Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 2 minor 60 references

Realizability-preserving monolithic convex limiting in continuous Galerkin discretizations of the M1 model of radiative transfer

T0 review · 3 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Two-step limiter keeps M1 radiation transport realizable

desk verdict Solid M1/IDP contribution with a correct multidimensional bar-state theorem, but the printed IDP proof for the MCL step has a wrong cross term that must be fixed. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.07689 v1 pith:KA3GJC5D submitted 2025-09-09 math.NA cs.NA

Paul Moujaes , Dmitri Kuzmin , Christian Bäumer This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NAcs.NA MSC 65M6065M1235L6582C70
keywords radiativetransferM1modelmomentclosureinvariantdomainpreservationmonolithicconvexlimitingcontinuousGalerkinrealizabilityflux
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 claims that a continuous finite element scheme for the M1 model of radiative transfer can be made provably invariant-domain preserving: the particle density stays positive and the magnitude of the first moment stays strictly below it. The key is a two-step monolithic convex limiting procedure applied to antidiffusive fluxes, built on a low-order method whose so-called bar states are realizable in any space dimension. If the proof holds, the scheme gives deterministic dose calculations in radiotherapy without the nonphysical states that can plague standard discrete ordinates and discontinuous Galerkin solvers. The numerical experiments on line-source, flash, disk, and lattice benchmarks support the claim.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the low-order bar state $\bar{u}_{ij} = (u_i+u_j)/2 - (f_j-f_i)\cdot c_{ij}/(2d_{ij})$, interpreted as a spatial average of the exact solution of a projected one-dimensional Riemann problem. Theorem 1 shows these bar states are realizable if the nodal states are realizable and the graph viscosity coefficient satisfies $d_{ij} \ge |c_{ij}|$, using Lemma 1 which constructs a nonnegative angular distribution for auxiliary states $u_\pm$. The high-order scheme replaces the raw antidiffusive flux with a limited flux whose correction factor $\alpha^{\mathrm{IDP}}_{ij}$ is chosen by the two-step MCL algorithm so that the final bar state $u^{\mathrm{IDP}}_{ij}$ lies in $\mathcal{R}_1$.

What would settle it

Implement the two-step limiter exactly as printed, with the cross term in $P_{ij}$ built from $\bar{\psi}^{*}_{ij}$ and $Q_{ij}$ from $\bar{\psi}_{ij}$, and feed it random admissible nodal states and raw antidiffusive fluxes; any case where the computed $\alpha^{\mathrm{IDP}}_{ij}$ equals 1 but the corrected bar state leaves $\mathcal{R}_1$, or where $P_{ij}(\alpha) < Q_{ij}$ is violated under the printed definitions, would falsify the proof as written. A cheaper check is to rerun the flash test with CFL close to 1 and output the minimum over nodes of $1 - |\psi^{(1)}|/\psi^{(0)}$ at each stage.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that correcting the low-order continuous Galerkin bar states with a two-step monolithic convex limiting algorithm preserves the realizable set $\mathcal{R}_1$ at every stage of an explicit SSP-Runge\textendash Kutta time step under the CFL condition (25). The first limiting step enforces local bounds on each conserved component, which keeps the zeroth moment positive; the second step applies a scalar correction factor $\alpha^{\mathrm{IDP}}_{ij}$ to the entire prelimited flux so that the corrected bar state satisfies $|\bar{\psi}^{(1)}_{ij} + \alpha^{\mathrm{IDP}}_{ij} f^{*(1)}_{ij}/(2d_{ij})| < \bar{\psi}^{(0)}_{ij} + \alpha^{\mathrm{IDP}}_{ij} f^{*(0)}_{ij}/(2d_{ij})$. The proof relies on the convexity of $\mathcal{R}_1$ and on the algebraic inequality $P_{ij}(\alpha) < Q_{ij}$, after which the authors verify the behavior on benchmarks including a source on the boundary of the realizable set.

Load-bearing premise

The high-order IDP proof stands on the algebraic inequality $P_{ij}(\alpha) < Q_{ij}$ in Section 4, but as printed the cross term in $P_{ij}$ uses the componentwise-limited bar state $\bar{\psi}^{*}_{ij}$ while $Q_{ij}$ uses the low-order bar state $\bar{\psi}_{ij}$, so the expansion may not match the inequality it is meant to enforce; if the star is not a typographical artifact, the proof of the high-order scheme is unsound.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Each SSP-RK stage of the flux-corrected scheme yields a realizable state, so the high-order solution never violates positivity or the flux-limiting condition.
  • The bar-state realizability proof carries over to any number of space dimensions, removing the previous one-dimensional restriction on Riemann-solution realizability.
  • The scheme remains realizable for sources $q$ on the boundary of the realizable set, including perfectly collimated beams.
  • The low-order IDP analysis extends to higher-order $M_N$ moment models equipped with a physical closure, opening the door to MCL limiters for those systems.
  • In radiotherapy, the method supports deterministic dose calculations with sharp shock-like fronts and steady-state pseudo-time stepping.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the $P/Q$ cross-term mismatch in Section 4 is a real defect rather than a typographical slip, the high-order IDP guarantee needs a repaired inequality or a different correction factor, though the numerical tests would still be evidence of good behavior.
  • The same two-step synchronized limiting strategy could be applied to any hyperbolic balance law whose admissible states form a convex set described by a scalar inequality on state components.
  • A direct consequence for practice: a validated deterministic dose engine based on $M_1$ could serve as an independent secondary check on Monte Carlo treatment plans in proton therapy.
  • The proof technique for bar-state realizability via auxiliary states $u_\pm = u \pm f \cdot c/d$ is reusable for other moment models whose flux is the next moment.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a continuous Galerkin discretization of the M1 model of radiative transfer with an invariant-domain-preserving low-order scheme and a two-step monolithic convex limiting strategy. The main theoretical claims are a multidimensional realizability proof for the low-order bar states (Theorem 1), an IDP treatment of sources and reactive terms, and a limited antidiffusive correction designed to keep high-order bar states in the realizable set R1. The numerical section presents several two-dimensional benchmarks on fine meshes and reports that the scheme remains realizable and nonoscillatory.

Significance. If the proof is repaired, the paper is a useful extension of the monolithic convex limiting framework to a nonlinear moment system with a realizability constraint. The low-order IDP analysis is clean and genuinely multidimensional, the implicit treatment of reactive terms is elementary and convincing, and the numerical tests drive the solution very close to the boundary of R1. The derivation is essentially parameter-free, and the implementation is based on the public MFEM library. The principal obstacle is that the key inequality in the second limiting step is misprinted in a way that invalidates the displayed proof, and the claimed high-order accuracy is not supported by a convergence study.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Eq. (40)] The equivalence claimed between the realizability inequality and P_ij(alpha)<Q_ij in Eq. (40) is false as printed. Expanding |bar_psi^(1)+alpha f*^(1)/(2d)|^2 < (bar_psi^(0)+alpha f*^(0)/(2d))^2 gives a cross term 4d(bar_psi^(1).f*^(1)-bar_psi^(0)f*^(0))alpha, but Eq. (40) and the following definition of R_ij use the componentwise-limited state bar_u^* = bar_u + f*/(2d) in that term. The difference is 2alpha(|f*^(1)|^2-(f*^(0))^2), which can be negative. For example, with d=0.5, bar_u=(1,0.4), and f*=(-0.5,0.3), the printed criterion selects alpha=21/23 and yields u_IDP=(25/46,31/46), which is not realizable even though the printed P_ij(alpha)<Q_ij holds. Thus the IDP proof for the high-order scheme does not follow unless the star in Eq. (40) and in R_ij is a typographical error; the argument must use the low-order bar state bar_u in the cross term.
  2. [Section 5] Section 5 contains no convergence study. The abstract and Section 1 claim that high-order accuracy in smooth regions is verified, but every numerical experiment in Section 5 is qualitative (profiles, symmetry, residual histories) and none reports an error norm or observed order against a manufactured or known solution. Please add a quantitative smooth-problem test and report measured convergence rates to support the accuracy claim.
  3. [Remark 6] Remark 6 defers the IDP proof for boundary nodes to references [32,40,49], while the proofs in Section 3 are written for interior nodes. Because the paper claims that the fully discrete flux-corrected scheme is provably IDP, the boundary-node case is part of the central claim. Please include the short convexity argument for boundary nodes or explicitly restrict the proved statement to interior nodes and treat boundary realizability as an additional assumption.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eq. (26)] In the triangle inequality displayed after Eq. (26), the first term on the right-hand side should be |psi^(1),SSP,H_i|, not |psi^(1),SSP,S_i|.
  2. [Section 4] The notation oscillates between u_ij and bar_u_ij; for clarity, Eq. (39) and the surrounding text should consistently call u_IDP_ij a corrected bar state and write it as bar_u_IDP_ij.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the M1-specific IDP/realizability proof is derived in-paper; self-citations supply only the general MCL framework and boundary details.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs. Lemma 1 is proved in the text by constructing nonnegative densities psi+ = (1 + nu·Omega) psi and psi- = (1 - nu·Omega) psi, and Theorem 1 uses the splitting (23) plus convexity of R1 to obtain realizability of the low-order bar states, so the multidimensional bar-state result is not imported from the cited one-dimensional analysis. Lemma 2 is also proved in the text. The two-step limiter is not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction: the first step imposes componentwise bounds (35)-(38), and the second step defines alpha via a formula derived from the realizable-velocity inequality; the algebra showing that the chosen alpha enforces the inequality is direct and parameter-free. Self-citations [39,40,49] provide the general MCL framework and boundary details, but the M1-specific realizability steps (Lemma 1, Theorem 1, Lemma 2) are argued in this paper. The two flagged concerns are correctness/evidence issues, not circularity: Remark 6 defers the boundary-node IDP argument to [32,40,49] (an omitted detail rather than a reduction), and Eq. (40) contains a bar-psi versus bar-psi^* mismatch in the cross term that would invalidate the printed IDP proof if intentional (a typo-level correctness problem, not a self-referential derivation). Score 1 reflects the absence of material circularity while acknowledging the minor self-citations and proof-quality caveats.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to data: the time step uses a standard CFL constant, and epsilon = 1e-15 is a safety tolerance. The axioms are standard realizability and hyperbolicity facts about the M1 model, plus the boundary-node IDP assertion that is deferred to prior work. The method introduces no new physical entities.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The M1 closure (5)-(7) maps admissible states (E,F) to a symmetric tensor that is a moment of a nonnegative distribution.
    Invoked in Section 2 before (9) to justify that R1 is the correct invariant set and that Lemma 1 applies to the closure.
  • domain assumption The maximum wave speed of the realizable M1 model is at most 1, so lambda_max = 1 in the graph viscosity and global Lax-Friedrichs flux.
    Used in Section 3 to set d_ij = max{|c_ij|,|c_ji|}, which is needed for |c_ij|/d_ij <= 1 in Theorem 1; cited to [9,16,50].
  • standard math Lemma 1: for realizable u, the states u_plus = (psi0 + psi1 dot nu, psi1 + psi2 nu) and u_minus are realizable for |nu| <= 1.
    Proven in the paper as Lemma 1 and also cited to [16, Lem. 4.1]. It is the basis for the bar-state realizability proof in Theorem 1.
  • ad hoc to paper Boundary nodes admit a lumped boundary-term decomposition into realizable states.
    Remark 6 asserts the IDP property on boundary nodes and defers the proof to references [32,40,49]; the present paper does not prove it.
  • standard math SSP-RK time stepping preserves the IDP property if each forward Euler stage is IDP.
    Standard property of SSP-RK methods cited to [29,56]; used in Section 3 to lift the forward Euler analysis to the full time discretization.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Realizability-preserving monolithic convex limiting in continuous Galerkin discretizations of the M1 model of radiative transfer." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KA3GJC5D

@misc{pith2026250907689,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Realizability-preserving monolithic convex limiting in continuous Galerkin discretizations of the M1 model of radiative transfer},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KA3GJC5D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.07689}
}
abstract

We discretize the $M_1$ model of radiative transfer using continuous finite elements and propose a tailor-made monolithic convex limiting (MCL) procedure for enforcing physical realizability. The $M_1$ system of nonlinear balance laws for the zeroth and first moments of a probability distribution function is derived from the linear Boltzmann equation and equipped with an entropy-based closure for the second moment. To ensure hyperbolicity and physical admissibility, evolving moments must stay in an invariant domain representing a convex set of realizable states. We first construct a low-order method that is provably invariant domain preserving (IDP). Introducing intermediate states that represent spatially averaged exact solutions of homogeneous Riemann problems, we prove that these so-called bar states are realizable in any number of space dimensions. This key auxiliary result enables us to show the IDP property of a fully discrete scheme with a diagonally implicit treatment of reactive terms. To achieve high resolution, we add nonlinear correction terms that are constrained using a two-step MCL algorithm. In the first limiting step, local bounds are imposed on each conserved variable to avoid spurious oscillations and maintain positivity of the scalar-valued zeroth moment (particle density). The second limiting step constrains the magnitude of the vector-valued first moment to be realizable. The flux-corrected finite element scheme is provably IDP. Its ability to prevent nonphysical behavior while attaining high-order accuracy in smooth regions is verified in a series of numerical tests. The developed methodology provides a robust simulation tool for dose calculation in radiotherapy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.07689 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Line source simulation results at t = 0.45 computed with the MCL scheme using a uniform rectangular mesh with Nh = 5122 nodes per component and CFL = 0.5. p x 2 + y 2 ≤ 1 2 } be the disc centered at the origin with radius r = 1 2 . The initial condition u(x, y) = (ψ (0), ψ(1) x , ψ(1) y ) ⊤ = ( (1, 0.9, 0)⊤ if (x, y) ∈ D1 2 , (10−10 , 0, 0)⊤ otherwise is close to the boundary of the realizable set R1, since f = |ψ(1… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Flash simulation results at t = 6 computed with the MCL scheme using a uniform rectangular mesh with Nh = 5122 nodes per component and CFL = 0.5. up to the final time tfinal = 3. Let D1 = {(x, y) ∈ R 2 : x 2 + y 2 ≤ 1} denote the unit disk. The material parameters and the source term of the M1 model are given by σa(x, y) = ( 10 if (x, y) ∈ D1, 0 otherwise, σs(x, y) = 0, (42) q (0)(x, y) = ( 1 if (x, y) ∈ D1, 0 other… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Homogeneous disk simulation results at t = 3.0 computed with the MCL scheme using a uniform rectangular mesh with Nh = 5122 nodes per component and CFL = 0.5. 5.4. Lattice problem Another challenging benchmark with discontinuous material parameters is the lattice problem in￾troduced in [12]. The computational domain D = (0, 7)2 is filled with a scattering background medium and an array of highly absorbing materials … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Lattice problem setup: absorbing region Da is shown in red; sources are concentrated in the green region. of the original benchmark is isotropic. To further demonstrate the realizability of the proposed MCL scheme for general sources q ∈ R1, we perform a second test wi…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Transient lattice simulation results at t = 3.2 computed with the MCL scheme using a uniform rectangular mesh with Nh = 5122 nodes per component and CFL = 0.5. In the test (a,b), the source term was defined by (45), while (46) was used in the test (c,d). Both setups of…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Steady-state Lattice problem computed with the MCL scheme on a uniform rectangular mesh with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Convergence of steady-state residuals rh for the MCL discretization of the lattice problem using a uniform rectangular mesh with Nh = 5122 nodes per component and pseudo-time stepping with CFL = 0.9. implicit pseudo-time stepping of backward Euler type. The IDP propert…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aitkenhead, Peter Sitch, Jenny C

    Adam H. Aitkenhead, Peter Sitch, Jenny C. Richardson, Carla Winterhalter, Imran Patel, and Ranald I. Mackay. Automated Monte-Carlo re-calculation of proton therapy plans using Geant4/Gate: implementation and comparison to plan-specific quality assurance measurements. Br. J. Radiol., 93(1114):20200228, 07 2020

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Alldredge, Cory D

    Graham W. Alldredge, Cory D. Hauck, and Andre L. Tits. High-order entropy-based closures for linear transport in slab geometry II: A computational study of the optimization problem.SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 34(4):B361–B391, 2012

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    Alldredge and Florian Schneider

    Graham W. Alldredge and Florian Schneider. A realizability-preserving discontinuous Galerkin scheme for entropy-based moment closures for linear kinetic equations in one space dimension.J. Comput. Phys., 295:665–684, 2015

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    MFEM: A modular finite element methods library.Comput

    Robert Anderson, Julian Andrej, Andrew Barker, Jamie Bramwell, Jean-Sylvain Camier, Jakub Cerveny, Veselin Dobrev, Yohann Dudouit, Aaron Fisher, Tzanio Kolev, Will Pazner, Mark Stow- ell, Vladimir Tomov, Ido Akkerman, Johann Dahm, David Medina, and Stefano Zampini. MFEM: A modular finite element methods library.Comput. Math. Appl., 81:42–74, 2021

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    High-performance finite elements with MFEM.Int

    Julian Andrej, Nabil Atallah, Jan-Phillip Bäcker, Jean-Sylvain Camier, Dylan Copeland, Veselin Dobrev, Yohann Dudouit, Tobias Duswald, Brendan Keith, Dohyun Kim, et al. High-performance finite elements with MFEM.Int. J. High Perform. Comput. Appl., 38(5):447–467, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Kitware, Inc., 2015

    Utkarsh Ayachit.The ParaView guide: A Parallel Visualization Application. Kitware, Inc., 2015. 23

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Optimal radiotherapy treatment planning using minimum entropy models.Appl

    Richard Barnard, Martin Frank, and Michael Herty. Optimal radiotherapy treatment planning using minimum entropy models.Appl. Math. Comput., 219(5):2668–2679, 2012

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    CalculationofabsorbeddoseinradiotherapybysolutionofthelinearBoltzmann transport equations.Phys

    JamesL.Bedford. CalculationofabsorbeddoseinradiotherapybysolutionofthelinearBoltzmann transport equations.Phys. Med. Biol., 64(2):02TR01, 2019

    work page 2019

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    An HLLC scheme to solve the M1 model of radiative transfer in two space dimensions.J

    Christophe Berthon, Pierre Charrier, and Bruno Dubroca. An HLLC scheme to solve the M1 model of radiative transfer in two space dimensions.J. Sci. Comput., 31:347–389, 2007

    2007

  2. [10]

    PhD thesis, University of Bordeaux, 2019

    Gabriele Birindelli.Entropic Model for Dose Calculation in External Beam Radiotherapy and Brachytherapy. PhD thesis, University of Bordeaux, 2019

    2019

  3. [11]

    PhD thesis, Kuopion yliopisto, 2007

    Eeva Boman.Radiotherapy forward and inverse problem applying Boltzmann transport equation (Sädehoidon suora ja käänteisongelma Boltzmannin siirtoyhtälön avulla). PhD thesis, Kuopion yliopisto, 2007

    2007

  4. [12]

    Thomas A. Brunner. Forms of approximate radiation transport. Technical report, Sandia National Labs., Albuquerque, NM (US); Sandia National Labs., Livermore, CA (US), June 2002

    2002

  5. [13]

    Brunner and James P

    Thomas A. Brunner and James P. Holloway. Two new boundary conditions for use with the maximum entropy closure and an approximate Riemann solver.Transport, 10:3, 2000

    2000

  6. [14]

    Brunner and James Paul Holloway

    Thomas A. Brunner and James Paul Holloway. One-dimensional Riemann solvers and the maxi- mum entropy closure.J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transfer, 69(5):543–566, 2001

    2001

  7. [15]

    Brunner and James Paul Holloway

    Thomas A. Brunner and James Paul Holloway. Two-dimensional time dependent Riemann solvers for neutron transport.J. Comput. Phys., 210(1):386–399, November 2005

    2005

  8. [16]

    A comparative study of limiting strategies in discontinuous Galerkin schemes for theM1 model of radiation transport

    Prince Chidyagwai, Martin Frank, Florian Schneider, and Benjamin Seibold. A comparative study of limiting strategies in discontinuous Galerkin schemes for theM1 model of radiation transport. J. Comput. Appl. Math., 342:399–418, 2018

    2018

  9. [17]

    Hauck, and Anthony Mezzacappa

    Ran Chu, Eirik Endeve, Cory D. Hauck, and Anthony Mezzacappa. Realizability-preserving DG- IMEX method for the two-moment model of fermion transport.J. Comput. Phys., 389:62–93, 2019

    2019

  10. [18]

    Entropy-based moment closure for kinetic equa- tions: Riemann problem and invariant regions.J

    Jean-François Coulombel and Thierry Goudon. Entropy-based moment closure for kinetic equa- tions: Riemann problem and invariant regions.J. Hyperbol. Differ. Eq., 3(04):649–671, December 2006

    2006

  11. [19]

    Dose Calculation Algorithms for External Radiation Therapy: An Overview for Practitioners.Applied Sciences, 11(15):6806, July 2021

    Fortuna De Martino, Stefania Clemente, Christian Graeff, Giuseppe Palma, and Laura Cella. Dose Calculation Algorithms for External Radiation Therapy: An Overview for Practitioners.Applied Sciences, 11(15):6806, July 2021. 24

    2021

  12. [20]

    Validation of a Monte Carlo framework for out-of-field dose calculations in proton therapy.Front

    Marijke De Saint-Hubert, Nico Verbeek, Christian Bäumer, Johannes Esser, Jörg Wulff, Racell Nabha, Olivier Van Hoey, Jérémie Dabin, Florian Stuckmann, Fabiano Vasi, et al. Validation of a Monte Carlo framework for out-of-field dose calculations in proton therapy.Front. Oncol.,...

    2022

  13. [21]

    Sequential limiting in continuous and discontinuous Galerkin methods for the Euler equations.J

    Veselin Dobrev, Tzanio Kolev, Dmitri Kuzmin, Robert Rieben, and Vladimir Tomov. Sequential limiting in continuous and discontinuous Galerkin methods for the Euler equations.J. Comput. Phys., 356:372–390, March 2018

    2018

  14. [22]

    Commissioning and clinical implementation of an independent dose calculation system for scanned proton beams

    Ralf Dreindl, Marta Bolsa-Ferruz, Rosa Fayos-Sola, Fatima Padilla Cabal, Lukas Scheuchenpflug, Alessio Elia, Antonio Amico, Antonio Carlino, Markus Stock, and Loïc Grevillot. Commissioning and clinical implementation of an independent dose calculation system for scanned proton...

    2024

  15. [23]

    A deterministic partial differential equation model for dose calculation in electron radiotherapy.Phys

    Roland Duclous, Bruno Dubroca, and Martin Frank. A deterministic partial differential equation model for dose calculation in electron radiotherapy.Phys. Med. Biol., 55(13):3843, 2010

    2010

  16. [24]

    High-order limiting methods using maximum principle bounds derived from the Boltzmann equation I: Euler equations.J

    Tarik Dzanic and Luigi Martinelli. High-order limiting methods using maximum principle bounds derived from the Boltzmann equation I: Euler equations.J. Comput. Phys., 529:113895, 2025

    2025

  17. [25]

    Hauck, and Edgar Olbrant

    Martin Frank, Cory D. Hauck, and Edgar Olbrant. Perturbed, entropy-based closure for radiative transfer.arXiv preprint arXiv:1208.0772, 2012

    2012 arXiv

  18. [26]

    A fast and accurate moment method for the Fokker–Planck equation and applications to electron radiotherapy.SIAM J

    Martin Frank, Hartmut Hensel, and Axel Klar. A fast and accurate moment method for the Fokker–Planck equation and applications to electron radiotherapy.SIAM J. Appl. Math., 67(2):582–603, January 2007

    2007

  19. [27]

    Gifford, John L

    Kent A. Gifford, John L. Horton, Todd A. Wareing, Gregory Failla, and Firas Mourtada. Com- parison of a finite-element multigroup discrete-ordinates code with Monte Carlo for radiotherapy calculations.Phys. Med. Biol., 51(9):2253, 2006

    2006

  20. [28]

    Godoy and Paul E

    William F. Godoy and Paul E. DesJardin. On the use of flux limiters in the discrete ordinates method for 3D radiation calculations in absorbing and scattering media.J. Comput. Phys., 229(9):3189–3213, 2010

    2010

  21. [29]

    Strong stability-preserving high-order time discretization methods.SIAM Rev., 43(1):89–112, January 2001

    Sigal Gottlieb, Chi-Wang Shu, and Eitan Tadmor. Strong stability-preserving high-order time discretization methods.SIAM Rev., 43(1):89–112, January 2001

    2001

  22. [30]

    Invariant domains and first-order continuous finite element approximation for hyperbolic systems.SIAM J

    Jean-Luc Guermond and Bojan Popov. Invariant domains and first-order continuous finite element approximation for hyperbolic systems.SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 54(4):2466–2489, January 2016

    2016

  23. [31]

    Monolithic convex limiting in discontinuous Galerkin discretizations of hyperbolic conservation laws.Comput

    Hennes Hajduk. Monolithic convex limiting in discontinuous Galerkin discretizations of hyperbolic conservation laws.Comput. Math. Appl., 87:120–138, April 2021

    2021

  24. [32]

    PhD thesis, TU Dortmund University, 2022

    Hennes Hajduk.Algebraically Constrained Finite Element Methods for Hyperbolic Problems with Applications in Geophysics and Gas Dynamics. PhD thesis, TU Dortmund University, 2022. 25

    2022

  25. [33]

    New directional vector limiters for discon- tinuous Galerkin methods.J

    Hennes Hajduk, Dmitri Kuzmin, and Vadym Aizinger. New directional vector limiters for discon- tinuous Galerkin methods.J. Comput. Phys., 384:308–325, May 2019

    2019

  26. [34]

    Flux-correctedtransporttechniquesappliedtotheradiation transport equation discretized with continuous finite elements.J

    JoshuaE.HanselandJeanC.Ragusa. Flux-correctedtransporttechniquesappliedtotheradiation transport equation discretized with continuous finite elements.J. Comput. Phys., 354:179–195, 2018

    2018

  27. [35]

    Cory D. Hauck. High-order entropy-based closures for linear transport in slab geometry.Commun. Math. Sci, 9(1):187–205, 2011

    2011

  28. [36]

    Treatment planning of scanned proton beams in RayStation.Med

    Martin Janson, Lars Glimelius, Albin Fredriksson, Erik Traneus, and Erik Engwall. Treatment planning of scanned proton beams in RayStation.Med. Dosim., 49(1):2–12, 2024. Treatment Planning in Proton Therapy

    2024

  29. [37]

    Kinetic scheme for solving the M1 model of radiative transfer.Publ

    Yuji Kanno, Tetsuya Harada, and Tomoyuki Hanawa. Kinetic scheme for solving the M1 model of radiative transfer.Publ. Astron. Soc. Jpn, 65(4), August 2013

    2013

  30. [38]

    David S. Kershaw. Flux limiting nature‘s own way – A new method for numerical solution of the transport equation. Technical report, Lawrence Livermore National Lab.(LLNL), Livermore, CA (United States), July 1976

    1976

  31. [39]

    Monolithic convex limiting for continuous finite element discretizations of hyper- bolic conservation laws.Comput

    Dmitri Kuzmin. Monolithic convex limiting for continuous finite element discretizations of hyper- bolic conservation laws.Comput. Method. Appl. M., 361:112804, April 2020

    2020

  32. [40]

    World Scientific, 2023

    Dmitri Kuzmin and Hennes Hajduk.Property-Preserving Numerical Schemes for Conservation Laws. World Scientific, 2023

    2023

  33. [41]

    David Levermore

    C. David Levermore. Relating Eddington factors to flux limiters.J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transfer, 31(2):149–160, February 1984

    1984

  34. [42]

    David Levermore

    C. David Levermore. Moment closure hierarchies for kinetic theories.J. Stat. Phys., 83(5–6):1021– 1065, June 1996

    1996

  35. [43]

    Taylor, Jiajian Shen, Jatinder Saini, Minglei Kang, Charles B

    Liyong Lin, Paige A. Taylor, Jiajian Shen, Jatinder Saini, Minglei Kang, Charles B. Simone II, Jeffrey D. Bradley, Zuofeng Li, and Ying Xiao. NRG oncology survey of Monte Carlo dose calculation use in US proton therapy centers.International Journal of Particle Therapy, 8(2):73...

    2021

  36. [44]

    Springer Spektrum, 2019

    Christoph Lohmann.Physics-Compatible Finite Element Methods for Scalar and Tensorial Ad- vection Problems. Springer Spektrum, 2019

    2019

  37. [45]

    Dosi- metric validation of a GPU-based dose engine for a fast in silico patient-specific quality assurance program in light ion beam therapy.Med

    Giuseppe Magro, Martina Fassi, Alfredo Mirandola, Eleonora Rossi, Silvia Molinelli, Stefania Russo, Alessia Bazani, Alessandro Vai, Mario Ciocca, Marco Donetti, and Andrea Mairani. Dosi- metric validation of a GPU-based dose engine for a fast in silico patient-specific quality...

    2022

  38. [46]

    MFEM: Modular Finite Element Methods [Software].https://mfem.org

  39. [47]

    Gerald N. Minerbo. Maximum entropy Eddington factors.J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transfer, 20(6):541–545, December 1978

    1978

  40. [48]

    PhD thesis, RWTH Aachen University, 2013

    Philipp Monreal and Martin Frank.Moment Realizability and Kershaw Closures in Radiative Transfer. PhD thesis, RWTH Aachen University, 2013

    2013

  41. [49]

    Monolithic convex limiting and implicit pseudo-time stepping for calculating steady-state solutions of the Euler equations.J

    Paul Moujaes and Dmitri Kuzmin. Monolithic convex limiting and implicit pseudo-time stepping for calculating steady-state solutions of the Euler equations.J. Comput. Phys., 523:113687, 2025

    2025

  42. [50]

    Hauck, and Martin Frank

    Edgar Olbrant, Cory D. Hauck, and Martin Frank. A realizability-preserving discontinuous Galerkin method for the M1 model of radiative transfer.J. Comput. Phys., 231(17):5612–5639, 2012

    2012

  43. [51]

    Alldredge, Stéphane Brull, Bruno Dubroca, and Martin Frank

    Teddy Pichard, Graham W. Alldredge, Stéphane Brull, Bruno Dubroca, and Martin Frank. An approximation of theM2 closure: Application to radiotherapy dose simulation.J. Sci. Comput., 71(1):71–108, 2017

    2017

  44. [52]

    Re- laxation schemes for theM1 model with space-dependent flux: Application to radiotherapy dose calculation.Commun

    Teddy Pichard, Denise Aregba-Driollet, Stéphane Brull, Bruno Dubroca, and Martin Frank. Re- laxation schemes for theM1 model with space-dependent flux: Application to radiotherapy dose calculation.Commun. Comput. Phys., 19(1):168–191, 2016

    2016

  45. [53]

    Bowen, Charles Bloch, and Tony Wong

    Jatinder Saini, Erik Traneus, Dominic Maes, Rajesh Regmi, Stephen R. Bowen, Charles Bloch, and Tony Wong. Advanced proton beam dosimetry part I: Review and performance evaluation of dose calculation algorithms.Translational Lung Cancer Research, 7(2), 2018

    2018

  46. [54]

    First-ordercontinuous-anddiscontinuous-Galerkinmoment models for a linear kinetic equation: Model derivation and realizability theory.J

    FlorianSchneiderandTobiasLeibner. First-ordercontinuous-anddiscontinuous-Galerkinmoment models for a linear kinetic equation: Model derivation and realizability theory.J. Comput. Phys., 416:109547, 2020

    2020

  47. [55]

    Florian Schneider and Tobias Leibner. First-order continuous-and discontinuous-Galerkin mo- ment models for a linear kinetic equation: Realizability-preserving splitting scheme and numerical analysis.Journal of Computational Physics, 456:111040, 2022

    2022

  48. [56]

    Efficient implementation of essentially non-oscillatory shock- capturing schemes, II

    Chi-Wang Shu and Stanley Osher. Efficient implementation of essentially non-oscillatory shock- capturing schemes, II. InUpwind and High-Resolution Schemes, pages 328–374. Springer, 1989

    1989

  49. [57]

    Toro.Riemann Solvers and Numerical Methods for Fluid Dynamics: A Practical Pntroduction

    Eleuterio F. Toro.Riemann Solvers and Numerical Methods for Fluid Dynamics: A Practical Pntroduction. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    2013

  50. [58]

    Vassiliev, Todd A

    Oleg N. Vassiliev, Todd A. Wareing, John McGhee, Gregory Failla, Mohammad R. Salehpour, and Firas Mourtada. Validation of a new grid-based Boltzmann equation solver for dose calculation in radiotherapy with photon beams.Phys. Med. Biol., 55(3):581, 2010. 27

    2010

  51. [59]

    Experiments and Monte Carlo simulations on multiple Coulomb scattering of protons.Med

    Nico Verbeek, Jörg Wulff, Martin Janson, Christian Bäumer, Sameera Zahid, Beate Timmermann, and Lorenzo Brualla. Experiments and Monte Carlo simulations on multiple Coulomb scattering of protons.Med. Phys., 48(6):3186–3199, May 2021

    2021

  52. [60]

    High order positivity-preserving discontinuous Galerkin methods for radiative transfer equations.SIAM J

    Daming Yuan, Juan Cheng, and Chi-Wang Shu. High order positivity-preserving discontinuous Galerkin methods for radiative transfer equations.SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 38(5):A2987–A3019, 2016. 28

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.