A posteriori error estimates for the mortar staggered DG method

Eric Chung; Lina Zhao

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 40 references

A posteriori error estimates for the mortar staggered DG method

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that two residual-type error estimators for the mortar staggered discontinuous Galerkin method are both reliable and efficient for second-order elliptic problems, with no saturation assumptions.

desk verdict First a posteriori estimators for mortar SDG, but the energy-error reliability proof rests on a lemma that fails for the discontinuous coefficients the paper targets. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03395 v1 pith:LKQCMEZV submitted 2019-08-09 math.NA cs.NA

Lina Zhao , Eric Chung This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.NAcs.NA MSC 65N3065N1565N50

keywords mortarmethodstaggereddiscontinuousGalerkinaposteriorierrorestimatesresidual-typeestimatorsnonmatchinggridsadaptivemeshrefinementsecond-orderellipticequationssaturationassumption

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 aims to supply computable a posteriori error control for the mortar staggered discontinuous Galerkin method, which solves second-order elliptic equations on subdomains whose meshes do not match at interfaces. It constructs two residual-type estimators: one for the potential error $\|u-u_h\|_0$ and one for the weighted energy error $\|\rho^{1/2}\nabla(u-u_h)\|_0$. It proves each estimator is both reliable and efficient, with constants independent of mesh size, and it avoids the saturation assumptions that are common in the literature. If correct, this gives practitioners a rigorous basis for adaptive mesh refinement driven by these estimators.

What carries the argument

The two local estimators are assembled from element residuals, flux jumps, and mortar interface mismatch terms. For the potential $L^2$ error, the estimator $\eta_1$ contains $h_\tau^4\|f+\nabla\cdot z_h\|^2_{0,\tau}$, $h_\tau^2\|\rho^{-1}z_h-\nabla u_h\|^2_{0,\tau}$, jump terms on the staggered edges, and mortar flux difference terms; its proof uses the duality argument with an auxiliary elliptic problem. For the energy error, the estimator $\eta_2$ is built similarly with $\rho$-weighted residuals, and the proof introduces an auxiliary function $s\in H^1_0(\Omega)$ defined by $(\rho\nabla s,\nabla v)=(\rho\nabla u_h,\nabla v)$, which decomposes the energy error into a conforming part and a nonconforming part. The nonconforming part is controlled by the jumps of $u_h$ on the subdivision edges and non-mortar interfaces, and the conforming part is handled by the Scott-Zhang local quasi-interpolation operator. Efficiency is proved with standard element and edge bubble functions.

What would settle it

Run the mortar staggered DG scheme on a sequence of nonmatching meshes for a smooth solution and compute the quantity $\min_{v\in H^1_0(\Omega)}\|\rho^{1/2}\nabla(v-u_h)\|_0$ divided by $(\sum_{e\in F_p\cup T_{\Gamma,h}} h_e^{-1}\|\llbracket\rho^{1/2}u_h\rrbracket\|^2_{0,e})^{1/2}$; if this ratio grows unboundedly as the mesh is refined, Lemma 3.1 fails and the energy reliability bound collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For the mortar staggered discontinuous Galerkin discretization of $-\nabla\cdot(\rho\nabla u)=f$ with $u=0$ on $\partial\Omega$, the paper constructs two residual-type error estimators and proves that they are both reliable and efficient. Theorem 3.1 shows that the $L^2$-norm error $\|u-u_h\|_0$ is bounded by the estimator $\eta_1$ using a duality argument, and Theorem 3.2 shows that the weighted energy error $\|\rho^{1/2}\nabla(u-u_h)\|_0$ is bounded by the estimator $\eta_2$ using an auxiliary function that splits the energy error into a conforming and a nonconforming part. Theorem 4.1 gives matching lower bounds for both estimators. The analysis requires no saturation assumptions and no mesh restrictions on the mortar and non-mortar sides of the interfaces.

Load-bearing premise

The energy-error bound rests on an imported lemma, stated as Lemma 3.1, which asserts that the distance from the numerical solution to a genuinely continuous function is controlled by the size of its jumps across the interior subdivision edges and across the non-mortar interface; the paper does not prove this lemma for the mortar staggered DG spaces.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Adaptive mesh refinement can be driven directly by $\eta_1$ or $\eta_2$; the numerical experiments show that optimal convergence rates are recovered for solutions with limited regularity.
Both estimators give explicit upper and lower bounds, so they can be used to balance over- and under-refinement without relying on the usual saturation assumption.
The energy estimator explicitly monitors the nonconforming error through jumps on subdivision edges and the non-mortar interface, which is important on nonmatching grids.
The potential $L^2$ estimator includes mortar flux difference terms, extending reliable a posteriori control to the $L^2$ norm for nonmatching meshes.
Removing the saturation assumption means the reliability proofs do not require comparing the computed solution to a finer-grid reference solution.

Reading between the lines

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

The same conforming/nonconforming decomposition via an auxiliary function could transfer to other mortar or hybridizable discontinuous Galerkin methods on nonmatching meshes, as long as a subdomain-wise conforming interpolation operator is available.
The absence of saturation assumptions suggests the estimators could be used as ingredients in a full convergence proof for an adaptive algorithm with Dörfler marking, though the paper itself does not establish contraction or optimal decay rates.
If the hidden constants in the Scott-Zhang interpolation estimates and the imported distance lemma are made explicit, the reliability bounds could be turned into guaranteed upper bounds on the error; the present paper only establishes existence of constants independent of mesh size.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First, the good news: this is the first paper to give a posteriori error estimators for the mortar staggered DG method, and the L2 estimator (η1, Theorem 3.1) looks sound. The duality argument is standard, the residuals are the right ones, and the numerical experiments (including the singular example and the interface example) show the expected adaptive behavior. The efficiency bounds in Section 4 are also plausible and follow the usual bubble-function machinery.

But the energy-error estimator (η2, Theorem 3.2) has a load-bearing flaw. Lemma 3.1 claims that the H^1_0-conforming distance of u_h is bounded by the jumps of ρ^{1/2}u_h on F_p ∪ T_{Γ,h}. For the piecewise-constant coefficient ρ used throughout the paper, that is false. Take a u_h that is continuous across an interface where ρ jumps: the left side is zero (choose v = u_h), while the right side is positive because ⟦ρ^{1/2}u_h⟧ = ρ_i^{1/2}u_{h,i} − ρ_j^{1/2}u_{h,j} does not vanish even when ⟦u_h⟧ = 0. The correct quantity would be the weighted jump of u_h, ρ^{1/2}⟦u_h⟧, not the jump of the weighted function. The estimator (3.8) only contains h^{-1}ρ‖⟦u_h⟧‖^2 on the nonmortar edges, with ρ from the nonmortar side; if that side has the smaller coefficient, the term is weaker than what the lemma would need. So Theorem 3.2 is unproven for exactly the discontinuous-coefficient problems the paper advertises (Example 5.3). This is not a cosmetic issue; it breaks the reliability proof.

Also, Theorem 3.1 assumes elliptic regularity for the dual problem but only states it inside the proof. That's a minor fix—just add it to the hypotheses.

For constant ρ, the energy estimator is probably fine, and the L2 part stands on its own. But as written, the main result for variable ρ is not established. I'd recommend sending this to a serious referee, but the referee should be told to focus on Lemma 3.1. If the authors can replace it with a correct weighted-jump estimate and adjust η2 accordingly, the paper would be a solid contribution. If not, the energy estimator should be restricted to constant coefficients.

The citation pattern is fine: self-citations are for background and earlier SDG estimators, not for the disputed lemma. No serious circularity.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops two residual-type a posteriori error estimators for the mortar staggered discontinuous Galerkin (SDG) discretization of the scalar second-order elliptic problem (2.1) with piecewise-constant coefficients and nonmatching subdomain meshes. The first estimator, η1 defined in (3.4), targets the L2 error and is derived by a duality argument; the second, η2 defined in (3.9), targets the ρ-weighted H1 seminorm and is derived with the help of an auxiliary H1_0 function that splits the energy error into conforming and nonconforming parts. The authors claim reliability of both estimators (Theorems 3.1 and 3.2), efficiency (Theorem 4.1), and the absence of saturation assumptions, and they present adaptive refinement experiments, including a transmission problem with a corner singularity.

Significance. If the proofs were correct, the paper would make a useful contribution: it would extend residual-based a posteriori control to mortar SDG on nonmatching grids without saturation assumptions and with explicit interface and mortar-flux terms in the estimators. The derivation is constructive and the estimators are not fitted to numerical data; the numerical experiments illustrate plausible adaptive behavior. However, the reliability proof for the energy estimator rests on a nonconforming estimate that is false for discontinuous coefficients, so the main claim is not established as stated. The paper has merit and the issue appears fixable, but a substantive revision is required.

major comments (2)

[§3.2, Lemma 3.1 and Theorem 3.2] Lemma 3.1 is not valid for the piecewise-constant coefficient ρ considered in §2, and Theorem 3.2 relies on it through (3.12). With the jump convention of §2, on an interface Γ_ij one has ⟦ρ^{1/2}u_h⟧ = ρ_i^{1/2}u_{h,i} − ρ_j^{1/2}u_{h,j}. Take any nonzero continuous function u_h ∈ H^1_0(Ω) that belongs to the SDG space; then min_{v∈H^1_0}‖ρ^{1/2}∇(v−u_h)‖ = 0, while the right-hand side of Lemma 3.1 is positive whenever ρ_i ≠ ρ_j and u_h does not vanish on Γ_ij. Thus the stated lemma is false. A correct nonconforming bound for the weighted energy norm must involve the jump of u_h weighted by a coefficient that accounts for both sides, for example a term of the form (ρ_i+ρ_j)h_e^{-1}‖⟦u_h⟧‖^2_{0,e}; it cannot use the jump of the weighted function ρ^{1/2}u_h. As written, the only interface contribution in η2, (3.8), is h_e^{-1}ρ‖⟦u_h⟧‖^2 with ρ taken from the element on the non-mortar side, and if that side has the smaller coefficient the estimator undercounts the contribution needed from the larger-coefficient side. Consequently Theorem 3.2 is not established for discontinuous coefficients, which is precisely the setting of Example 5.3.
[§3.1, Theorem 3.1] The proof of Theorem 3.1 assumes the elliptic regularity estimate (3.6) for the dual problem, but the theorem as stated contains no such hypothesis. For the transmission problem (2.1) with interface corners, as in Example 5.3 where the solution has regularity 1+α < 2, the dual problem need not be H^2-regular. The L2 reliability bound is therefore conditional as written. The hypothesis should be stated explicitly and the theorem restricted accordingly, or an alternative proof that avoids full H^2 regularity of the dual problem should be supplied.

minor comments (3)

[§3.2, Eq. (3.8)] In the edge terms of the local estimator, the text should clarify whether ρ is evaluated on the element τ or on a particular side of an interface; since ρ is discontinuous, an unambiguous convention is needed for the boundary and interface sums.
[§5, Example 5.2] The legends in Fig. 7 appear truncated, for example '|| 1/2 (u-uh)||', and the intended quantity is presumably ‖ρ^{1/2}∇(u−u_h)‖; the labels should be corrected so the reported convergence history is unambiguous.
[Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including 'Bot h' in the abstract and 'coefﬁcients'; a careful proofreading pass is needed before publication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: estimators are residual-based and proved by standard duality/interpolation; only minor non-load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The two estimators η1 (3.4) and η2 (3.9) are constructed directly from residuals of the discrete mortar SDG equations (2.4): elementwise f+∇·zh, zh−ρ∇uh, flux jumps, interface flux mismatches, and solution jumps. No parameter is fitted to the error quantities that the estimators purport to predict. Reliability of η1 (Theorem 3.1) uses the duality argument with the elliptic regularity assumption (3.6) and interpolation estimates (3.3) sourced to Ciarlet and the earlier mortar SDG paper; these are external technical tools, not the target estimate. Reliability of η2 (Theorem 3.2) decomposes the energy error into a conforming part controlled by Scott–Zhang interpolation and a nonconforming part controlled by Lemma 3.1, cited from Wang–Xu and Karakashian–Pascal rather than assumed from the present paper. Efficiency (Theorem 4.1) uses standard bubble-function arguments. Lemma 2.1 is cited from the authors' earlier work [24], but it is used only in Remark 4.1 to note comparability of the right-hand-side terms; the efficiency theorem itself is proved without it. The possible concern that Lemma 3.1 as stated cannot hold for discontinuous ρ is a correctness/validity concern, not circularity, since the paper does not define the estimator in terms of the error it bounds. Overall the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to the claimed results, and self-citations are not load-bearing.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted; the estimators are computable quantities with no tunable constants. The analysis relies on standard interpolation and regularity results, plus two imported bounds from the literature: the nonconforming gap estimate (Lemma 3.1) and the a priori estimates of the mortar SDG method (Lemma 2.1). No new particles, forces, or artificial entities are introduced.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The auxiliary dual problem (3.5) satisfies the elliptic regularity estimate ||w||_2 ≤ C||u-u_h||_0.
Invoked in the proof of Theorem 3.1 to close the duality argument; not stated as a theorem hypothesis. Requires e.g. a convex polygon or smooth domain.
domain assumption The domain partition is geometrically conforming and each subdomain triangulation is quasi-uniform and shape-regular.
Stated in Section 2; used for trace inequalities, Scott-Zhang interpolation estimates, and bubble function lemmas.
standard math Scott-Zhang local quasi-interpolation estimates in Lemma 3.2 hold for functions in H^1_0(Ω).
Cited from [30]; used in the energy error reliability proof.
domain assumption Lemma 3.1, bounding the conforming gap of the SDG solution by jumps on F_p and T_{Γ,h}, holds for the mortar SDG space.
Quoted from [34, Lemma 3.6] and [22, Theorem 2.2]; the applicability to this specific SDG space is asserted without proof.
standard math A priori error estimates of Lemma 2.1 (from [24]) hold.
Used in Remark 4.1 to demonstrate that efficiency bound terms are of comparable order to the true errors; a published result by the authors and coauthors.
standard math f_h is a piecewise linear approximation of f with standard approximation properties.
Assumed in Theorem 4.1 to control data oscillation terms in the efficiency bounds.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A posteriori error estimates for the mortar staggered DG method." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LKQCMEZV

@misc{pith2026190803395,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A posteriori error estimates for the mortar staggered DG method},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LKQCMEZV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03395}
}

abstract

Two residual-type error estimators for the mortar staggered discontinuous Galerkin discretizations of second order elliptic equations are developed. Both error estimators are proved to be reliable and efficient. Key to the derivation of the error estimator in potential $L^2$ error is the duality argument. On the other hand, an auxiliary function is defined, making it capable of decomposing the energy error into conforming part and nonconforming part, which can be combined with the well-known Scott-Zhang local quasi-interpolation operator and the mortar discrete formulation yields an error estimator in energy error. Importantly, our analysis for both error estimators does not require any saturation assumptions which are often needed in the literature. Several numerical experiments are presented to confirm our proposed theories.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03395 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Region S(ν) (initial triangle) and Region D(e) (dotted quadrilateral): Fu (initial edges, solid line) and Fp (new edges, dotted line) . Ω1 Ω2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Nonmatching initial triangulation in two neighbouring subdomains We recall that Γij is the interface between Ωi and Ωj , see FIG. 2. On Γij , we introduce two different meshes called Tij,i and Tij,j , which are respectively defined as the restrictions of Thi and Thj on Γij . Among these two meshes, we select one as non-mortar mesh and the other as mortar mesh. For the nonmortar mesh, say Tij,i, we introduce the spa… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The contour plot of the exact solution and the adaptive mesh pattern for example 1. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Convergence history: potential error estimator (left) and energy error estimator (right). Example 5.2. In this example, we consider a non-smooth solution in H3/2−δ (Ω) with δ > 0 defined by u(r, θ) = r 1/2 cos(2θ) with polar coordinates (r, θ) centered at (0.5, 0.5). I…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The contour plot of the exact solution for example 2. 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Initial mesh (left) and adaptive mesh pattern (right). 102 103 104 105 Degrees of freedom 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 101 Convergence history 1 0.75 ||u-uh ||:uniform 1 :uniform ||u-uh ||:adaptive 1 :adaptive 102 103 104 105 Degrees of freedom 10-1 100 Convergence history …

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Convergence history: potential error estimator (left) and energy error estimator (right). Example 5.3. Our third example is an interface problem which exhibits an interface singularity, cf. [29, 32]. Consider Ω = (−1, 1) × (−1, 1), divided into four subdomains Ωi along…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Convergence history: potential error estimator (left) and energy error estimator (right). -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Approximate solution on adaptively refined meshes (left) and adaptive mesh pattern for energy error estimator (right). 6 Conclusion In this paper, we have proposed two residual-type error estimators in potential L 2 error and energy error, respectively. The proposed er…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

[1]

A INSWORTH , A posteriori error estimation for lowest order Raviart-Tho mas mixed ﬁnite elements , SIAM J

M. A INSWORTH , A posteriori error estimation for lowest order Raviart-Tho mas mixed ﬁnite elements , SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 30 (2005), pp. 189–204

work page 2005
[2]

B ABU ˇSKA AND W

I. B ABU ˇSKA AND W. C. R HEINBOLDT , Error estimates for adaptive ﬁnite element computations , SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 15 (1978), pp. 736–754. 15

work page 1978
[3]

B ABU ˇSKA AND W

I. B ABU ˇSKA AND W. C. R HEINBOLDT , A posteriori error estimates for the ﬁnite element method , Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng., 12 (1978), pp. 1597–1615

work page 1978
[4]

B ERNARDI AND F

C. B ERNARDI AND F. H ECHT , Error indicators for the mortar ﬁnite element discretizati on of the Laplace equations, Math. Comp., 71 (2002), pp. 1371–1403

work page 2002
[5]

B ERNARDI , Y

C. B ERNARDI , Y. M ADAY, AND A. T. P ATERA , Domain decomposition by the mortar element method, In: H. G. Kaper, M. Garbey, G. W . Pieper, Asymptotic and Numer ical Methods for Partial Differential Equations with Critical Parametera, pp. 269–286. Kluwer, D ordrect (1993)

work page 1993
[6]

B ERNARDI , Y

C. B ERNARDI , Y. M ADAY, AND A. T. P ATERA , A new nonconforming approach to domain decompo- sition: the mortar element method , In: H. Brezis, J. L. Lions, Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations and their Application, College De France Seminar, vol. XI, p p. 13–51. Pitman, London (1994)

work page 1994
[7]

B RAESS AND R

D. B RAESS AND R. V ERF ¨URTH , A posteriori error estimators for the Raviart-Thomas eleme nt, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 33 (1996), pp. 2431–2444

work page 1996
[8]

C ARSTENSEN , A posteriori error estimate for the mixed ﬁnite element meth od, Math

C. C ARSTENSEN , A posteriori error estimate for the mixed ﬁnite element meth od, Math. Comp., 66 (1997), pp. 465–476

work page 1997

Show all 40 references

[9]

C ARSTENSEN AND J

C. C ARSTENSEN AND J. G EDICKE , Robust residual-based a posteriori ArnoldWinther mixed ﬁn iteele- ment analysis in elasticity , Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg., 300 (2016), pp. 245-26 4

2016
[10]

C ARSTENSEN AND J

C. C ARSTENSEN AND J. H U, A unifying theory of a posteriori error control for nonconfo rming ﬁnite element methods, Numer. Math., 107 (2007), pp. 473-502

2007
[11]

C ARSTENSEN , D

C. C ARSTENSEN , D. K IM, AND E.-J. P ARK , A priori and a posteriori pseudostress-velocity mixed ﬁnite element error analysis for the Stokes problem , SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 49 (2011), pp. 2501-2523

2011
[12]

C HEUNG , E

S. C HEUNG , E. T. C HUNG AND H. K IM, A mass conservative scheme for ﬂuid-structure interaction problems by the staggered discontinuous Galerkin method , J. Sci. Comput., 74 (2018), pp. 1423–1456

2018
[13]

E. T. C HUNG AND B. E NGQUIST , Optimal discontinuous Galerkin methods for wave propagati on, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 44 (2006), pp. 2131–2158

2006
[14]

E. T. C HUNG AND B. E NGQUIST , Optimal discontinuous Galerkin methods for the acoustic wa ve equation in higher dimensions , SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 47 (2009), pp. 3820–3848

2009
[15]

E. T. C HUNG , B. C OCKBURN , AND G. F U, The staggered DG method is the limit of a hybridizable DG method. Part II: the Stokes ﬂow , J. Sci. Comput., 66 (2016), pp. 870–887

2016
[16]

E. T. C HUNG , E.-J. P ARK , AND L. Z HAO, Guaranteed a posteriori error estimates for a staggered discontinuous Galerkin method , J. Sci. Comput., 75 (2018), pp. 1079–1101

2018
[17]

E. T. C HUNG AND W. Q IU, Analysis of an SDG method for the incompressible Navier-Sto kes equa- tions, SIAM. J. Numer. Anal., 55 (2017), pp. 543–569

2017
[18]

P. G. C IARLET , The Finite Element Method for Elliptic Problems , North-Holland Publishing, Ams- terdam, 1978

1978
[19]

D U AND E

J. D U AND E. T. C HUNG , An adaptive staggered discontinuous Galerkin method for th e steady state convection-diffusion equation, J. Sci. Comput., 77 (2018), pp. 1490–1518

2018
[20]

J. D U, E. T. C HUNG , M. L AM, AND X.-P. W ANG , Discontinuous Galerkin method with staggered hybridization for a class of nonlinear Stokes equations , J. Sci. Comput., 76 (2018), pp. 1547–1577

2018
[21]

E RN AND M

A. E RN AND M. V OHRAL ´IK, Polynomial-degree-robust a posteriori estimates in a uniﬁ ed setting for conforming, nonconforming, discontinuous Galerkin, a nd mixed discretizations , SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 53 (2015), pp. 1058–1081

2015
[22]

O. A. K ARAKASHIAN AND F. P ASCAL , A posteriori error estimates for a discontinuous Galerkin approximation of second-order elliptic problems, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 41 (2003), pp. 2374–2399. 16

2003
[23]

K. Y. K IM, A posteriori error analysis for locally conservative mixed methods, Math. Comp., 76 (2007), pp. 43–66

2007
[24]

H. K IM, E. T. C HUNG , AND C.-Y. L AM, Mortar formulation for a class of staggered discontinuous Galerkin methods, Comput. Math. Appl., 71 (2016), pp. 1568–1585

2016
[25]

K IM AND E.-J

D. K IM AND E.-J. P ARK , A posteriori error estimators for the upstream weighting mixed methods for convection diffusion problems, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg., 197 (2008), pp. 806–82 0

2008
[26]

K IM AND E.-J

D. K IM AND E.-J. P ARK , A priori and a posteriori analysis of mixed ﬁnite element met hods for nonlinear elliptic equations , SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 48 (2010), pp. 1186–1207

2010
[27]

M. G. L ARSON AND A. M ˚ALQVIST , A posteriori error estimates for mixed ﬁnite element approx i- mations of elliptic problems , Numer. Math., 108 (2008), pp. 487–500

2008
[28]

J. J. L EE AND H. K IM, Analysis of a staggered discontinuous Galerkin method for l inear elasticity, J. Sci. Comput., 66 (2016), pp. 625–649

2016
[29]

R IV `ERE AND M

B. R IV `ERE AND M. F. W HEELER , A posteriori error estimates for a discontinuous Galerkin m ethod applied to elliptic problems , Comput. Math. Appl., 46 (2003), pp. 141–163

2003
[30]

L. R. S COTT AND S. Z HANG , Finite-element interpolation of non-smooth functions satisfying bound- ary conditions, Math. Comp., 54 (1990), pp. 483–493

1990
[31]

V ERF ¨URTH , A review of a posteriori error estimation and adaptive mesh- reﬁnement techniques , Teubner-Wiley, Stuttgart (1996)

R. V ERF ¨URTH , A review of a posteriori error estimation and adaptive mesh- reﬁnement techniques , Teubner-Wiley, Stuttgart (1996)

1996
[32]

V OHRAL ´IK, A posteriori error estimates for lowest-order mixed ﬁnite e lement discretization of convection-diffusion-reaction equations, SIAM J

M. V OHRAL ´IK, A posteriori error estimates for lowest-order mixed ﬁnite e lement discretization of convection-diffusion-reaction equations, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 45 (2007), pp. 1570–1599

2007
[33]

V OHRAL ´IK, Guaranteed and fully robust a posteriori error estimates fo r conforming discretiza- tions of diffusion problems with discontinuous coefﬁcient s, J

M. V OHRAL ´IK, Guaranteed and fully robust a posteriori error estimates fo r conforming discretiza- tions of diffusion problems with discontinuous coefﬁcient s, J. Sci. Comput., 46 (2010), pp. 397–438

2010
[34]

W ANG AND X

F. W ANG AND X. X U, Some new residual-based a posteriori error estimators for t he mortar ﬁnite element method, Numer. Math., 120 (2012), pp. 543–571

2012
[35]

M. F. W HEELER AND I. Y OTOV, A posteriori error estimates for the mortar mixed ﬁnite elem ent method, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 43 (2005), pp. 1021–1042

2005
[36]

B. I. W OHLMUTH , A residual based error estimator for mortar ﬁnite element di scretization, Numer. Math., 84 (1999), pp. 143–171

1999
[37]

B. I. W OHLMUTH , Hierarchical a posteriori error estimators for mortar ﬁnit e element methods with Lagrange multipliers, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 36 (1999), pp. 1636–1658

1999
[38]

Z HAO AND E.-J

L. Z HAO AND E.-J. P ARK , A staggered discontinuous Galerkin method of minimal dimen sion on quadrilateral and polygonal meshes , SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 40 (2018), pp. 2543–2567

2018
[39]

Z HAO AND E.-J

L. Z HAO AND E.-J. P ARK , A priori and a posteriori error analysis of a staggered disco ntinuous Galerkin method for convection dominant diffusion equatio ns, J. Comput. Appl. Math., 346 (2019), pp. 63–83

2019
[40]

Z HAO, E.-J

L. Z HAO, E.-J. P ARK , AND D.- W. S HIN , A staggered discontinuous Galerkin method for the Stokes equations on general meshes , Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg., 345 (2019), pp. 854–87 5. 17

2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

A INSWORTH , A posteriori error estimation for lowest order Raviart-Tho mas mixed ﬁnite elements , SIAM J

M. A INSWORTH , A posteriori error estimation for lowest order Raviart-Tho mas mixed ﬁnite elements , SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 30 (2005), pp. 189–204

work page 2005

[2] [2]

B ABU ˇSKA AND W

I. B ABU ˇSKA AND W. C. R HEINBOLDT , Error estimates for adaptive ﬁnite element computations , SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 15 (1978), pp. 736–754. 15

work page 1978

[3] [3]

B ABU ˇSKA AND W

I. B ABU ˇSKA AND W. C. R HEINBOLDT , A posteriori error estimates for the ﬁnite element method , Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng., 12 (1978), pp. 1597–1615

work page 1978

[4] [4]

B ERNARDI AND F

C. B ERNARDI AND F. H ECHT , Error indicators for the mortar ﬁnite element discretizati on of the Laplace equations, Math. Comp., 71 (2002), pp. 1371–1403

work page 2002

[5] [5]

B ERNARDI , Y

C. B ERNARDI , Y. M ADAY, AND A. T. P ATERA , Domain decomposition by the mortar element method, In: H. G. Kaper, M. Garbey, G. W . Pieper, Asymptotic and Numer ical Methods for Partial Differential Equations with Critical Parametera, pp. 269–286. Kluwer, D ordrect (1993)

work page 1993

[6] [6]

B ERNARDI , Y

C. B ERNARDI , Y. M ADAY, AND A. T. P ATERA , A new nonconforming approach to domain decompo- sition: the mortar element method , In: H. Brezis, J. L. Lions, Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations and their Application, College De France Seminar, vol. XI, p p. 13–51. Pitman, London (1994)

work page 1994

[7] [7]

B RAESS AND R

D. B RAESS AND R. V ERF ¨URTH , A posteriori error estimators for the Raviart-Thomas eleme nt, SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 33 (1996), pp. 2431–2444

work page 1996

[8] [8]

C ARSTENSEN , A posteriori error estimate for the mixed ﬁnite element meth od, Math

C. C ARSTENSEN , A posteriori error estimate for the mixed ﬁnite element meth od, Math. Comp., 66 (1997), pp. 465–476

work page 1997