Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 74 references

Computing Radially-Symmetric Solutions of the Ultra-Relativistic Euler Equations with Entropy-Stable Discontinuous Galerkin Methods

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper derives the first entropy-conservative numerical flux for the ultra-relativistic Euler equations and shows in two- and three-dimensional runs that a discontinuous Galerkin scheme built on it conserves the physical entropy to mach

desk verdict A genuinely new entropy-conservative flux for the ultra-relativistic Euler equations, derived cleanly and tested honestly; the positivity gap is real but does not sink the main claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.21427 v2 pith:GERWZVFJ submitted 2025-08-29 math.NA cs.NAmath-phmath.MP

Ferdinand Thein , Hendrik Ranocha This is my paper
classification math.NAcs.NAmath-phmath.MP MSC 65M0665M2065M70
keywords ultra-relativisticEulerequationsentropy-stablemethodsentropy-conservativenumericalfluxdiscontinuousGalerkindifferencingsummation-by-partsoperatorsradiallysymmetricsolutionsadaptivemeshrefinement
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 sets out to give the ultra-relativistic Euler equations — the regime of relativistic gas dynamics where thermal energy dominates — a numerical flux that cannot create entropy by construction. It derives the entropy variables (the 'main field') and the entropy flux potential, then solves the entropy-conservation condition (3.1) algebraically to obtain an explicit two-point flux, stated as Theorem 3.1. This is the first entropy-conservative flux for this system; a discontinuous Galerkin scheme built on it via flux differencing, subcell shock capturing, and adaptive mesh refinement conserves the physical entropy to machine precision in both two and three dimensions. Applied to the five radially symmetric benchmark problems proposed in recent companion work, the scheme reproduces the reference solutions — straight shock formation, self-similar rarefactions, and pressure blow-up at the origin — and delivers the first genuine three-dimensional results for these benchmarks. The point of the construction is structural: the semidiscrete spatial discretization conserves entropy exactly, so entropy dissipation enters only where the user adds it, and other multi-dimensional solvers now have a structure-preserving benchmark to test against.

What carries the argument

The engine of the derivation is the entropy-variable transformation (the 'main field') v = ∇_w S (2.12), the entropy flux potential ψ = −¼ p^{3/4} u√(1+|u|²) (2.13), and the entropy-conservation condition ⟦v⟧·F̃ − ⟦ψ⟧ = 0 (3.1) that a two-point flux must satisfy exactly. The key algebraic step expresses every jump in that condition through two basic jumps, ⟦u_i p^{−1/4}⟧ and ⟦p⟧, using mean-value identities for products, squares, and roots ((3.4)–(3.8)); the condition becomes a linear system whose brackets can be forced to vanish independently, yielding the explicit flux (3.16) — 'affordable' because it uses differential means rather than integral averages. Flux differencing with summation-b

What would settle it

Two concrete checks decide the claims. (1) The theorem is algebraic: evaluate ⟦v⟧·F̃ − ⟦ψ⟧ for any two states with p_± > 0 (say p_+ = 2, p_− = 1, u_+ = (0.3, 0.1), u_− = (−0.2, 0.4)); if the result is not identically zero, the flux is not entropy-conservative. (2) The positivity boundary: run the self-similar expansion of Example 2 in 3D with initial radial velocity close enough to 1 that the flow expands into vacuum — the case the paper excludes; as p → 0 at the wave front, the flux's √p and p^{1/4} denominators should produce NaNs or unphysical states, confirming the p > 0 restriction is rea

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Central claim (Theorem 3.1): there is an explicit two-point flux — momentum part 2(p−√p+ + p+√p−){{u_i p^{−1/4}}}{{u_j p^{−1/4}}} + {{p}}δ_ij, energy part 2(p−√p+ + p+√p−){{p^{−1/4}√(1+|u|²)}}{{u_j p^{−1/4}}}, with {{·}} the arithmetic mean across the interface — that is symmetric, consistent, and entropy-conservative for the ultra-relativistic Euler equations. It satisfies the entropy-conservation condition exactly, so a semidiscrete DG discretization conserves the physical entropy S = p^{3/4}√(1+|u|²) to machine precision in the runs. This is the first entropy-conservative flux for this system.

Load-bearing premise

Every flux formula divides by √p and p^{1/4}, and the entropy variables are defined only where pressure is strictly positive, so the method has no definition — and no safeguard — at vacuum or near-vacuum interfaces; the test cases chosen deliberately avoid the vacuum expansion that the 3D data could produce.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A semidiscrete DG discretization using the new flux conserves the physical entropy to machine precision; measured entropy rates in Fig. 3 sit at round-off in both 2D and 3D, so entropy production is controlled by the explicit interface dissipation and shock capturing rather than by accidental numerical error.
  • The scheme reproduces the radially symmetric reference solutions for the shock-plus-stationary example and the self-similar rarefaction example, in both two and three dimensions, matching ODE-based reference solutions.
  • The benchmark suite is run for the first time as genuine 3D computations: the bubble expansion, bubble collapse, and sine-velocity cases all produce the expected shock focusing and pressure blow-up near the origin, with the 3D peak pressures under-resolved relative to the one-dimensional reference (e.g. ≈9.7 versus ≈289 in the expansion example) because of computational cost.
  • Because the flux is an explicit, symmetric two-point flux, any conservative scheme that uses it as the volume flux inherits semidiscrete entropy conservation; extending it to higher order requires only flux differencing with summation-by-parts operators.
  • The solved benchmarks, with reference solutions and reproducing code, give other multi-dimensional relativistic solvers a structure-preserving test case.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same differential-averaging construction should transfer to neighbouring relativistic systems whose main field is known — the Synge-gas and general (non-ultra) relativistic Euler equations — since the only structural ingredients are the entropy variables, the flux potential, and two convenient jump variables.
  • The p > 0 restriction marks the method's real boundary: a 3D vacuum-expansion run (Example 2 with initial velocity near light speed) would immediately break the flux. A natural extension is a blended flux that switches to a positivity-preserving or kinetic solver when an interface pressure approaches zero.
  • The under-resolved 3D peaks are a resolution statement, not a sign of instability: re-running the focusing examples with increased refinement near the origin should push the computed peak toward the reference values (≈289, ≈3550, ≈5957), and an entropy-stable baseline should keep those runs stable throughout.
  • Machine-precision entropy conservation in smooth regions suggests the scheme can serve as a quantitative probe of the pressure blow-up: tracking peak growth on adaptively refined meshes could test whether the focusing singularity is self-similar, as the one-dimensional analysis predicts.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper derives an entropy-conservative two-point numerical flux for the multi-dimensional ultra-relativistic Euler equations, following the Tadmor framework. The authors compute the entropy variables and entropy potential, solve the Tadmor jump condition, and obtain explicit flux formulas (3.16). They embed this flux in a high-order DGSEM with flux differencing, Rusanov interface dissipation, finite-volume subcell shock capturing, AMR, and adaptive time stepping in Trixi.jl. They validate the method on five radially symmetric benchmark problems in 2D and 3D from Kunik et al., comparing against the dedicated 1D solver RadSymS and self-similar ODE reference solutions, and they report machine-precision entropy rates in one test.

Significance. The main claimed contribution is the first entropy-conservative two-point flux for the ultra-relativistic Euler equations, and the paper demonstrates its use in genuine 2D and 3D simulations of the recently proposed benchmarks. If the derivation is correct, this is a substantive, reusable building block for entropy-stable DG methods for relativistic flows. The paper is also strong on reproducibility: it provides a public Julia repository with code and data, and the numerical benchmarks are independently cross-checked against RadSymS and ODE-based self-similar solutions. The central algebraic derivation in Section 3 is checkable and not fitted, and the machine-precision entropy test, once precisely defined, is a meaningful falsifiable check.

major comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (2.13) and (3.11)] Eq. (2.13) prints the entropy potential as ψ_k = -1/4 S u_k sqrt(1+|u|^2). With S=p^{3/4}sqrt(1+|u|^2), this equals -1/4 p^{3/4} u_k (1+|u|^2), whose jump is not the term [p^{3/4}u_k] used in (3.11). The derivation is consistent with ψ_k = -1/4 S u_k / sqrt(1+|u|^2) = -1/4 p^{3/4}u_k. Please correct (2.13) and adjust the sign/presentation in (3.1); as printed, the derivation cannot be followed.
  2. [Section 3, eqs. (3.6)-(3.8); Section 5, Examples 3-5] The entropy variables (2.12) and all flux formulas (3.6)-(3.8) require p>0, and this domain of validity is never stated. The positivity-preserving limiter is applied only to Example 2 (Section 4), while Examples 3-5 reach very low pressures before focusing (e.g., Example 3 says p takes very low values around t=4.165 in 3D). No analysis or numerical check is provided that p remains positive for the computed solutions, so the scheme could, in principle, leave the domain of definition of the flux. State the p>0 assumption explicitly, verify it for the reported runs, or extend positivity protection/fallbacks to all tests.
  3. [Appendix A, eqs. (A.6)-(A.10)] The proof of convexity of -S is incomplete. The text verifies that A1 is positive on vectors (v1,...,vd,0), A2 nonnegative on the same subspace, and A3 positive on (0,...,0,v_{d+1}), but this does not imply that A1+A2+A3 is positive definite on mixed vectors. The Hessian must be tested on arbitrary v=(y,z), including cross terms in A3. Either complete the argument or cite an existing proof of concavity of (2.9); the entropy-stable framework depends on this property.
  4. [Section 5, Fig. 3] The full scheme includes Rusanov interface dissipation and finite-volume subcell shock capturing, both entropy-dissipative. The statement that 'entropy is conserved up to machine precision' is therefore ambiguous for a test based on Example 1, which is a shock problem. Please define precisely what is plotted (e.g., the semidiscrete entropy residual of the volume EC flux only, or the total entropy balance), and reconcile any claim of exact conservation with the expected entropy production at shocks.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (3.10)] In the displayed formula for the jump of the entropy variable, the expression for [p^{-1/2}] appears to contain a duplicated factor [p][p]; this typesetting issue should be cleaned up.
  2. [Eqs. (3.13) and (3.15)] The statements 'This is clearly a consistent approximation' and 'This is a consistent approximation' are assertions; a one-line equal-state verification (p_L=p_R, u_L=u_R) would make the proof self-contained.
  3. [References] Reference [69] has DOI 'TODO' and reference [13] has a truncated DOI. Please update before publication.
  4. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption should state how the 'entropy rate' is computed in space and time, and in which norm or discrete functional it is measured.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the entropy-conservative flux is derived by solving the Tadmor condition from the physical entropy, with benchmarks as independent cross-checks.

full rationale

The central claim (Theorem 3.1) is not equivalent to its inputs. The paper defines the entropy variables (2.12) by differentiating the physical entropy (2.9) with respect to the conserved variables, verifies the compatibility relation (2.11) by explicit calculation in Appendix A, and then solves the standard Tadmor entropy-conservation condition (3.1) algebraically. The derivation chooses the jump variables u_i p^{-1/4} and p, rewrites the condition as (3.12), and sets each bracketed coefficient to zero, yielding the energy flux (3.13) and momentum flux (3.15). These fluxes contain no fitted parameters; consistency follows from the stated averages and the identity (3.8), and the entropy rate in Fig. 3 is a direct, falsifiable numerical check of the property. The comparisons against RadSymS from [36,37] and the ODE reference are independent cross-validation, not inputs to the flux derivation. The only self-citations are methodological/tool citations ([49] Ranocha for the generic flux-solving algorithm, which is re-executed here; Trixi.jl and the reproducibility repository), and [36] for the benchmark solver; none supplies an unverified premise or a uniqueness theorem that forces the result. The p>0 restriction is a genuine robustness limitation but not a circularity: the entropy variables and flux are simply undefined outside that region, and the paper does not claim coverage of vacuum states.

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

The central claim rests on the physical entropy and equation of state from the prior literature, plus the validity of the RadSymS reference solver. No free parameters are fitted; discretization resolutions (N=5000 for RadSymS, refinement levels, RK step sizes) are algorithmic choices, not fitted data.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The physical entropy of the system is S = p^{3/4} sqrt(1+|u|^2) and it is a concave entropy (Section 2, eq. 2.9).
    Taken from Kunik [35]; concavity is proved in Appendix A of this paper, but the entropy form itself is an input from prior literature.
  • domain assumption The ultra-relativistic equation of state e = 3p holds exactly for the ideal gas (eq. 2.4).
    Defines the regime under study; cited to Weinberg [72] and Kunik [35], not derived here.
  • domain assumption The radially symmetric quasi-1D system (4.4) with the source term (d-1)/2 r^{d-2}(E-P) is equivalent to radially symmetric solutions of the multidimensional system, and RadSymS computes its correct weak solutions.
    Used as the numerical reference in all of Section 5; taken from Kunik et al. [36,37], not established in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Computing Radially-Symmetric Solutions of the Ultra-Relativistic Euler Equations with Entropy-Stable Discontinuous Galerkin Methods." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GERWZVFJ

@misc{pith2026250821427,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Computing Radially-Symmetric Solutions of the Ultra-Relativistic Euler Equations with Entropy-Stable Discontinuous Galerkin Methods},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GERWZVFJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.21427}
}
read the original abstract

The ultra--relativistic Euler equations describe gases in the relativistic case when the thermal energy dominates. These equations for an ideal gas are given in terms of the pressure, the spatial part of the dimensionless four-velocity, and the particle density. Kunik et al.\ (2024, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2024.113330) proposed genuine multi--dimensional benchmark problems for the ultra--relativistic Euler equations. In particular, they compared full two-dimensional discontinuous Galerkin simulations for radially symmetric problems with solutions computed using a specific one-dimensional scheme. Of particular interest in the solutions are the formation of shock waves and a pressure blow-up. In the present work we derive an entropy-stable flux for the ultra--relativistic Euler equations. Therefore, we derive the main field (or entropy variables) and the corresponding potentials. We then present the entropy-stable flux and conclude with simulation results for different test cases both in 2D and in 3D.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.21427 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example 1: Results for the pressure and velocity in 2D Comparison for Trixi.jl (blue) and RadSymS (red) in radial direction with the solution of ODE system (5.2) (yellow) at final time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example 1: Results for the pressure and velocity in 3D Comparison for Trixi.jl (blue) and RadSymS (red) in radial direction with the solution of ODE system (5.2) (yellow) at final time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Entropy rate in 2D (left) and 3D (right). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example 2: Results for the pressure and velocity in 2D. Comparison for Trixi.jl (blue) and RadSymS (red) in radial direction with the solution of ODE system (5.2) (yellow) at final time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example 2: Results for the pressure and velocity in 3D. Comparison for Trixi.jl (blue) and RadSymS (red) in radial direction with the solution of ODE system (5.2) (yellow) at final time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Example 3: Comparison for Trixi.jl (left) and RadSymS (right) in the – plane, see (a), (b). 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Example 3: Comparison for Trixi.jl (left) and RadSymS (right) in the – plane, see (a), (b). 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Example 3: Comparison for RadSymS (red) and Trixi.jl (blue) in radial direction at final time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Example 3: Comparison for RadSymS (red) and Trixi.jl (blue) in radial direction at final time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Example 4: Results for the velocity and the pressure in 2D. Comparison for RadSymS (red) and Trixi.jl (blue) in radial direction at final time = 6, see (a), (b), for pressure and velocity . 17 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Example 4: Results for the velocity and the pressure in 2D. Comparison for Trixi.jl (left) and RadSymS (right) in the – plane, see (a), (b). 18 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Example 4: Results for the velocity and the pressure in 3D. Comparison for Trixi.jl (left) and RadSymS (right) in the – plane, see (a), (b). 19 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Example 4: Results for the velocity and the pressure in 3D. Comparison for RadSymS (red) and Trixi.jl (blue) in radial direction at final time = 6, see (a), (b), for pressure and velocity . Example 5: Initially Sine–Shaped Radial Velocity. Finally, we study initial da…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Example 5: Results for the velocity and the pressure in 2D. Comparison for Trixi.jl (left) and RadSymS (right) in the – plane, see (a), (b). 21 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Example 5: Results for the velocity and the pressure in 3D. Comparison for Trixi.jl (left) and RadSymS (right) in the – plane, see (a), (b). 22 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Example 5: Results for the velocity and the pressure in 2D. Comparison for RadSymS (red) and Trixi.jl (blue) in radial direction at final time = 6, see (a), (b), for pressure and velocity . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 (a) Results for the pressure in 3D 0 1 2…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Example 5: Results for the velocity and the pressure in 3D. Comparison for RadSymS (red) and Trixi.jl (blue) in radial direction at final time = 6, see (a), (b), for pressure and velocity . 23 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_17.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A new front tracking sche me for the ultra-relativistic Euler equations

    M. A. E. Abdelrahman and M. Kunik. “A new front tracking sche me for the ultra-relativistic Euler equations.” In:J. Comput. Phys.275 (2014), pp. 213–235./d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.1016/j.jcp.2014.06.051

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2014.06.051 2014

  2. [2]

    Analysis of the SBP-SAT Stabilization for Finite Element Methods Part I: Linear Problems

    R. Abgrall, J. Nordström, P . Öffner, and S. T okareva. “Ana lysis of the SBP-SAT Stabilization for Finite Element Methods Part I: Linear problems.” In: Journal of Scientific Computing 85.2 (2020), pp. 1–29. /d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.1007/s10915-020-01349-z . arXiv: 1912.08108 [math.NA]. 27

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  3. [3]

    Relativistic fluid dynamic s: physics for many different scales

    N. Andersson and G. L. Comer. “Relativistic fluid dynamic s: physics for many different scales.” In: Living Reviews in Relativity 24.1 (2021), p. 3. /d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.1007/s41114-021-00031-6

    doi:10.1007/s41114-021-00031-6 2021

  4. [4]

    Barsukow, C

    W. Barsukow, C. Klingenberg, L. Lechner, J. Nordström, S. Ortleb, and H. Ranocha. Stability of the Active Flux Method in the Framework of Summation-by-Pa rts Operators. July 2025. arXiv: 2507.11068 [math.NA]

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Jul ia: A Fresh Approach to Numer- ical Computing

    J. Bezanson, A. Edelman, S. Karpinski, and V . B. Shah. “Jul ia: A Fresh Approach to Numer- ical Computing.” In: SIAM Review 59.1 (2017), pp. 65–98. /d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.1137/141000671. arXiv: 1411.1607 [cs.MS]

    arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    p4est: Scala ble algorithms for parallel adaptive mesh refinement on forests of octrees

    C. Burstedde, L. C. Wilcox, and O. Ghattas. “p4est: Scala ble algorithms for parallel adaptive mesh refinement on forests of octrees.” In: SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 33.3 (2011), pp. 1103–1133. /d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.1137/100791634

    doi:10.1137/100791634 2011

  7. [7]

    Entropy Stable Spectral Collocation Schemes for the Navier-Stokes Equations: Disc ontinuous Interfaces

    M. H. Carpenter, T. C. Fisher, E. J. Nielsen, and S. H. Frank el. “Entropy Stable Spectral Collocation Schemes for the Navier-Stokes Equations: Disc ontinuous Interfaces.” In: SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 36.5 (2014), B835–B867. /d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.1137/130932193

    doi:10.1137/130932193 2014

  8. [8]

    On discretely entropy conservative and entrop y stable discontinuous Galerkin methods

    J. Chan. “On discretely entropy conservative and entrop y stable discontinuous Galerkin methods.” In: Journal of Computational Physics362 (2018), pp. 346–374./d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.1016/j.jcp.2018.02.033

    doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2018.02.033 2018

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    Kinetic Energy Preserving and Entrop y Stable Finite Volume Schemes for Compressible Euler and Navier-Stokes Equations

    P . Chandrashekar. “Kinetic Energy Preserving and Entrop y Stable Finite Volume Schemes for Compressible Euler and Navier-Stokes Equations.” In: Communications in Computational Physics 14.5 (2013), pp. 1252–1286. /d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.4208/cicp.170712.010313a

    2013

  2. [10]

    Conservation laws for relativistic fluid dyna mics

    J. Chen. “Conservation laws for relativistic fluid dyna mics.” In: Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 139.4 (1997), pp. 377–398. /d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.1007/s002050050057

    1997 doi

  3. [11]

    Entropy stable high order discon tinuous Galerkin methods with suitable quadrature rules for hyperbolic conservation law s

    T. Chen and C.-W. Shu. “Entropy stable high order discon tinuous Galerkin methods with suitable quadrature rules for hyperbolic conservation law s.” In: Journal of Computational Physics 345 (2017), pp. 427–461. /d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.1016/j.jcp.2017.05.025

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    Embedded pairs fo r optimal explicit strong stability preserving Runge-Kutta methods

    S. Conde, I. Fekete, and J. N. Shadid. “Embedded pairs fo r optimal explicit strong stability preserving Runge-Kutta methods.” In: Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics 412 (2022), p. 114325. /d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.1016/j.cam.2022.114325. arXiv: 1806.08693 [math.NA]

    2022

  5. [13]

    C. M. Dafermos. Hyperbolic Conservation Laws in Continuum Physics. 4th. Vol. 325. Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2016, p. 826./d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.1007/978-3-662-49

    2016 doi

  6. [14]

    Recent developments in mathematical aspe cts of relativistic fluids

    M. Disconzi. “Recent developments in mathematical aspe cts of relativistic fluids.” In: Living Reviews in Relativity 27.1 (2024), p. 6. /d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.1007/s41114-024-00052-x

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    A wel l-balanced discontinuous Galerkin method for the first–order Z4 formulation of the Einstein–Euler system

    M. Dumbser, O. Zanotti, E. Gaburro, and I. Peshkov. “A wel l-balanced discontinuous Galerkin method for the first–order Z4 formulation of the Einstein–Euler system.” In: Journal of Computational Physics 504 (2024), p. 112875. /d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.1016/j.jcp.2024.112875

    2024

  8. [16]

    Revi ew of summation-by-parts opera- tors with simultaneous approximation terms for the numerical solution of partial differential equations

    D. C. D. R. Fernández, J. E. Hicken, and D. W. Zingg. “Revi ew of summation-by-parts opera- tors with simultaneous approximation terms for the numerical solution of partial differential equations.” In:Computers & Fluids95 (2014), pp. 171–196./d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.1016/j.compfluid...

    2014 doi

  9. [17]

    High-order entropy sta ble finite difference schemes for nonlinear conservation laws: Finite domains

    T. C. Fisher and M. H. Carpenter. “High-order entropy sta ble finite difference schemes for nonlinear conservation laws: Finite domains.” In: Journal of Computational Physics 252 (2013), pp. 518–557. /d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.1016/j.jcp.2013.06.014

    2013 doi

  10. [18]

    Relativistic barotropic fluids: a God unov-Boillat formulation for their dy- namics and a discussion of two special classes

    H. Freistühler. “Relativistic barotropic fluids: a God unov-Boillat formulation for their dy- namics and a discussion of two special classes.” In: Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 232.1 (2019), pp. 473–488. /d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.1007/s00205-018-1325-2

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    On shock profiles in four-fie ld formulations of dissipative relativistic fluid dynamics

    H. Freistühler and B. T emple. “On shock profiles in four-fie ld formulations of dissipative relativistic fluid dynamics.” In:Hyperbolic problems: theory, numerics, applications. Vol. I. Vol. 34. SEMA SIMAI Springer Ser. Springer, Cham, 2024, pp. 251–261./d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.1007/...

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    A well balanced fin ite volume scheme for general relativity

    E. Gaburro, M. J. Castro, and M. Dumbser. “A well balanced fin ite volume scheme for general relativity.” In: SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 43.6 (2021), B1226–B1251. /d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.1137/21M1399154

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    A Skew-Symmetric Discontinuous Galerk in Spectral Element Discretization and Its Relation to SBP-SAT Finite Difference Methods

    G. J. Gassner. “A Skew-Symmetric Discontinuous Galerk in Spectral Element Discretization and Its Relation to SBP-SAT Finite Difference Methods.” In: SIAM Journal on Scientific Com- puting 35.3 (2013), A1233–A1253. /d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.1137/120890144

    2013 doi

  14. [22]

    Split Fo rm Nodal Discontinuous Galerkin Schemes with Summation-By-Parts Property for the Compress ible Euler Equations

    G. J. Gassner, A. R. Winters, and D. A. Kopriva. “Split Fo rm Nodal Discontinuous Galerkin Schemes with Summation-By-Parts Property for the Compress ible Euler Equations.” In: Journal of Computational Physics 327 (2016), pp. 39–66. /d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.1016/j.jcp.2016.09.013

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    Groah, J

    J. Groah, J. Smoller, and B. T emple. Shock wave interactions in general relativity . Springer Monographs in Mathematics. A locally inertial Glimm scheme fo r spherically symmetric spacetimes. Springer, New Y ork, 2007, pp. viii+152./d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.1007/978-0-387-44602-8

    2007 doi

  16. [24]

    A provably entropy stable subcell shock capturing approach for high or der split form DG for the com- pressible Euler equations

    S. Hennemann, A. M. Rueda-Ramírez, F. J. Hindenlang, and G. J. Gassner. “A provably entropy stable subcell shock capturing approach for high or der split form DG for the com- pressible Euler equations.” In: Journal of Computational Physics 426 (2021), p. 109935. /d.pc/o.pc/i.p...

    2021

  17. [25]

    Hicken, G

    J. Hicken, G. Yan, and S. Kaur. Constructing stable, high-order finite-difference operators on point clouds over complex geometries. Sept. 2024. arXiv: 2409.00809 [math.NA]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Entropy-stable, high-order summation- by-parts discretizations without inter- face penalties

    J. E. Hicken. “Entropy-stable, high-order summation- by-parts discretizations without inter- face penalties.” In:Journal of Scientific Computing82.2 (2020), p. 50./d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.1007/s10915-020-01154-8

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    Multi dimensional Summation-By- Parts Operators: General Theory and Application to Simplex Elements

    J. E. Hicken, D. C. D. R. Fernández, and D. W. Zingg. “Multi dimensional Summation-By- Parts Operators: General Theory and Application to Simplex Elements.” In: SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 38.4 (2016), A1935–A1958. /d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.1137/15M1038360

    2016 doi

  20. [28]

    A Flux Reconstruction Approach to High-Or der Schemes Including Discontin- uous Galerkin Methods

    H. T. Huynh. “A Flux Reconstruction Approach to High-Or der Schemes Including Discontin- uous Galerkin Methods.” In: 18th AIAA Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference . American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. 2007. /d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.2514/6.2007-4079

    2007 doi

  21. [29]

    Affordable, entropy-consisten t Euler flux functions II: Entropy production at shocks

    F. Ismail and P . L. Roe. “Affordable, entropy-consisten t Euler flux functions II: Entropy production at shocks.” In: Journal of Computational Physics 228.15 (2009), pp. 5410–5436. /d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.1016/j.jcp.2009.04.021

    2009 doi

  22. [30]

    A. Jameson. “Formulation of Kinetic Energy Preserving C onservative Schemes for Gas Dy- namics and Direct Numerical Simulation of One-DimensionalViscous Compressible Flow in a Shock T ube Using Entropy and Kinetic Energy Preserving Schemes.” In: Journal of Scientific Computing ...

    2008 doi

  23. [31]

    Assessing st andard and kinetic energy conserv- ing volume fluxes in discontinuous Galerkin formulations fo r marginally resolved Navier- Stokes flows

    B. F. Klose, G. B. Jacobs, and D. A. Kopriva. “Assessing st andard and kinetic energy conserv- ing volume fluxes in discontinuous Galerkin formulations fo r marginally resolved Navier- Stokes flows.” In:Computers & Fluids205 (2020), p. 104557./d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.1016/j.compfluid...

    2020

  24. [32]

    D. A. Kopriva. Implementing Spectral Methods for Partial Differential Equations: Algorithms for Sci- entists and Engineers. New Y ork: Springer Science & Business Media, 2009./d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.1007/978-90-481-2261-

    2009 doi

  25. [33]

    Contractivity of Runge-Kutta me thods

    J. F. B. M. Kraaijevanger. “Contractivity of Runge-Kutta me thods.” In: BIT Numerical Mathe- matics 31.3 (1991), pp. 482–528. /d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.1007/BF01933264

    1991 doi

  26. [34]

    Finite Element and Finite D ifference Methods for Hyperbolic Partial Differential Equations

    H.-O. Kreiss and G. Scherer. “Finite Element and Finite D ifference Methods for Hyperbolic Partial Differential Equations.” In: Mathematical Aspects of Finite Elements in Partial Differential Equations. Ed. by C. de Boor. New Y ork: Academic Press, 1974, pp. 195–21 2

    1974

  27. [35]

    M. Kunik. Selected initial and boundary value problems for hyperbolic systems and kinetic equations. Otto von Guericke University , Magdeburg, Germany, 2005./d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.25673/30567

    2005 doi

  28. [36]

    Radially symme tric solutions of the ultra- relativistic Euler equations in several space dimensions

    M. Kunik, A. Kolb, S. Müller, and F. Thein. “Radially symme tric solutions of the ultra- relativistic Euler equations in several space dimensions. ” In: Journal of Computational Physics 518 (2024), p. 113330. /d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.1016/j.jcp.2024.113330. arXiv: 2402.12857 [math.NA]. 29

    2024

  29. [37]

    Radially symmetric so lutions of the ultra-relativistic Euler equations

    M. Kunik, H. Liu, and G. Warnecke. “Radially symmetric so lutions of the ultra-relativistic Euler equations.” In: Methods Appl. Anal. 28.4 (2021), pp. 401–421

    2021

  30. [38]

    A BGK-type flux-vecto r splitting scheme for the ultrarelativistic Euler equations

    M. Kunik, S. Qamar, and G. Warnecke. “A BGK-type flux-vecto r splitting scheme for the ultrarelativistic Euler equations.” In: SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 26.1 (2004), pp. 196–223. /d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.1137/S1064827503422208

    2004 doi

  31. [39]

    Kinetic schemes for t he ultra-relativistic Euler equa- tions

    M. Kunik, S. Qamar, and G. Warnecke. “Kinetic schemes for t he ultra-relativistic Euler equa- tions.” In: J. Comput. Phys. 187.2 (2003), pp. 572–596. /d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.1016/S0021-9991(03)00125-6

    2003 doi

  32. [40]

    Second-order accur ate kinetic schemes for the ultra- relativistic Euler equations

    M. Kunik, S. Qamar, and G. Warnecke. “Second-order accur ate kinetic schemes for the ultra- relativistic Euler equations.” In:J. Comput. Phys.192.2 (2003), pp. 695–726./d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.1016/j.jcp.2003.07.019

    2003 doi

  33. [41]

    Self-similar solutions of the radially symmet ric relativistic Euler equations

    G. Lai. “Self-similar solutions of the radially symmet ric relativistic Euler equations.” In: European Journal of Applied Mathematics (2019), 1–31. /d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.1017/S0956792519000317

    2019 doi

  34. [42]

    Fully Discret e, Entropy Conservative Schemes of Arbitrary Order

    P . G. LeFloch, J.-M. Mercier, and C. Rohde. “Fully Discret e, Entropy Conservative Schemes of Arbitrary Order.” In: SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis 40.5 (2002), pp. 1968–1992. /d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.1137/S003614290240069X

    2002 doi

  35. [43]

    An adaptive finite element scheme for transie nt problems in CFD

    R. Löhner. “An adaptive finite element scheme for transie nt problems in CFD.” In: Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering61.3 (1987), pp. 323–338./d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.1016/0045-7825(87)90098-

    1987 doi

  36. [44]

    Finite volume approximatio ns and strict stability for hyperbolic problems

    J. Nordström and M. Björck. “Finite volume approximatio ns and strict stability for hyperbolic problems.” In:Applied Numerical Mathematics38.3 (2001), pp. 237–255./d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.1016/S0168-9274(01)00027-

    2001 doi

  37. [45]

    Finite volume methods, unstruc- tured meshes and strict stability for hyperbolic problems

    J. Nordström, K. Forsberg, C. Adamsson, and P . Eliasson. “Finite volume methods, unstruc- tured meshes and strict stability for hyperbolic problems.” In: Applied Numerical Mathematics 45.4 (2003), pp. 453–473. /d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.1016/S0168-9274(02)00239-8

    2003 doi

  38. [46]

    Ultra-relativistic limit o f extended thermodynamics of rarefied polyatomic gas

    S. Pennisi and T. Ruggeri. “Ultra-relativistic limit o f extended thermodynamics of rarefied polyatomic gas.” In:Matematiche (Catania)74.2 (2019), pp. 369–395./d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.4418/2019.74.2.10

    2019 doi

  39. [47]

    DifferentialEquations.jl – A Performant and Feature-Rich Ecosys- tem for Solving Differential Equations in Julia

    C. Rackauckas and Q. Nie. “DifferentialEquations.jl – A Performant and Feature-Rich Ecosys- tem for Solving Differential Equations in Julia.” In:Journal of Open Research Software5.1 (2017), p. 15. /d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.5334/jors.151

    2017 doi

  40. [48]

    A Note on Numerical Fluxes Conserving a Memb er of Harten’s One-Parameter Family of Entropies for the Compressible Euler Equations

    H. Ranocha. “A Note on Numerical Fluxes Conserving a Memb er of Harten’s One-Parameter Family of Entropies for the Compressible Euler Equations.”In: Journal of Computational Physics 462 (Apr. 2022), p. 111236. /d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.1016/j.jcp.2022.111236. arXiv: 2201.03946 [math.NA]

    2022

  41. [49]

    Comparison of Some Entropy Conservative N umerical Fluxes for the Euler Equations

    H. Ranocha. “Comparison of Some Entropy Conservative N umerical Fluxes for the Euler Equations.” In:Journal of Scientific Computing76.1 (July 2018), pp. 216–242./d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.1007/s10915-017-0618- arXiv: 1701.02264 [math.NA]

    2018 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Entropy Conserving and Kinetic Energy Pres erving Numerical Methods for the Euler Equations Using Summation-by-Parts Operators

    H. Ranocha. “Entropy Conserving and Kinetic Energy Pres erving Numerical Methods for the Euler Equations Using Summation-by-Parts Operators.” In: Spectral and High Order Methods for Partial Differential Equations ICOSAHOM 2018. Ed. by S. J. Sherwin, D. Moxey, J. Peiró, P . E. V...

    2018 doi

  43. [51]

    Generalised Summation-by-Parts Operato rs and Entropy Stability of Numeri- cal Methods for Hyperbolic Balance Laws

    H. Ranocha. “Generalised Summation-by-Parts Operato rs and Entropy Stability of Numeri- cal Methods for Hyperbolic Balance Laws.” PhD thesis. TU Brau nschweig, Feb. 2018

    2018

  44. [52]

    O ptimized Runge-Kutta Methods with Automatic Step Size Control for Compressible Computat ional Fluid Dynamics

    H. Ranocha, L. Dalcin, M. Parsani, and D. I. Ketcheson. “O ptimized Runge-Kutta Methods with Automatic Step Size Control for Compressible Computat ional Fluid Dynamics.” In: Communications on Applied Mathematics and Computation 4 (Nov . 2021), pp. 1191–1228. /d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 1...

    2021 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Preventing pressure osci llations does not fix local linear stability issues of entropy-based split-form high-order s chemes

    H. Ranocha and G. J. Gassner. “Preventing pressure osci llations does not fix local linear stability issues of entropy-based split-form high-order s chemes.” In: Communications on Ap- plied Mathematics and Computation (Aug. 2021). /d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.1007/s42967-021-00148-z . a...

    2021 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Summation-by-part s operators for correction procedure via reconstruction

    H. Ranocha, P . Öffner, and T. Sonar. “Summation-by-part s operators for correction procedure via reconstruction.” In: Journal of Computational Physics 311 (Apr. 2016), pp. 299–328. /d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.1016/j.jcp.2016.02.009. arXiv: 1511.02052 [math.NA]

    2016 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Adaptive numerical simulations with Trixi.jl: A case study of Julia for scientific computing

    H. Ranocha, M. Schlottke-Lakemper, A. R. Winters, E. Fau lhaber, J. Chan, and G. J. Gassner. “Adaptive numerical simulations with Trixi.jl: A case study of Julia for scientific computing.” In: Proceedings of the JuliaCon Conferences 1.1 (Jan. 2022), p. 77. /d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.2...

    2022 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Ruggeri and M

    T. Ruggeri and M. Sugiyama. Classical and relativistic rational extended thermodynamics of gases. Springer, Cham, 2021, pp. xxxii+669. /d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.1007/978-3-030-59144-1

    2021 doi

  49. [57]

    Classical and ultrarelativist ic limits of the Riemann problem for the relativistic Euler fluid with Synge energy

    T. Ruggeri and Q. Xiao. “Classical and ultrarelativist ic limits of the Riemann problem for the relativistic Euler fluid with Synge energy.” In: Ric. Mat. 70.1 (2021), pp. 223–233. /d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.1007/s11587-020-00502-y

    2021 doi

  50. [58]

    Nonlinear hyperbolic waves in relativistic gases of massive particles with Synge energy

    T. Ruggeri, Q. Xiao, and H. Zhao. “Nonlinear hyperbolic waves in relativistic gases of massive particles with Synge energy.” In: Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 239.2 (2021), pp. 1061–1109. /d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.1007/s00205-020-01590-8

    2021 doi

  51. [59]

    A purely hyper- bolic discontinuous Galerkin approach for self-gravitati ng gas dynamics

    M. Schlottke-Lakemper, A. R. Winters, H. Ranocha, and G. J. Gassner. “A purely hyper- bolic discontinuous Galerkin approach for self-gravitati ng gas dynamics.” In: Journal of Computational Physics 442 (June 2021), p. 110467. /d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.1016/j.jcp.2021.110467. arXiv: ...

    2021

  52. [60]

    Skew-symmetric sp litting and stability of high order central schemes

    B. Sjögreen, H. C. Yee, and D. Kotov. “Skew-symmetric sp litting and stability of high order central schemes.” In: Journal of Physics: Conference Series . Vol. 837. 1. IOP Publishing. 2017, p. 012019. /d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.1088/1742-6596/837/1/012019

    2017 doi

  53. [61]

    J. Smoller. Shock waves and reaction—diffusion equations. Vol. 258. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012. /d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.1007/978-1-4612-0873-0

    2012 doi

  54. [62]

    General relativistic self-s imilar waves that induce an anomalous acceleration into the standard model of cosmology

    J. Smoller and B. T emple. “General relativistic self-s imilar waves that induce an anomalous acceleration into the standard model of cosmology.” In: Mem. Amer . Math. Soc. 218.1025 (2012), pp. vi+69. /d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.1090/S0065-9266-2011-00641-6

    2012 doi

  55. [63]

    Global solutions of the relat ivistic Euler equations

    J. Smoller and B. T emple. “Global solutions of the relat ivistic Euler equations.” In: Commu- nications in Mathematical Physics 156.1 (1993), pp. 67–99. /d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.1007/BF02096733

    1993 doi

  56. [64]

    Relativistic detonation waves and b ubble growth in false vacuum decay

    P . J. Steinhardt. “Relativistic detonation waves and b ubble growth in false vacuum decay.” In: Phys. Rev. D 25 (8 1982), pp. 2074–2085. /d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.1103/PhysRevD.25.2074

    1982 doi

  57. [65]

    Summation by Parts for Finite Difference App roximations for /u1D451//u1D451/u1D465

    B. Strand. “Summation by Parts for Finite Difference App roximations for /u1D451//u1D451/u1D465.” In: Journal of Computational Physics 110.1 (1994), pp. 47–67. /d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.1006/jcph.1994.1005

    1994

  58. [66]

    Review of summation-by-part s schemes for initial-boundary- value problems

    M. Svärd and J. Nordström. “Review of summation-by-part s schemes for initial-boundary- value problems.” In:Journal of Computational Physics268 (2014), pp. 17–38./d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.1016/j.jcp.2014.02.031

    2014 doi

  59. [67]

    Entropy stability theory for difference app roximations of nonlinear conservation laws and related time-dependent problems

    E. Tadmor. “Entropy stability theory for difference app roximations of nonlinear conservation laws and related time-dependent problems.” In: Acta Numerica 12 (2003), pp. 451–512. /d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.1017/S0962492902000156

    2003 doi

  60. [68]

    The numerical viscosity of entropy stable s chemes for systems of conservation laws. I

    E. Tadmor. “The numerical viscosity of entropy stable s chemes for systems of conservation laws. I.” In:Mathematics of Computation49.179 (1987), pp. 91–103./d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.1090/S0025-5718-1987-0890255-

    1987 doi

  61. [69]

    Computing Radially-Symmetric Solutions of the Ultra-Relativistic Euler Equations with Entropy-St able Discontinuous Galerkin Methods

    F. Thein and H. Ranocha. Reproducibility repository for "Computing Radially-Symmetric Solutions of the Ultra-Relativistic Euler Equations with Entropy-St able Discontinuous Galerkin Methods" . https://github.com/ranocha/2025_ultrarelativistic_euler. 2025. /d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: TODO

    2025

  62. [70]

    A New Clas s of High-Order Energy Stable Flux Reconstruction Schemes

    P . E. Vincent, P . Castonguay, and A. Jameson. “A New Clas s of High-Order Energy Stable Flux Reconstruction Schemes.” In: Journal of Scientific Computing 47.1 (2011), pp. 50–72. /d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.1007/s10915-010-9420-z . 31

    2011 doi

  63. [71]

    On Godunov’s interesting class of system s - The symmetric hyperbolic Eu- ler equations of gas dynamics

    G. Warnecke. “On Godunov’s interesting class of system s - The symmetric hyperbolic Eu- ler equations of gas dynamics.” In: Journal of Computational Physics (2024), p. 113588. /d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.1016/j.jcp.2024.113588

    2024

  64. [72]

    Weinberg

    S. Weinberg. Gravitation and cosmology: principles and applications of thegeneral theory of relativity. Wiley, 1972. /u.pc/r.pc/l.pc: https://books.google.de/books?id=XLbvAAAAMAAJ

    1972

  65. [73]

    A high order special relativi stic hydrodynamic and magneto- hydrodynamic code with space-time adaptive mesh refinement

    O. Zanotti and M. Dumbser. “A high order special relativi stic hydrodynamic and magneto- hydrodynamic code with space-time adaptive mesh refinement.” In: Comput. Phys. Commun. 188 (2015), pp. 110–127. /d.pc/o.pc/i.pc: 10.1016/j.cpc.2014.11.015

    2015 doi

  66. [74]

    Maximum-principle-satisfying and positivity-preserving high- order schemes for conservation laws: survey and new develop ments

    X. Zhang and C.-W. Shu. “Maximum-principle-satisfying and positivity-preserving high- order schemes for conservation laws: survey and new develop ments.” In: Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineer ing Sciences 467.2134 (2011), pp. 275...

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.