
[30]

A. H. Salas, B. A. Frias, et al. New periodic and soliton s olutions for the generalized bbm and burgers–bbm equations. Applied Mathematics and Computation , 217(4):1430–1434, 2010

2010
[31]

L. V. Salian, S. Rathan, and D. Ghosh. A novel central com pact ﬁnite-diﬀerence scheme for third derivatives with high spectral resolution. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.00569 , 2024

2024 arXiv
[32]

L. V. Salian and R. Samala. Exponential approximation s pace reconstruction weighted essentially nonoscillatory scheme for dispersive partial diﬀerential equations. Mathematical Methods in the Applied Sciences , 47(4):1823– 1851, 2024

2024
[33]

D. Shi. On the initial boundary value problem of nonline ar the equation of the moisture in soil. Acta Math. Appl. Sin, 13(1):33–40, 1990

1990
[34]

G. Strang. Accurate partial diﬀerence methods. Numerische mathematik , 6(1):37–46, 1964

1964
[35]

J. C. Strikwerda. Finite diﬀerence schemes and partial diﬀerential equations . SIAM, 2004

2004
[36]

Tari and D

H. Tari and D. Ganji. Approximate explicit solutions of nonlinear bbmb equations by he’s methods and comparison with the exact solution. Physics Letters A , 367(1-2):95–101, 2007

2007
[37]

D. W. Taylor. Research on consolidation of clays . Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1942

1942
[38]

T. W. Ting. A cooling process according to two-temperat ure theory of heat conduction. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications , 45(1):23–31, 1974

1974
[39]

Xiao and H

Q. Xiao and H. Zhao. Nonlinear stability of generalized benjamin–bona–mahony–burgers shock proﬁles in several dimensions. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications , 406(1):165–187, 2013

2013
[40]

Yin and J

H. Yin and J. Hu. Exponential decay rate of solutions tow ard traveling waves for the cauchy problem of generalized benjamin–bona–mahony–burgers equations. Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications , 73(6):1729– 1738, 2010. COMPACT FINITE-DIFFERENCE SCHEME FOR SOME SO...

2010
[41]

Zhu and W.-S

C.-G. Zhu and W.-S. Kang. Numerical solution of burgers –ﬁsher equation by cubic b-spline quasi-interpolation. Applied Mathematics and Computation , 216(9):2679–2686, 2010

2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Abbasbandy and A

S. Abbasbandy and A. Shirzadi. The ﬁrst integral method f or modiﬁed benjamin–bona–mahony equation. Com- munications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation , 15(7):1759–1764, 2010

work page 2010

[2] [2]

Achouri, N

T. Achouri, N. Khiari, and K. Omrani. On the convergence o f diﬀerence schemes for the benjamin–bona–mahony (bbm) equation. Applied mathematics and computation , 182(2):999–1005, 2006

work page 2006

[3] [3]

B. S. Bahrami, H. Abdollahzadeh, I. Berijani, D. Ganji, a nd M. Abdollahzadeh. Exact travelling solutions for some nonlinear physical models by (g‘/g)-expansion method . Pramana, 77:263–275, 2011

work page 2011

[4] [4]

G. I. Barenblatt, I. P. Zheltov, and I. Kochina. Basic con cepts in the theory of seepage of homogeneous liquids in ﬁssured rocks [strata]. Journal of applied mathematics and mechanics , 24(5):1286–1303, 1960

work page 1960

[5] [5]

Bruz´ on

M. Bruz´ on. Weak self-adjointness and conservation laws for a family of benjamin-bona-mahony-burgers equations. Discontinuity and Complexity in Nonlinear Physical System s, pages 23–34, 2014

work page 2014

[6] [6]

Bruz´ on and M

M. Bruz´ on and M. Gandarias. Conservation laws for a fami ly of benjamin-bona-mahony-burgers equations. In 2012 IEEE 4th International Conference on Nonlinear Scienc e and Complexity (NSC) , pages 155–160. IEEE, 2012

work page 2012

[7] [7]

Bruz´ on, T

M. Bruz´ on, T. Garrido, and R. De la Rosa. Conservation la ws and exact solutions of a generalized benjamin– bona–mahony–burgers equation. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals , 89:578–583, 2016

work page 2016

[8] [8]

Dehghan, M

M. Dehghan, M. Abbaszadeh, and A. Mohebbi. The numerical solution of nonlinear high dimensional general- ized benjamin–bona–mahony–burgers equation via the meshl ess method of radial basis functions. Computers & Mathematics with Applications , 68(3):212–237, 2014

work page 2014