Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Discontinuous Galerkin schemes for a class of Hamiltonian evolution equations with applications to plasma fluid and kinetic problems

T0 review · 2 major / 5 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 A mixed discontinuous/continuous Galerkin discretization conserves total energy exactly for Hamiltonian evolution equations in the continuous-time limit.

desk verdict Solid energy-conserving DG extension for Hamiltonian systems, but the entropy proof is invalid and the abstract overclaims generality. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01814 v1 pith:LVDP6NK3 submitted 2019-08-05 physics.comp-ph physics.plasm-ph

A. Hakim , G. Hammett , E. Shi , N. Mandell This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.comp-phphysics.plasm-ph MSC 35Q8335Q2065M6082D10
keywords energyconservationdiscontinuousGalerkinHamiltonianevolutionequationsVlasov-PoissonincompressibleEulergyrokineticsPoissonbracket
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 a spatial discretization for Hamiltonian evolution equations $\partial f/\partial t + \{f,H\}=0$ in which the distribution function is discontinuous Galerkin while the Hamiltonian is forced into the continuous subspace of the same polynomial space. It proves that, in the continuous-time limit, this mixed DG/CG choice conserves total energy exactly for any numerical flux, and that it conserves the $L_2$ norm with central fluxes or decays it monotonically with upwind fluxes. For Vlasov–Poisson the argument yields exact conservation of particle number and of total particle-plus-field energy; for any system with $f_h>0$ it yields a non-decreasing entropy. The claim matters because it gives a systematic, parameter-free rule for building stable and energy-conserving continuum schemes for plasma fluid and kinetic problems, including non-canonical systems such as gyrokinetics.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the pair of finite-element spaces $V^p_h$ (discontinuous piecewise polynomials for $f_h$) and $W^p_{0,h}=V^p_h\cap C^0(Z)$ (the continuous subset used for the Hamiltonian). The mechanism is Lemma 2.1: because the characteristic velocity satisfies $\dot{z}^i = \Pi^{ij}\,\partial H/\partial z^j$ with $\Pi$ antisymmetric, the normal component $n_i\dot z^i$ equals the tangential gradient of $H$ along the face, so it is continuous when $H_h$ is. This continuity cancels all inter-cell flux terms when one tests the DG equation with $H_h$, while incompressibility $\{H_h,H_h\}=0$ kills the volume term; the discrete field equation then supplies the field-energy half of the energy budget.

What would settle it

Run the semi-discrete scheme on a two-cell Hamiltonian toy problem with a discontinuous Poisson tensor and refine both mesh and time step: exact conservation of $\sum_j \int_{K_j} H_h f_h\,dz$ in the continuous-time limit must hold if the central claim generalizes, so any residual drift in this quantity would disprove it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that energy conservation is forced by a single structural choice: place the discrete Hamiltonian $H_h$ in the continuous subspace $W^p_{0,h}=V^p_h\cap C^0(Z)$ of the discontinuous polynomial space used for $f_h$. Once $H_h$ is continuous, Lemma 2.1 shows the normal component of the characteristic velocity $\alpha_h$ is continuous across every cell face, because that normal component is a tangential derivative of $H_h$ taken through the antisymmetric Poisson tensor. Taking the test function $w=H_h$ in the DG weak form then makes the volume term vanish through $\{H_h,H_h\}=0$, while the surface terms cancel exactly on summation; for Vlasov–Poisson, differentiating the discretized field equation converts the potential term into field energy, giving $d(W_k+W_E)/dt=0$. The same framework conserves particles exactly, conserves the $L_2$ norm with central flux, monotonically decays it with upwind flux, and gives an entropy inequality whenever $f_h$ stays positive.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is Lemma 2.1, which presumes the Poisson tensor is smooth enough that the normal component of the phase-space velocity is continuous across cell faces; the entropy result additionally presumes $f_h>0$, which the scheme itself does not enforce.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Using upwind fluxes in the DG update does not destroy exact energy conservation, so robustness and energy preservation are not in conflict at the spatial level.
  • The $L_2$ norm of the distribution function is conserved with central fluxes and decays monotonically with upwind fluxes, giving a nonlinear stability guarantee without added dissipation.
  • For Vlasov–Poisson, total particle-plus-field energy is conserved in continuous time; with a Runge–Kutta time stepper the only energy error is the time-stepping error, which converges at the RK order.
  • Momentum is not conserved exactly, but momentum error converges with spatial resolution alone, so coarse velocity grids do not worsen it.
  • The same construction applies to non-canonical Poisson brackets such as gyrokinetic equations whenever the normal characteristic velocity is continuous.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that the structural rule—$f$ discontinuous, $H$ in its continuous subspace—gives a general recipe: any Hamiltonian system in the form $\partial_t f + \{f,H\}=0$ admits a parameter-free energy-conserving spatial discretization, so new reduced plasma models may inherit this property directly.
  • The unproven flux prescription in Remark 2.2 is a natural stress test: building a two-cell Hamiltonian toy problem with a jump in the Poisson tensor and checking whether total energy remains conserved would settle whether the main result extends to electromagnetic gyrokinetics in non-orthogonal coordinates.
  • Because the energy proof is independent of the numerical flux, a positivity-preserving limiter or reconstruction applied to $f_h$ may be compatible with energy conservation, which would repair the $f_h>0$ assumption in the entropy result.
  • The noted lack of a simultaneously momentum- and energy-conserving DG scheme frames a concrete open question: design a DG/CG pair that carries both invariants, or find an obstruction.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a mixed discontinuous Galerkin / continuous Galerkin spatial discretization for Hamiltonian evolution equations of the form ∂f/∂t + {f,H} = 0. The distribution function is approximated in a discontinuous polynomial space V_h^p, while the Hamiltonian is constrained to the continuous subspace W_{0,h}^p = V_h^p ∩ C^0. The paper proves particle conservation, energy conservation for static Hamiltonians and for the Vlasov–Poisson total energy, and exact L2 conservation for central fluxes with monotone L2 decay for upwind fluxes. It further claims that the discrete entropy is non-decreasing under a positivity assumption. Numerical benchmarks include Vlasov–Poisson problems (free streaming, specified potentials, linear and nonlinear Landau damping) and 2D incompressible Euler flows, with references to gyrokinetic applications in the Gkeyll code.

Significance. The core construction is significant if the stated results hold: it gives a parameter-free spatial discretization that preserves the Hamiltonian structure's energy invariant at the semi-discrete level while retaining the option of upwinding for robustness, and it shows second-order convergence of momentum errors that is essentially independent of velocity resolution. The proofs for static Hamiltonians and for the Vlasov–Poisson system are transparent and do not rely on fitting parameters. The numerical experiments are reproducible in principle (the Gkeyll code and input files are referenced) and the convergence tests for energy and enstrophy errors confirm the expected time-stepping orders. However, two advertised claims are not established by the manuscript: the entropy monotonicity theorem and the applicability of the proofs to general non-canonical systems with discontinuous Poisson tensors, such as electromagnetic gyrokinetics. These issues are load-bearing for the abstract's generality and stability claims, so the paper needs revision before publication.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3, Proposition 3.4, Eqs. (3.15)–(3.16)] The proof of entropy monotonicity is invalid. The authors integrate the pointwise inequality −f_h ln f_h ≥ −f_h^2 + f_h and then differentiate both sides to obtain Eq. (3.16). Differentiating an inequality is not legitimate: the gap g(t) = ∫(−f_h ln f_h + f_h^2 − f_h) ≥ 0 may decrease while remaining nonnegative, so d/dt∫(−f_h^2 + f_h) ≥ 0 does not imply d/dt∫(−f_h ln f_h) ≥ 0. The issue is not merely technical: for central fluxes the semi-discrete operator conserves the mass-weighted L2 norm through a skew-symmetric structure, but that structure does not control non-quadratic functionals such as −f ln f. The manuscript itself notes that f_h > 0 is not enforced by the scheme. Therefore the abstract's claim that the scheme makes entropy non-decreasing, and the corresponding statement in Section 5, are unsupported as written. The authors should either give a valid proof (for example, a cell entropy inequality with an appropriate numerical entropy flux) or remove the entropy claim from the abstract and conclusions.
  2. [§2, Lemma 2.1 and Remark 2.2; §3, Proposition 3.2] The energy-conservation proof depends critically on Lemma 2.1, but the lemma is proved only under the assumption that the Poisson tensor Π_ij is continuous across cell faces. Remark 2.2 correctly notes that in electromagnetic gyrokinetics in non-orthogonal field-aligned coordinates the Poisson tensor can be discontinuous, and then proposes, without proof, that a numerical flux be used for the entire quantity n·α_h F. Consequently Proposition 3.2 and the Vlasov–Poisson energy proof do not establish energy conservation for that class of systems. The abstract's statement that the proofs apply to 'any Hamiltonian system, including ones in which the Poisson bracket operator is non-canonical (for example, the gyrokinetic equations)' is therefore broader than what the manuscript proves. Please state the continuity hypothesis on Π_ij as an explicit assumption in the theorems, prove the Remark 2.2 flux prescription, or restrict the claims to systems for which Lemma 2.1 holds.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and §1] The phrase 'quadratic invariants of total energy and the L2 norm' is imprecise: the total energy of the Vlasov–Poisson system is not a quadratic functional of f, while the L2 norm is. Suggest rewording to distinguish the L2 Casimir from the total energy.
  2. [§2, text after Eq. (2.5)] There is a duplicated word: 'the flux of particles out of one cell through a particular face is is identical to the flux...' should read 'is identical'.
  3. [§4.1] The sentence 'Energy-conservation tests are performed with the same initial condition, however with on a fixed grid...' has an awkward construction and appears to omit a word; please revise.
  4. [§5 and Proposition 3.4] There is a typo 'updwinding' for 'upwinding' in the Conclusions, and Proposition 3.4 says 'positive definite' where 'positive' is meant for the function f_h.
  5. [References] Reference [7] contains a typo: 'Landgon' should be 'Langdon'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity; the conservation results are derived from the discrete equations and verified against external benchmarks.

full rationale

The central conservation claims are derived analytically from the discrete weak form without fitting any parameters: Proposition 3.2 selects w=H_h, uses {H_h,H_h}=0 and the cancellation of surface terms because H_h is continuous and the numerical flux is single-valued; Proposition 3.3 repeats the Liu-Shu calculation for central and upwind fluxes; the Vlasov-Poisson total-energy result follows by differentiating the CG Poisson equation with test function psi=phi_h. These proofs do not import an unverified premise equivalent to the conclusion. Self-citations appear only as references to prior applications or gyrokinetic extensions, not as the basis for the general Vlasov-Poisson or Euler conservation results, so they are not load-bearing. The numerical benchmarks are external: free-streaming against an exact solution, Landau-damping rates against the analytic dispersion relation, and standard Euler flow test problems. The paper itself flags the limitations that f_h > 0 is not enforced and that Lemma 2.1 can fail when the Poisson tensor is discontinuous; these are correctness and stability concerns, not circularity. The entropy-monotonicity proof also contains a gap, since differentiating an integrated inequality is invalid, but that is an unsupported inference rather than a reduction of the claim to its inputs. Therefore no circularity is present.

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

The central claim rests on the Hamiltonian being continuous (a discretization choice), the anti-symmetric Poisson structure and Liouville theorem (standard physics), and the conditional positivity of f for entropy. There are no fitted parameters; the conservation proofs are analytic.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The Poisson bracket operator is anti-symmetric and the characteristic velocity satisfies α = {z, H}, implying ∇·(Jα)=0 (Liouville theorem).
    Used in Eq. (1.2) to write the Hamiltonian evolution as a conservation law and in Lemma 2.1 to express n·α.
  • ad hoc to paper The discrete Hamiltonian H_h is chosen in the continuous subspace W^p_{0,h} of the DG space V^p_h.
    This is the key design choice of the scheme (Eq. 2.3), enabling cancellation of surface terms in the energy proof. It is not required by the physics but is imposed by the discretization.
  • domain assumption For the entropy inequality, f_h is assumed to remain positive definite (f_h > 0).
    Stated in Proposition 3.4; the scheme does not guarantee positivity, and the authors explicitly note this in Section 5.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Discontinuous Galerkin schemes for a class of Hamiltonian evolution equations with applications to plasma fluid and kinetic problems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LVDP6NK3

@misc{pith2026190801814,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Discontinuous Galerkin schemes for a class of Hamiltonian evolution equations with applications to plasma fluid and kinetic problems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LVDP6NK3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01814}
}
abstract

In this paper we present energy-conserving, mixed discontinuous Galerkin (DG) and continuous Galerkin (CG) schemes for the solution of a broad class of physical systems described by Hamiltonian evolution equations. These systems often arise in fluid mechanics (incompressible Euler equations) and plasma physics (Vlasov--Poisson equations and gyrokinetic equations), for example. The dynamics is described by a distribution function that evolves given a Hamiltonian and a corresponding Poisson bracket operator, with the Hamiltonian itself computed from field equations. Hamiltonian systems have several conserved quantities, including the quadratic invariants of total energy and the $L_2$ norm of the distribution function. For accurate simulations one must ensure that these quadratic invariants are conserved by the discrete scheme. We show that using a discontinuous Galerkin scheme to evolve the distribution function and ensuring that the Hamiltonian lies in its continuous subspace leads to an energy-conserving scheme in the continuous-time limit. Further, the $L_2$ norm is conserved if central fluxes are used to update the distribution function, but decays monotonically when using upwind fluxes. The conservation of density and $L_2$ norm is then used to show that the entropy is a non-decreasing function of time. The proofs shown here apply to any Hamiltonian system, including ones in which the Poisson bracket operator is non-canonical (for example, the gyrokinetic equations). We demonstrate the ability of the scheme to solve the Vlasov--Poisson and incompressible Euler equations in 2D and provide references where we have applied these schemes to solve the much more complex 5D electrostatic and electromagnetic gyrokinetic equations.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Electromagnetic full-$f$ gyrokinetics in the tokamak edge with discontinuous Galerkin methods

    physics.plasm-ph 2019-08 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    An energy-conserving discontinuous Galerkin scheme solves the electromagnetic full-f gyrokinetic system in the long-wavelength limit and produces the first nonlinear electromagnetic gyrokinetic simulation on open field lines.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Arakawa, Computational design for long-term numerical integration of the equations of fluid motion: Two-dimensional incompressible flow

    A. Arakawa, Computational design for long-term numerical integration of the equations of fluid motion: Two-dimensional incompressible flow. part i , J. Comput. Phys., 1 (1966), pp. 119 – 143, https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9991(66)90015-5

    doi:10.1016/0021-9991(66)90015-5 1966

  2. [2]

    D. N. Arnold and G. A wanou , The Serendipity Family of Finite Elements , Foundations of Computational Mathematics, 11 (2011), pp. 337–344

    work page 2011

  3. [3]

    Ayuso, J

    B. Ayuso, J. Carrillo, and C.-W. Shu , Discontinuous galerkin methods for the one- dimensional vlasov-poisson system , Kinetic and Related Models, 4 (2011), pp. 955–989

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    Ayuso de Dios, J

    B. Ayuso de Dios, J. A. Carrillo, and C.-W. Shu , Discontinuous Galerkin methods for the multi-dimensional Vlasov–Poisson problem , Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci., 22 (2012), p. 1250042, https://doi.org/10.1142/S021820251250042X

    work page doi:10.1142/s021820251250042x 2012

  5. [5]

    T. N. Bernard, E. L. Shi, K. W. Gentle, A. Hakim, G. W. Hammett, T. Stoltzfus-Dueck, and E. I. Taylor , Gyrokinetic continuum simulations of plasma turbulence in the Texas Helimak, Phys. Plasmas, 26 (2019), pp. 042301–12, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5085457

    work page doi:10.1063/1.5085457 2019

  6. [6]

    Bernsen, O

    E. Bernsen, O. Bokhove, and J. J. van der Vegt , A (dis)continuous finite element model for generalized 2d vorticity dynamics , J. Comput. Phys., 211 (2006), pp. 719 – 747, https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2005.06.008

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2005.06.008 2006

  7. [7]

    Birdsall and A

    C. Birdsall and A. B. Langdon , Plasma Physics Via Computer Simulation , Institute of Physics Publishing, 1990

    work page 1990

  8. [8]

    Candy, E

    J. Candy, E. Belli, and R. Bravenec , A high-accuracy Eulerian gyrokinetic solver for col- lisional plasmas , J. Comput. Phys., 324 (2016), pp. 73–93, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp. 2016.07.039

    doi:10.1016/j.jcp 2016

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    Candy and R

    J. Candy and R. W altz , An Eulerian gyrokinetic-Maxwell solver , J. Comput. Phys., 186 (2003), pp. 545–581, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9991(03)00079-2. 21

    2003 doi

  2. [10]

    Cary and A

    J. Cary and A. Brizard , Hamiltonian theory of guiding-center motion , Reviews of Modern Physics, 81 (2009), pp. 693–738

    2009

  3. [11]

    C. Z. Cheng and G. Knorr , The Integration of the Vlasov Equation in Configuration Space , J. Comput. Phys., 22 (1976), pp. 330–351, https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9991(76)90053-X

    1976 doi

  4. [12]

    Cheng, A

    Y. Cheng, A. J. Christlieb, and X. Zhong , Energy-conserving discontinuous Galerkin methods for the Vlasov–Maxwell system , J. Comput. Phys., 279 (2014), pp. 145–173, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2014.08.041

    2014 doi

  5. [13]

    Cheng, I

    Y. Cheng, I. Gamba, F. Li, and P. Morrison , Discontinuous Galerkin methods for the Vlasov–Maxwell equations , SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 52 (2014), pp. 1017– 1049, https://doi.org/10.1137/130915091

    2014 doi

  6. [14]

    Cheng, I

    Y. Cheng, I. M. Gamba, A. Majorana, and C.-W. Shu , A discontinuous Galerkin solver for Boltzmann-Poisson systems in nano devices , Computer Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg., 198 (2009), pp. 3130–3150

    2009

  7. [15]

    Cheng, I

    Y. Cheng, I. M. Gamba, A. Majorana, and C.-W. Shu , A brief survey of the discontinuous Galerkin method for the Boltzmann-Poisson equations , SeMA J., 54 (2011), pp. 47–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03322587

    2011 doi

  8. [16]

    Cheng, I

    Y. Cheng, I. M. Gamba, and P. J. Morrison , Study of conservation and recurrence of Runge– Kutta discontinuous Galerkin schemes for Vlasov–Poisson systems , Journal of Scientific Computing, 56 (2013), pp. 319–349

    2013

  9. [17]

    Cockburn and C.-W

    B. Cockburn and C.-W. Shu , The Runge–Kutta Discontinuous Galerkin Method for Conser- vation Laws V , J. Comput. Phys., 141 (1998), pp. 199–224

    1998

  10. [18]

    Cockburn and C

    B. Cockburn and C. W. Shu , Runge–Kutta discontinuous Galerkin methods for convection- dominated problems, Journal of Scientific Computing, 16 (2001), pp. 173–261

    2001

  11. [19]

    Coulette and G

    D. Coulette and G. Manfredi , An Eulerian Vlasov code for plasma-wall interactions , Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 561 (2014), p. 012005, https://doi.org/10.1088/ 1742-6596/561/1/012005

    2014

  12. [20]

    Dorland, F

    W. Dorland, F. Jenko, M. Kotschenreuther, and B. N. Rogers , Electron temperature gradient turbulence, Phys. Rev. Lett., 85 (2000), pp. 5579–5582, https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.85.5579

    2000

  13. [21]

    M. R. Dorr, P. Colella, M. A. Dorf, D. Ghosh, J. A. Hittinger, and P. O. Schwartz , High-order discretization of a gyrokinetic Vlasov model in edge plasma geometry , J. Com- put. Phys., 373 (2018), pp. 605–630, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2018.07.008

    2018 doi

  14. [22]

    Einkemmer and M

    L. Einkemmer and M. Wiesenberger , A conservative discontinuous Galerkin scheme for the 2D incompressible Navier–Stokes equations , Comput. Phys. Commun., 185 (2014), pp. 2865–2873, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2014.07.007

    2014 doi

  15. [23]

    Grandgirard, J

    V. Grandgirard, J. Abiteboul, J. Bigot, T. Cartier-Michaud, N. Crouseilles, G. Dif- Pradalier, C. Ehrlacher, D. Esteve, X. Garbet, P. Ghendrih, G. Latu, M. Mehren- berger, C. Norscini, C. Passeron, F. Rozar, Y. Sarazin, E. Sonnendrcker, A. Stru- garek, and D. Zarzoso , A 5D gy...

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    Guo and Y

    W. Guo and Y. Cheng , A sparse grid discontinuous Galerkin method for high-dimensional transport equations and its application to kinetic simulations , SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 38 (2016), pp. A3381–A3409, https://doi.org/10.1137/16M1060017

    2016 doi

  17. [25]

    Hakim, M

    A. Hakim, M. Francisquez, J. Juno, and G. W. Hammett , Conservative Discontinuous Galerkin Schemes for Nonlinear Fokker-Planck Collision Operators , arXiv.org, (2019), https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.08062

    2019 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Hakim and J

    A. Hakim and J. Juno , Generating a quadrature and matrix-free discontinuous galerkin algo- rithm for (plasma) kinetic equations, Journal of Computational Physics, Submitted (2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    Heath, I

    R. Heath, I. Gamba, P. Morrison, and C. Michler , A discontinuous Galerkin method for the Vlasov–Poisson system, J. Comput. Phys., 231 (2012), pp. 1140–1174, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jcp.2011.09.020

    2012 doi

  20. [28]

    Hockney and J

    R. Hockney and J. Eastwood , Computer Simulation Using Particles, Taylor & Francis, 1989

    1989

  21. [29]

    Idomura, M

    Y. Idomura, M. Ida, T. Kano, N. Aiba, and S. Tokuda , Conservative global gyrokinetic toroidal full-f five-dimensional Vlasov simulation , Comput. Phys. Commun., 179 (2008), pp. 391–403

    2008

  22. [30]

    Jenko and W

    F. Jenko and W. Dorland , Nonlinear electromagnetic gyrokinetic simulations of tokamak plasmas, Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion, 43 (2001), pp. A141–A150, https://doi.org/10. 1088/0741-3335/43/12a/310

    2001

  23. [31]

    J. Juno, A. Hakim, J. TenBarge, E. Shi, and W. Dorland , Discontinuous Galerkin al- gorithms for fully kinetic plasmas , J. Comput. Phys., 353 (2018), pp. 110–147, https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2017.10.009. 22

    2018 doi

  24. [32]

    Kormann, A semi-Lagrangian Vlasov solver in tensor train format , SIAM J

    K. Kormann, A semi-Lagrangian Vlasov solver in tensor train format , SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 37 (2015), pp. B613–B632, https://doi.org/10.1137/140971270

    2015 doi

  25. [33]

    Kormann, K

    K. Kormann, K. Reuter, and M. Rampp , A massively parallel semi-Lagrangian solver for the six-dimensional Vlasov–Poisson equation , Int. J. High Perform. Comput. Appl., 0 (0), p. 1094342019834644, https://doi.org/10.1177/1094342019834644

    doi

  26. [34]

    D. K. Lilly , Introduction to computational design for long-term numerical integration of the equations of fluid motion: Two-dimensional incompressible flow. part i , J. Comput. Phys., 135 (1997), pp. 101–102, https://doi.org/10.1006/jcph.1997.5722

    1997

  27. [35]

    Liu and C.-W

    J.-G. Liu and C.-W. Shu , A High-Order Discontinuous Galerkin Method for 2D Incompressible Flows, J. Comput. Phys., 160 (2000), pp. 577–596

    2000

  28. [36]

    N. R. Mandell, W. Dorland, and M. Landreman , Laguerre-Hermite pseudo-spectral velocity formulation of gyrokinetics , J. Plasma Phys., 84 (2018), 905840108, p. 905840108, https: //doi.org/10.1017/S0022377818000041

    2018 doi

  29. [37]

    N. R. Mandell, A. Hakim, G. W. Hammett, and M. Francisquez , Electromagnetic full-f gyrokinetics in the tokamak edge with discontinuous Galerkin methods , J. Comput. Phys., (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    J. E. Marsden and A. Weinstein , The hamiltonian structure of the Maxwell-Vlasov equa- tions, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 4 (1982), pp. 394–406, https://doi.org/10.1016/ 0167-2789(82)90043-4

    1982

  31. [39]

    Morales-Escalante, I

    J. Morales-Escalante, I. M. Gamba, Y. Cheng, A. Majorana, C.-W. Shu, and J. Che- likowsky, Discontinuous Galerkin deterministic solvers for a boltzmannpoisson model of hot electron transport by averaged empirical pseudopotential band structures , Com- puter Methods in Applied ...

    2017 doi

  32. [40]

    P. J. Morrison , The Maxwell–Vlasov equations as a continuous hamiltonian system , Physics Letters A, 80 (1980), pp. 383 – 386, https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9601(80)90776-8

    1980 doi

  33. [41]

    P. J. Morrison , A general theory for gauge-free lifting , Phys. Plasmas, 20 (2013), p. 012104, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4774063

    2013 doi

  34. [42]

    P. J. Morrison and R. D. Hazeltine , Hamiltonian formulation of reduced magnetohydrody- namics, Phys. Fluids, 27 (1984), pp. 886–897, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.864718

    1984 doi

  35. [43]

    W. M. Nevins, G. W. Hammett, A. M. Dimits, W. Dorland, and D. E. Shumaker , Discrete particle noise in particle-in-cell simulations of plasma microturbulence , Phys. Plasmas, 12 (2005), p. 122305

    2005

  36. [44]

    Numata, G

    R. Numata, G. G. Howes, T. Tatsuno, M. Barnes, and W. Dorland , AstroGK: As- trophysical gyrokinetics code , J. Comput. Phys., 229 (2010), pp. 9347 – 9372, https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2010.09.006

    2010 doi

  37. [45]

    Nunami, T.-H

    M. Nunami, T.-H. W atanabe, H. Sugama, and K. Tanaka , Gyrokinetic turbulent transport simulation of a high ion temperature plasma in large helical device experiment , Phys. Plasmas, 19 (2012), p. 042504, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4704568

    2012 doi

  38. [46]

    Palmroth, U

    M. Palmroth, U. Ganse, Y. Pfau-Kempf, M. Battarbee, L. Turc, T. Brito, M. Grandin, S. Hoilijoki, A. Sandroos, and S. von Alfthan , Vlasov methods in space physics and astrophysics, Living Reviews in Computational Astrophysics, 4 (2018), p. 1, https://doi. org/10.1007/s41115-018-0003-2

    2018 doi

  39. [47]

    Peeters, Y

    A. Peeters, Y. Camenen, F. Casson, W. Hornsby, A. Snodin, D. Strintzi, and G. Szepesi , The nonlinear gyro-kinetic flux tube code GKW , Comput. Phys. Commun., 180 (2009), pp. 2650–2672, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2009.07.001. 40 YEARS OF CPC: A cele- bratory issue focused on...

    2009 doi

  40. [48]

    J. A. Rossmanith and D. C. Seal , A positivity-preserving high-order semi-Lagrangian discon- tinuous Galerkin scheme for the Vlasov-Poisson equations , J. Comput. Phys., 230 (2011), pp. 6203–6232, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2011.04.018

    2011 doi

  41. [49]

    E. L. Shi , Gyrokinetic Continuum Simulation of Turbulence in Open-Field-Line Plasmas, PhD thesis, Princeton University, 2017, https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.07283

    2017 arXiv

  42. [50]

    E. L. Shi, A. Hakim, and G. W. Hammett , A gyrokinetic one-dimensional scrape-off layer model of an edge-localized mode heat pulse , Physics of Plasmas, 22 (2015), p. 022504

    2015

  43. [51]

    E. L. Shi, G. W. Hammett, T. Stoltzfus-Dueck, and A. Hakim , Gyrokinetic continuum simulation of turbulence in a straight open-field-line plasma , J. Plasma Phys, 83 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1017/S002237781700037X

    2017 doi

  44. [52]

    E. L. Shi, G. W. Hammett, T. Stoltzfus-Dueck, and A. Hakim , Full-f gyrokinetic sim- ulation of turbulence in a helical open-field-line plasma , Physics of Plasmas, 26 (2019), p. 012307, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5074179

    2019 doi

  45. [53]

    Sudarshan and N

    E. Sudarshan and N. Mukunda , Classical Dynamics: A Modern Perspective , Wiley, 1974. 23

    1974

  46. [54]

    Z. Tao, W. Guo, and Y. Cheng , Sparse grid discontinuous Galerkin methods for the vlasov- maxwell system , J. Comput. Phys.: X, 3 (2019), p. 100022, https://doi.org/0.1016/j.jcpx. 2019.100022

    2019

  47. [55]

    V alentini, P

    F. V alentini, P. Trvnek, F. Califano, P. Hellinger, and A. Mangeney , A hybrid-Vlasov model based on the current advance method for the simulation of collisionless magnetized plasma, J. Comput. Phys., 225 (2007), pp. 753–770, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2007.01. 001

    2007 doi

  48. [56]

    P. E. Vincent and A. Jameson , Facilitating the Adoption of Unstructured High-Order Meth- ods Amongst a Wider Community of Fluid Dynamicists , Mathematical Modelling of Nat- ural Phenomena, 6 (2011), pp. 97–140

    2011

  49. [57]

    von Alfthan, D

    S. von Alfthan, D. Pokhotelov, Y. Kempf, S. Hoilijoki, I. Honkonen, A. Sandroos, and M. Palmroth , Vlasiator: First global hybrid-vlasov simulations of Earth’s foreshock and magnetosheath, J. Atmospheric Sol.-Terr. Phys., 120 (2014), pp. 24–35, https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jastp...

    2014 doi

Pith tools

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