Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 134 references

Paired Explicit Relaxation Runge-Kutta Methods: Entropy-Conservative and Entropy-Stable High-Order Optimized Multirate Time Integration

T0 review · 0 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Paired Explicit Relaxation Runge-Kutta methods combine P-ERK multirate pairing with per-step entropy relaxation, yielding explicit high-order integrators that conserve linear invariants and match the semidiscrete entropy without losing…

desk verdict A careful, reproducible combination of P-ERK with relaxation; the entropy plots are construction checks, but the accuracy, invariant, and speedup claims hold up. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.04991 v2 pith:UIDYDLTP submitted 2025-07-07 math.NA cs.NAmath-phmath.MP

Daniel Doehring , Hendrik Ranocha , Manuel Torrilhon This is my paper
classification math.NAcs.NAmath-phmath.MP MSC 65L0665M2076-0470K20
keywords entropystabilitymultiratetimeintegrationrelaxationRunge-Kuttapairedexplicitmethodoflineshigh-ordermethodsdiscontinuousGalerkin
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 develops Paired Explicit Relaxation Runge-Kutta (P-ERRK) methods, which join the P-ERK idea of pairing cheap and expensive Runge-Kutta schemes across mesh partitions with the relaxation trick of rescaling each step to enforce a discrete entropy condition. The paper claims these methods keep the order of accuracy and linear-invariant conservation of the underlying P-ERK schemes, introduce no defect in the global entropy, and outperform standard relaxed Runge-Kutta integration in practice. On compressible Euler, Navier-Stokes, and visco-resistive magnetohydrodynamics test cases, right-hand-side evaluations are reduced by factors up to four and speedups above three are observed. A sympathetic reader cares because this offers a practical way to obtain high-order, entropy-stable, multirate time integration on non-uniform meshes without changing the spatial discretization.

What carries the argument

The central object is the relaxation parameter $\gamma_n$, a per-step scalar rescaling of the Runge-Kutta update, together with the sparse-weight P-ERK structure that makes computing the entropy change cheap. The relaxed update is $U^{n+1}(\gamma_n) = U^n + \gamma_n \Delta t \sum_i b_i K_i$, and $\gamma_n$ is chosen by solving the relaxation equation so that the discrete entropy change matches the semidiscrete one. The P-ERK pairing assigns high-stage schemes with larger stability domains to regions with high characteristic speeds and cheaper schemes to slow regions, while the shared weight vector $b^T$ across partitions guarantees conservation of linear invariants and lets the relaxation parameter act as a time-limiter that improves nonlinear stability.

What would settle it

Run the weak blast wave or isentropic vortex test from the paper with a P-ERRK scheme on an entropy-conservative DGSEM discretization and record $H(U^{n+1}) - H(U^n)$ over many steps; the claim says the defect stays at round-off, so any drift above roughly $10^{-12}$ in double precision would falsify it. Repeating the same run with a non-entropy-stable spatial discretization should show the defect being controlled by the space scheme, not the time integrator.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that combining Paired Explicit Runge-Kutta methods with relaxation yields a family of explicit multirate integrators that are entropy-conservative when the semidiscretization is entropy-conservative and entropy-stable when it is entropy-dissipative, while preserving design order up to four. The relaxation parameter $\gamma_n$ solves a scalar nonlinear equation per step so that $H(U^{n+1}(\gamma_n)) = H(U^n) + \gamma_n \Delta H_n$, forcing the fully discrete entropy to follow the semidiscrete entropy tendency. Validation shows entropy defects at round-off for entropy-conservative setups, conserved mass, momentum, and energy, designed convergence orders on non-uniform meshes, and improved robustness in under-resolved and adaptively refined simulations.

Load-bearing premise

The fully discrete entropy property holds only when the underlying spatial semidiscretization is already entropy-conservative or entropy-stable; the time integrator cannot restore entropy behavior that the space discretization lacks.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, entropy-stable multirate time stepping can be dropped into existing entropy-conserving or entropy-stable spatial discretizations without re-deriving the space scheme.
  • The relaxation mechanism acts as a time-limiter, so under-resolved or AMR-driven simulations run longer before positivity loss, extending the reach of explicit high-order discontinuous Galerkin methods.
  • Right-hand-side evaluation savings of factors two to four over single-rate relaxed Runge-Kutta methods make multirate integrators attractive for production-scale compressible flow and MHD simulations.
  • The relaxation parameter can be interpreted as an adaptive timestep controller based on a nonlinear solution functional rather than an embedded error estimate, which suggests a new robustness diagnostic for explicit time integration.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the relaxation parameter could serve as a cheap nonlinearity-based indicator for adaptive mesh refinement or shock-capturing activation, since it deviates from unity precisely when the standard scheme's entropy starts changing.
  • Editorial extension: applying the same relaxation equation to implicit-explicit P-ERK variants, which the paper lists as future work, should yield entropy-stable IMEX methods with the same per-step scalar solve.
  • Editorial extension: because the cost of computing the entropy correction scales with the number of nonzero entries in the weight vector, future tableau optimization for sparser $b$ would directly reduce overhead in entropy-stable codes.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Paired Explicit Relaxation Runge-Kutta (P-ERRK) methods, which combine paired explicit Runge-Kutta (P-ERK) multirate integrators with the relaxation methodology. The central idea is to preserve, at the fully discrete level, the entropy conservation or entropy stability of the underlying semidiscretization by solving a scalar relaxation equation for a parameter gamma_n that scales the update. Optimized schemes of orders two, three, and four are presented, together with convergence studies, tests of linear invariant conservation, entropy-defect measurements, robustness demonstrations (advection, Kelvin-Helmholtz instability, positivity preservation), and performance comparisons against standalone relaxed Runge-Kutta methods on several compressible flow problems, including Navier-Stokes-Fourier, visco-resistive MHD, and inviscid transonic configurations. The manuscript also provides a reproducibility repository. The theoretical derivation in Sections 2 and 3 is transparent: shared weights across partitions, nonnegative weights b_i, the direction d_n = sum_i b_i K_i, and the relaxation equation enforce consistency between the entropy change of the semidiscretization and that of the relaxed update.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a practical, high-order multirate time integrator that inherits entropy behavior from entropy-conservative or entropy-stable semidiscretizations and substantially reduces RHS evaluations and runtime relative to standalone relaxed Runge-Kutta schemes. The main strengths are the optimized schemes up to fourth order, the reproducible implementation, the convergence studies in Section 4.3 showing designed orders for L1 errors, the round-off-level entropy conservation in Section 4.1 when the semidiscretization is EC, and the round-off-level preservation of linear invariants in Section 4.2. The entropy-conservation results are built into the method by construction, so Figures 4b and 7b are implementation checks rather than independent predictions; this is inherent to relaxation methods and is not a flaw. The paper is also honest about scope: Section 4.3.1 explicitly notes that L2 projection mortars break exact entropy conservation in the AMR convergence study, and the production runs in Sections 5.1, 5.2, and 5.5 use BR1 or shock-capturing semidiscretizations that are not strictly entropy-stable.

minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.1.2] The text says 'The values in Table 2 correspond to the run from t = 0 to t = 30 t_c', but the performance comparison appears in Table 3, not Table 2; the cross-reference should be corrected.
  2. [Section 4.3.3] The passage 'we confirmed by performing the same convergence study with the standard P-ERRK schemes' appears to refer to the non-relaxed baseline; it should read 'standard P-ERK schemes'.
  3. [Figure 10] The captions of Figures 10a and 10b refer to 'Fig. 8a' and 'Fig. 8b'; these should refer to Figures 10a and 10b, respectively.
  4. [Throughout] Several typographical errors should be corrected: 'erronous' in Section 2.4, 'conenctrate' in Section 5.1.2, 'reprensented' in Section 5.5.1, 'svaings' in Section 5.5.2, 'obatined' in the caption of Figure B.19, and 'signficantly'/'constrast' in the caption of Figure 16.
  5. [Section 6] The concluding sentence that P-ERRK methods 'introduce no defects in the global entropy' would be more precise if it explicitly restated the scope condition that this guarantee holds when the underlying semidiscretization is entropy-conservative or entropy-stable; the paper states this condition in the technical sections, but the conclusion is currently slightly broader in wording.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Entropy conservation is enforced by the relaxation solve; all other central claims are independently validated.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.1.2 (validation of entropy conservation), enforcing Eq. (2.16) via Eq. (3.3); see also Fig. 7b]
    "For this case, the second equality in (2.16) is enforced, i.e., the entropy at any timestep n is forced to be equal to the entropy of the initial condition H(U 0)."

    Entropy conservation is not an independent output of the P-ERRK scheme: equation (3.3), r(γn)=H(Un+γnΔtdn)−H(Un)−γnΔHn=0, is solved at every step, and for an entropy-conservative semidiscretization (2.15) one has ΔHn=0 by (2.27). Therefore the solver enforces H(Un+1)=H(Un) (or H(Un)=H(U0)) exactly. Figures 4b, 5b and 7b thus confirm the Newton solve and the EC spatial flux, not a predicted property of the time integrator. The paper is transparent about this (the word 'enforced'), so this is a consistency check rather than a falsifiable claim; it does not affect the independent order and performance validations.

full rationale

The paper's core novelty is the combination of optimized P-ERK multirate coefficients with the relaxation machinery of Ketcheson and Ranocha et al. The relaxation parameter γ is a design variable solving (3.3), and for an EC/ES semidiscretization this enforces the entropy condition by construction. The entropy-conservation plots in Section 4.1 are therefore implementation checks, as the paper itself states by using 'enforced' and 'forced.' This is a mild constructional circularity in the validation of one advertised property, but it is openly disclosed and does not masquerade as an independent prediction. The remaining load-bearing claims are validated independently: design order of accuracy against analytic solutions (Section 4.3), linear-invariant conservation to round-off (Section 4.2), and runtime/RHS-evaluation reductions against external baseline methods such as R-RK4, R-TS4;6, R-CKL4;5, and SSP10 (Section 5). The cited P-ERK construction and relaxation theory are external, reproducible, and not replaced by a self-citation chain. Overall, the central derivation is self-contained apart from the definitional entropy-enforcement step, so the circularity is bounded and minor.

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

The central claims rest on standard theory of relaxation Runge-Kutta methods, entropy-stable DGSEM semidiscretizations, and the P-ERK framework developed in prior work by the authors and others. No new entities are postulated. The free parameters listed are design choices (stage counts, optimization targets) rather than fitted constants; the relaxation parameter is computed per timestep from the entropy equation.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Relaxation parameters gamma_n exist, are unique, and preserve the order of accuracy for at least second-order Runge-Kutta methods.
    Invoked in Section 3 to justify solving (3.3) and to claim accuracy is maintained; based on results from Ketcheson [37] and Ranocha et al. [38].
  • domain assumption The semidiscrete DGSEM satisfies a discrete entropy equality (2.15) or inequality (2.17) for the chosen entropy.
    The relaxation construction uses the entropy change Delta H_n from entropy variables; if the spatial discretization is not entropy-stable, the fully discrete method cannot guarantee entropy behavior. The authors note in Section 4.3.1 that AMR mortars break exact entropy conservation.
  • standard math The mathematical entropy H is a convex function of the conserved variables for the considered ideal-gas and MHD systems.
    Convexity is required for the existence and uniqueness of the relaxation parameter and for the monotonicity interpretation; standard for the entropy (2.18).
  • domain assumption P-ERK methods used here satisfy internal consistency (identical abscissae and shared weight vector), ensuring the partitioned scheme has the designed order and conserves linear invariants.
    This follows from the construction of P-ERK methods in [45-47, 68]; the paper relies on it in Section 2.2 and (2.12).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Paired Explicit Relaxation Runge-Kutta Methods: Entropy-Conservative and Entropy-Stable High-Order Optimized Multirate Time Integration." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UIDYDLTP

@misc{pith2026250704991,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Paired Explicit Relaxation Runge-Kutta Methods: Entropy-Conservative and Entropy-Stable High-Order Optimized Multirate Time Integration},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UIDYDLTP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.04991}
}
read the original abstract

We present novel entropy-conservative and entropy-stable multirate Runge-Kutta methods based on Paired Explicit Runge-Kutta (P-ERK) schemes with relaxation for conservation laws and related systems of partial differential equations. Optimized schemes up to fourth-order of accuracy are derived and validated in terms of order of consistency, conservation of linear invariants, and entropy conservation/stability. We demonstrate the effectiveness of these P-ERRK methods when combined with a high-order, entropy-conservative/stable discontinuous Galerkin spectral element method on unstructured meshes. The Paired Explicit Relaxation Runge-Kutta methods(P-ERRK) are readily implemented for partitioned semidiscretizations arising from problems with equation-based scale separation such as non-uniform meshes. We highlight that the relaxation approach acts as a time-limiting technique which improves the nonlinear stability and thus robustness of the multirate schemes. The P-ERRK methods are applied to a range of problems, ranging from compressible Euler over compressible Navier-Stokes to the visco-resistive magnetohydrodynamics equations in two and three spatial dimensions. For each test case, we compare computational load and runtime to standalone relaxed Runge-Kutta methods which are outperformed by factors up to four. All results can be reproduced using a publicly available repository.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.04991 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the concept of multirate time integration with P-ERK methods. In Fig. 1a a non-uniform [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Relaxation as time-limiting: Advection equation (3.6) on two-level, non-uniform mesh solved with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Relaxation as time-limiting: Advection equation (3.6) on two-level, non-uniform mesh. The temporal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Temporal evolution of the total entropy defect [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Temporal evolution of the total entropy defect [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Non-uniform, conforming mesh according to (4.8) for the isentropic vortex testcase to validate entropy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Temporal evolution of the total entropy defect [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: L 1 (Fig. 8a) and L ∞ (Fig. 8b) errors of the density ρ for the isentropic vortex advection testcase after one pass through the domain for p = 2, 3, 4 P-ERRK schemes. 0 5 10 15 20 t −5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 ×10−6 ∆γn (Isentropic Vortex, p = 2) p = 2 (a) Relaxation parameter γn…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Evolution of the relaxation parameter γn for the isentropic vortex convergence testcase with CFL = 1 for p = 2 (Fig. 9a) and p = 3, 4 (Fig. 9b) P-ERRK schemes. In the plots above, the deviation from unity, i.e., ∆γn := γn − 1 is shown. 19 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: L 1 (Fig. 8a) and L ∞ (Fig. 8b) errors of the density ρ for the viscous shock propagation testcase at tf = 0.5 for p = 2, 3, 4 P-ERRK schemes. timestep scales quadratically with the smallest mesh size. We start the convergence study with a total of N = 6 cells and ref…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: L 1 (Fig. 8a) and L ∞ (Fig. 8b) errors of the x-component of the magnetic field Bx for the Alfv´en wave testcase at tf = 2 for p = 2, 3, 4 P-ERRK schemes with random assignment. polynomials for the p = 2 P-ERRK scheme, k = 3 polynomials for the p = 3 scheme, and k = 4…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Method distribution for the SD7003 airfoil integration with the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Density ρ at final time tf = 120 for the flow past a cylinder. In Fig. 13a the Navier-Stokes-Fourier simulation is shown, while Fig. 13b depicts the visco-resistive MHD simulation. Both results are obtained using fourth-order P-ERRK schemes optimized for the respectiv…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Pressure coefficient (5.13) recorded at top (blue) and bottom (petrol) NACA0012 airfoil surface. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: ONERA M6 wing geometry Fig. 15a and used computational mesh Fig. 15b. The displayed mesh is the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Pressure p on the ONERA M6 wing’s upper surface at tf = 6.05. The lambda shock pattern refers to the shape formed by the shock at the leading edge, where the pressure drops signficantly below the ambient value of p = 1, and the standing shock across the wing across wh…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Pressure p [Pa] and surface mesh for the NASA CRM at tf = 1.5 · 10−5 s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_17.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

134 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    O. A. Ole˘ ınik, Uniqueness and stability of the generalized solution of the Cauchy problem for a quasi-linear equation, Russian Mathematical Surveys 14 (1959) 165–170. doi: 10. 1090/trans2/033/09, English translation: Amer. Math. Soc. Trans., Series 2, Volume 33, Pages 285-290

    1959

  2. [2]

    P. D. Lax, Hyperbolic systems of conservation laws II, Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics 10 (1957) 537–566. doi: 10.1002/cpa.3160100406

    doi:10.1002/cpa.3160100406 1957

  3. [3]

    S. N. Kruˇ zkov, First order quasilinear equations in several independent variables, Math- ematics of the USSR-Sbornik 10 (1970) 217. doi: 10.1070/SM1970v010n02ABEH002156

    doi:10.1070/sm1970v010n02abeh002156 1970

  4. [4]

    P. D. Lax, Hyperbolic systems of conservation laws and the mathematical theory of shock waves, CBMS-NSF Regional Conference Series in Applied Mathematics, SIAM, 1973. doi:10.1137/1.9781611970562

    doi:10.1137/1.9781611970562 1973

  5. [5]

    C. M. Dafermos, Hyperbolic conservation laws in continuum physics, Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, 4 ed., Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 2005. doi: 10.1007/ 978-3-662-49451-6

    2005

  6. [6]

    Courant, K

    R. Courant, K. O. Friedrichs, Supersonic flow and shock waves, volume 21 of Applied Mathematical Sciences, 1 ed., Springer New York, NY, 1976

    1976

  7. [7]

    G. J. Gassner, A. R. Winters, D. A. Kopriva, Split form nodal discontinuous Galerkin schemes with summation-by-parts property for the compressible Euler equations, Journal of Computational Physics 327 (2016) 39–66. doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2016.09.013

    doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2016.09.013 2016

  8. [8]

    Sj¨ ogreen, H

    B. Sj¨ ogreen, H. Yee, High order entropy conservative central schemes for wide ranges of compressible gas dynamics and MHD flows, Journal of Computational Physics 364 (2018) 153–185. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2018.02.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2018.02.003 2018

Show all 134 references
  1. [9]

    Manzanero, G

    J. Manzanero, G. Rubio, D. A. Kopriva, E. Ferrer, E. Valero, An entropy–stable discontin- uous Galerkin approximation for the incompressible Navier–Stokes equations with variable density and artificial compressibility, Journal of Computational Physics 408 (2020) 109241. doi:10...

    2020

  2. [10]

    Rojas, R

    D. Rojas, R. Boukharfane, L. Dalcin, D. C. D. R. Fern´ andez, H. Ranocha, D. E. Keyes, M. Parsani, On the robustness and performance of entropy stable collocated discontinuous Galerkin methods, Journal of Computational Physics 426 (2021) 109891. doi: 10.1016/j. jcp.2020.109891

    2021

  3. [11]

    J. Chan, H. Ranocha, A. M. Rueda-Ram´ ırez, G. Gassner, T. Warburton, On the entropy projection and the robustness of high order entropy stable discontinuous Galerkin schemes for under-resolved flows, Frontiers in Physics 10 (2022) 898028. doi: 10.3389/fphy.2022. 898028

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    Tadmor, Entropy conservative finite element schemes, in: T

    E. Tadmor, Entropy conservative finite element schemes, in: T. E. Tezduyar, T. J. R. Hughes (Eds.), Proceedings of the winter annual meeting of the American Society of Mechanical Engineering, volume 78, 1986, pp. 149–158

    1986

  5. [13]

    Tadmor, The numerical viscosity of entropy stable schemes for systems of con- servation laws

    E. Tadmor, The numerical viscosity of entropy stable schemes for systems of con- servation laws. i, Mathematics of Computation 49 (1987) 91–103. doi: 10.1090/ S0025-5718-1987-0890255-3 . 44 D. Doehring, H. Ranocha, and M. Torrilhon

    1987

  6. [14]

    U. S. Fjordholm, S. Mishra, E. Tadmor, Arbitrarily high-order accurate entropy stable essentially nonoscillatory schemes for systems of conservation laws, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis 50 (2012) 544–573. doi: 10.1137/110836961

    2012 doi

  7. [15]

    T. C. Fisher, M. H. Carpenter, High-order entropy stable finite difference schemes for nonlinear conservation laws: Finite domains, Journal of Computational Physics 252 (2013) 518–557. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2013.06.014

    2013 doi

  8. [16]

    G. J. Gassner, A skew-symmetric discontinuous Galerkin spectral element discretization and its relation to SBP-SAT finite difference methods, SIAM Journal on Scientific Com- puting 35 (2013) A1233–A1253. doi: 10.1137/120890144

    2013 doi

  9. [17]

    M. H. Carpenter, M. Parsani, E. J. Nielsen, T. C. Fisher, Towards an entropy stable spectral element framework for computational fluid dynamics, in: 54th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, 2016, p. 1058. doi: 10.2514/6.2016-1058

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    J. S. Hesthaven, T. Warburton, Nodal discontinuous Galerkin methods: Algorithms, anal- ysis, and applications, Texts in Applied Mathematics, 1 ed., Springer New York, NY, 2007. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-72067-8

    2007 doi

  11. [19]

    Black, A conservative spectral element method for the approximation of compressible fluid flow, Kybernetika 35 (1999) 133–146

    K. Black, A conservative spectral element method for the approximation of compressible fluid flow, Kybernetika 35 (1999) 133–146

    1999

  12. [20]

    D. A. Kopriva, Implementing spectral methods for partial differential equations: Al- gorithms for scientists and engineers, Scientific Computation (SCIENTCOMP), 1 ed., Springer Science & Business Media, 2009. doi: 10.1007/978-90-481-2261-5

    2009 doi

  13. [21]

    Chen, C.-W

    T. Chen, C.-W. Shu, Entropy stable high order discontinuous Galerkin methods with suitable quadrature rules for hyperbolic conservation laws, Journal of Computational Physics 345 (2017) 427–461. doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2017.05.025

    2017 doi

  14. [23]

    P. Chandrashekar, Kinetic energy preserving and entropy stable finite volume schemes for compressible Euler and Navier-Stokes equations, Communications in Computational Physics 14 (2013) 12521286. doi: 10.4208/cicp.170712.010313a

    2013

  15. [24]

    A. R. Winters, G. J. Gassner, Affordable, entropy conserving and entropy stable flux functions for the ideal MHD equations, Journal of Computational Physics 304 (2016) 72–108. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2015.09.055

    2016 doi

  16. [25]

    Ranocha, Comparison of some entropy conservative numerical fluxes for the Euler equations, Journal of Scientific Computing 76 (2018) 216–242

    H. Ranocha, Comparison of some entropy conservative numerical fluxes for the Euler equations, Journal of Scientific Computing 76 (2018) 216–242. doi: 10.1007/ s10915-017-0618-1

    2018

  17. [26]

    Ranocha, Entropy conserving and kinetic energy preserving numerical methods for the euler equations using summation-by-parts operators, in: S

    H. Ranocha, Entropy conserving and kinetic energy preserving numerical methods for the euler equations using summation-by-parts operators, in: S. J. Sherwin, D. Moxey, J. Peir´ o, P. E. Vincent, C. Schwab (Eds.), Spectral and High Order Methods for Partial Differential Equatio...

    2018 doi

  18. [27]

    Tadmor, Entropy stability theory for difference approximations of nonlinear conser- vation laws and related time-dependent problems, Acta Numerica 12 (2003) 451–512

    E. Tadmor, Entropy stability theory for difference approximations of nonlinear conser- vation laws and related time-dependent problems, Acta Numerica 12 (2003) 451–512. doi:10.1017/S0962492902000156. 45 Paired Explicit Relaxation Runge-Kutta Methods: Entropy Conservative and E...

    2003 doi

  19. [28]

    Hiltebrand, S

    A. Hiltebrand, S. Mishra, Entropy stable shock capturing space–time discontinuous Galerkin schemes for systems of conservation laws, Numerische Mathematik 126 (2014) 103–151. doi:10.1007/s00211-013-0558-0

    2014 doi

  20. [29]

    Friedrich, G

    L. Friedrich, G. Schn¨ ucke, A. R. Winters, D. C. D. R. Fern´ andez, G. J. Gassner, M. H. Carpenter, Entropy stable space–time discontinuous Galerkin schemes with summation- by-parts property for hyperbolic conservation laws, Journal of Scientific Computing 80 (2019) 175–222. ...

    2019 doi

  21. [30]

    Gaburro, P

    E. Gaburro, P. ¨Offner, M. Ricchiuto, D. Torlo, High order entropy preserving ADER-DG schemes, Applied Mathematics and Computation 440 (2023) 127644. doi:10.1016/j.amc. 2022.127644

    2023

  22. [32]

    Hairer, C

    E. Hairer, C. Lubich, G. Wanner, Geometric numerical integration, Springer Series in Computational Mathematics, 2 ed., Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 2006. doi: 10.1007/ 3-540-30666-8

    2006

  23. [33]

    Calvo, M

    M. Calvo, M. Laburta, J. Montijano, L. R´ andez, Projection methods preserving Lyapunov functions, BIT Numerical Mathematics 50 (2010) 223–241. doi: 10.1007/ s10543-010-0259-3

    2010

  24. [34]

    Kojima, Invariants preserving schemes based on explicit Runge–Kutta methods, BIT Numerical Mathematics 56 (2016) 1317–1337

    H. Kojima, Invariants preserving schemes based on explicit Runge–Kutta methods, BIT Numerical Mathematics 56 (2016) 1317–1337. doi: 10.1007/s10543-016-0608-y

    2016 doi

  25. [35]

    M. R. Najafian, B. C. Vermeire, Quasi-orthogonal Runge-Kutta projection methods, Jour- nal of Computational Physics 530 (2025) 113917. doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2025.113917

    2025

  26. [36]

    Calvo, D

    M. Calvo, D. Hern´ andez-Abreu, J. I. Montijano, L. R´ andez, On the preservation of invariants by explicit Runge–Kutta methods, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 28 (2006) 868–885. doi: 10.1137/04061979X

    2006 doi

  27. [37]

    D. I. Ketcheson, Relaxation Runge–Kutta methods: Conservation and stability for inner- product norms, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis 57 (2019) 2850–2870. doi: 10.1137/ 19M1263662

    2019

  28. [38]

    Ranocha, M

    H. Ranocha, M. Sayyari, L. Dalcin, M. Parsani, D. I. Ketcheson, Relaxation Runge–Kutta methods: Fully discrete explicit entropy-stable schemes for the compressible Euler and Navier–Stokes equations, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 42 (2020) A612–A638. doi:10.1137/19M1263480

    2020 doi

  29. [39]

    S. Kang, E. M. Constantinescu, Entropy–preserving and entropy–stable relaxation IMEX and multirate time–stepping methods, Journal of Scientific Computing 93 (2022) 23. doi:10.1007/s10915-022-01982-w

    2022 doi

  30. [40]

    Ranocha, L

    H. Ranocha, L. Dalcin, M. Parsani, Fully discrete explicit locally entropy-stable schemes for the compressible Euler and Navier–Stokes equations, Computers & Mathematics with Applications 80 (2020) 1343–1359. doi: 10.1016/j.camwa.2020.06.016

    2020 doi

  31. [41]

    Ranocha, L

    H. Ranocha, L. L´ oczi, D. I. Ketcheson, General relaxation methods for initial-value prob- lems with application to multistep schemes, Numerische Mathematik 146 (2020) 875–906. doi:10.1007/s00211-020-01158-4. 46 D. Doehring, H. Ranocha, and M. Torrilhon

    2020 doi

  32. [42]

    J. M. Sanz-Serna, An explicit finite-difference scheme with exact conservation proper- ties, Journal of Computational Physics 47 (1982) 199–210. doi: 10.1016/0021-9991(82) 90074-2

    1982 doi

  33. [43]

    Sanz-Serna, V

    J. Sanz-Serna, V. Manoranjan, A method for the integration in time of certain partial differential equations, Journal of Computational Physics 52 (1983) 273–289. doi: 10.1016/ 0021-9991(83)90031-1

    1983

  34. [44]

    Dekker, J

    K. Dekker, J. G. Verwer, Stability of Runge-Kutta methods for stiff nonlinear differential equations, CWI monographs 2 (1984) 307

    1984

  35. [45]

    B. C. Vermeire, Paired explicit Runge-Kutta schemes for stiff systems of equations, Journal of Computational Physics 393 (2019) 465–483. doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2019.05.014

    2019 doi

  36. [46]

    S. H. Nasab, B. C. Vermeire, Third-order paired explicit Runge-Kutta schemes for stiff systems of equations, Journal of Computational Physics 468 (2022) 111470. doi: 10.1016/ j.jcp.2022.111470

    2022

  37. [47]

    Doehring, L

    D. Doehring, L. Christmann, M. Schlottke-Lakemper, G. J. Gassner, M. Torrilhon, Fourth- order paired-explicit Runge-Kutta methods, arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.05470 (2024). doi:10.48550/arXiv.2408.05470

    2024 doi

  38. [48]

    E. M. Constantinescu, A. Sandu, Multirate timestepping methods for hyperbolic conservation laws, Journal of Scientific Computing 33 (2007) 239–278. doi: 10.1007/ s10915-007-9151-y

    2007

  39. [49]

    G. J. Gassner, A. R. Winters, D. A. Kopriva, A well balanced and entropy conservative discontinuous Galerkin spectral element method for the shallow water equations, Applied Mathematics and Computation 272 (2016) 291–308. doi: 10.1016/j.amc.2015.07.014

    2016 doi

  40. [50]

    M. J. Castro, U. S. Fjordholm, S. Mishra, C. Par´ es, Entropy conservative and entropy sta- ble schemes for nonconservative hyperbolic systems, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis 51 (2013) 1371–1391. doi: 10.1137/110845379

    2013 doi

  41. [51]

    B. C. Vermeire, Embedded paired explicit Runge-Kutta schemes, Journal of Computa- tional Physics 487 (2023) 112159. doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2023.112159

    2023

  42. [52]

    Rentrop, Partitioned Runge-Kutta methods with stiffness detection and stepsize control, Numerische Mathematik 47 (1985) 545–564

    P. Rentrop, Partitioned Runge-Kutta methods with stiffness detection and stepsize control, Numerische Mathematik 47 (1985) 545–564. doi: 10.1007/BF01389456

    1985 doi

  43. [53]

    Bruder, K

    J. Bruder, K. Strehmel, R. Weiner, Partitioned adaptive Runge-Kutta methods for the solution of nonstiff and stiff systems, Numerische Mathematik 52 (1988) 621–638. doi: 10. 1007/BF01395815

    1988

  44. [54]

    G¨ unther, A

    M. G¨ unther, A. Kvaernø, P. Rentrop, Multirate partitioned Runge-Kutta methods, BIT Numerical Mathematics 41 (2001) 504–514. doi: 10.1023/A:1021967112503

    2001 doi

  45. [55]

    Hairer, G

    E. Hairer, G. Wanner, S. P. Nørsett, Solving Ordinary Differential Equations I: Nonstiff Problems, Springer Series in Computational Mathematics, 2 ed., Springer Berlin, Heidel- berg, 1993. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-78862-1

    1993 doi

  46. [56]

    M. J. Berger, J. Oliger, Adaptive mesh refinement for hyperbolic partial differential equa- tions, Journal of Computational Physics 53 (1984) 484–512. doi: 10.1016/0021-9991(84) 90073-1

    1984 doi

  47. [57]

    Dawson, R

    C. Dawson, R. Kirby, High resolution schemes for conservation laws with locally varying time steps, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 22 (2001) 2256–2281. doi: 10.1137/ S1064827500367737. 47 Paired Explicit Relaxation Runge-Kutta Methods: Entropy Conservative and Entropy-St...

    2001

  48. [58]

    L¨ orcher, G

    F. L¨ orcher, G. Gassner, C.-D. Munz, A discontinuous Galerkin scheme based on a space– time expansion. I. inviscid compressible flow in one space dimension, Journal of Scientific Computing 32 (2007) 175–199. doi: 10.1007/s10915-007-9128-x

    2007 doi

  49. [59]

    Dumbser, M

    M. Dumbser, M. K¨ aser, E. F. Toro, An arbitrary high-order discontinuous Galerkin method for elastic waves on unstructured meshes – V. Local time stepping and p- adaptivity, Geophysical Journal International 171 (2007) 695–717. doi: 10.1111/j. 1365-246X.2007.03427.x

    2007 arXiv

  50. [60]

    Krivodonova, An efficient local time-stepping scheme for solution of nonlinear conserva- tion laws, Journal of Computational Physics 229 (2010) 8537–8551

    L. Krivodonova, An efficient local time-stepping scheme for solution of nonlinear conserva- tion laws, Journal of Computational Physics 229 (2010) 8537–8551. doi: 10.1016/j.jcp. 2010.07.037

    2010 doi

  51. [61]

    M. J. Grote, M. Mehlin, T. Mitkova, Runge–Kutta-based explicit local time-stepping methods for wave propagation, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 37 (2015) A747– A775. doi:10.1137/140958293

    2015 doi

  52. [62]

    Luther, Y

    J. Luther, Y. Wang, P. Jenny, Adaptive conservative time integration for unsteady com- pressible flow, Journal of Computational Physics 517 (2024) 113324. doi: 10.1016/j.jcp. 2024.113324

    2024

  53. [63]

    Ketcheson, A

    D. Ketcheson, A. Ahmadia, Optimal stability polynomials for numerical integration of ini- tial value problems, Communications in Applied Mathematics and Computational Science 7 (2013) 247–271. doi: 10.2140/camcos.2012.7.247

    2013 doi

  54. [64]

    Doehring, G

    D. Doehring, G. J. Gassner, M. Torrilhon, Many-stage optimal stabilized Runge-Kutta methods for hyperbolic partial differential equations, Journal of Scientific Computing 99 (2024). doi:10.1007/s10915-024-02478-5

    2024 doi

  55. [65]

    Wanner, E

    G. Wanner, E. Hairer, Solving ordinary differential equations II: Stiff and Differential- Algebraic Problems, volume 375 of Springer Series in Computational Mathematics , 2 ed., Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 1996. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-05221-7

    1996 doi

  56. [66]

    Rusanov, The calculation of the interaction of non-stationary shock waves and obstacles, USSR Computational Mathematics and Mathematical Physics 1 (1962) 304–320

    V. Rusanov, The calculation of the interaction of non-stationary shock waves and obstacles, USSR Computational Mathematics and Mathematical Physics 1 (1962) 304–320. doi: 10. 1016/0041-5553(62)90062-9

    1962

  57. [67]

    Hundsdorfer, D

    W. Hundsdorfer, D. I. Ketcheson, I. Savostianov, Error analysis of explicit partitioned Runge-Kutta schemes for conservation laws, Journal of Scientific Computing 63 (2015) 633–653. doi:10.1007/s10915-014-9906-1

    2015 doi

  58. [68]

    Doehring, M

    D. Doehring, M. Schlottke-Lakemper, G. J. Gassner, M. Torrilhon, Multirate time- integration based on dynamic ODE partitioning through adaptively refined meshes for compressible fluid dynamics, Journal of Computational Physics 514 (2024) 113223. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2024.113223

    2024

  59. [69]

    C.-W. Shu, S. Osher, Efficient implementation of essentially non-oscillatory shock- capturing schemes, Journal of Computational Physics 77 (1988) 439–471. doi: 10.1016/ 0021-9991(88)90177-5

    1988

  60. [70]

    Gottlieb, C.-W

    S. Gottlieb, C.-W. Shu, E. Tadmor, Strong stability-preserving high-order time discretiza- tion methods, SIAM Review 43 (2001) 89–112. doi: 10.1137/S003614450036757X

    2001 doi

  61. [71]

    Gottlieb, C.-W

    S. Gottlieb, C.-W. Shu, Total variation diminishing Runge-Kutta schemes, Mathematics of Computation 67 (1998) 73–85. doi: 10.1090/S0025-5718-98-00913-2 . 48 D. Doehring, H. Ranocha, and M. Torrilhon

    1998 doi

  62. [72]

    Forth, A second order accurate, space-time limited, BDF scheme for the linear advection equation, in: E

    S. Forth, A second order accurate, space-time limited, BDF scheme for the linear advection equation, in: E. F. Toro (Ed.), Godunov Methods: Theory and Applications, Springer, New York, NY, 2001, pp. 335–342. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4615-0663-8_35

    2001 doi

  63. [73]

    Duraisamy, J

    K. Duraisamy, J. D. Baeder, J.-G. Liu, Concepts and application of time-limiters to high resolution schemes, Journal of Scientific Computing 19 (2003) 139–162. doi: 10.1023/A: 1025395707090

    2003 doi

  64. [74]

    Duraisamy, J

    K. Duraisamy, J. D. Baeder, Implicit scheme for hyperbolic conservation laws using nonoscillatory reconstruction in space and time, SIAM Journal on Scientific Comput- ing 29 (2007) 2607–2620. doi: 10.1137/070683271

    2007 doi

  65. [75]

    Arbogast, C.-S

    T. Arbogast, C.-S. Huang, X. Zhao, D. N. King, A third order, implicit, finite volume, adaptive Runge–Kutta WENO scheme for advection–diffusion equations, Computer Meth- ods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 368 (2020) 113155

    2020

  66. [76]

    Puppo, M

    G. Puppo, M. Semplice, G. Visconti, Quinpi: integrating conservation laws with CWENO implicit methods, Communications on Applied Mathematics and Computation 5 (2023) 343–369. doi:10.1007/s42967-021-00171-0

    2023 doi

  67. [77]

    Puppo, M

    G. Puppo, M. Semplice, G. Visconti, Quinpi: Integrating stiff hyperbolic systems with implicit high order finite volume schemes, arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.14685 (2023). doi:10. 48550/arXiv.2307.14685

    2023 doi arXiv

  68. [78]

    Harten, High resolution schemes for hyperbolic conservation laws, Journal of Compu- tational Physics 135 (1997) 260–278

    A. Harten, High resolution schemes for hyperbolic conservation laws, Journal of Compu- tational Physics 135 (1997) 260–278. doi: 10.1006/jcph.1997.5713

    1997

  69. [79]

    A. M. Rueda-Ram´ ırez, G. J. Gassner, A subcell finite volume positivity-preserving limiter for DGSEM discretizations of the Euler equations, arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.06017 (2021). doi:10.48550/arXiv.2102.06017

    2021 doi arXiv

  70. [80]

    Einfeldt, On Godunov-type methods for gas dynamics, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis 25 (1988) 294–318

    B. Einfeldt, On Godunov-type methods for gas dynamics, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis 25 (1988) 294–318. doi: 10.1137/0725021

    1988 doi

  71. [81]

    Hennemann, A

    S. Hennemann, A. M. Rueda-Ram´ ırez, F. J. Hindenlang, G. J. Gassner, A provably entropy stable subcell shock capturing approach for high order split form DG for the compressible Euler equations, Journal of Computational Physics 426 (2021) 109935. doi: 10.1016/j. jcp.2020.109935

    2021

  72. [82]

    Ranocha, M

    H. Ranocha, M. Schlottke-Lakemper, A. R. Winters, E. Faulhaber, J. Chan, G. Gassner, Adaptive numerical simulations with Trixi.jl: A case study of Julia for scientific com- puting, Proceedings of the JuliaCon Conferences 1 (2022) 77. doi: 10.21105/jcon.00077. arXiv:2108.06476

    2022 arXiv

  73. [83]

    Schlottke-Lakemper, A

    M. Schlottke-Lakemper, A. R. Winters, H. Ranocha, G. Gassner, A purely hyperbolic dis- continuous Galerkin approach for self-gravitating gas dynamics, Journal of Computational Physics 442 (2021) 110467. doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2021.110467. arXiv:2008.10593

    2021

  74. [84]

    Schlottke-Lakemper, G

    M. Schlottke-Lakemper, G. Gassner, H. Ranocha, A. R. Winters, J. Chan, Trixi.jl: Adap- tive high-order numerical simulations of hyperbolic PDEs in Julia, https://github.com/ trixi-framework/Trixi.jl, 2021. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3996439

    2021 doi

  75. [85]

    Bezanson, A

    J. Bezanson, A. Edelman, S. Karpinski, V. B. Shah, Julia: A fresh approach to numerical computing, SIAM review 59 (2017) 65–98. doi: 10.1137/141000671. 49 Paired Explicit Relaxation Runge-Kutta Methods: Entropy Conservative and Entropy-Stable High-Order Optimized Multirate Tim...

    2017 doi

  76. [86]

    Doehring, H

    D. Doehring, H. Ranocha, M. Torrilhon, Reproducibility repository for ”paired explicit relaxation runge-kutta methods: Entropy conservative/stable high-order optimized multi- rate time integration”, https://github.com/DanielDoehring/paper-2025-perrk, 2025. doi:10.5281/zenodo.15601890

    2025 doi

  77. [87]

    Hindenlang, G

    F. Hindenlang, G. Gassner, A new entropy conservative two-point flux for ideal MHD equations derived from first principles, Talk presented at HONOM: High Order Numer- ical Methods for Evolutionary PDEs (2019). URL: https://eventos.emagister.com/ _files/_event/_13680/_editorFil...

    2019

  78. [88]

    Z. J. Wang, K. Fidkowski, R. Abgrall, F. Bassi, D. Caraeni, A. Cary, H. Deconinck, R. Hartmann, K. Hillewaert, H. T. Huynh, et al., High-order CFD methods: Current status and perspective, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids 72 (2013) 811–845. doi:10.1002/fld.3767

    2013 doi

  79. [89]

    E. F. Toro, M. Spruce, W. Speares, Restoration of the contact surface in the HLL-Riemann solver, Shock Waves 4 (1994) 25–34. doi: 10.1007/BF01414629

    1994 doi

  80. [90]

    D. I. Ketcheson, Highly efficient strong stability-preserving Runge-Kutta methods with low-storage implementations, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 30 (2008) 2113–2136. doi:10.1137/07070485X

    2008 doi

  81. [91]

    Rackauckas, Q

    C. Rackauckas, Q. Nie, Differentialequations.jl – a performant and feature-rich ecosystem for solving differential equations in julia, The Journal of Open Research Software 5 (2017). URL: https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1085583166andhttp: //openresearchsoftwa...

    2017 doi

  82. [92]

    Becker, Stosswelle und Detonation, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik 8 (1922) 321–

    R. Becker, Stosswelle und Detonation, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik 8 (1922) 321–

    1922

  83. [93]

    Morduchow, P

    M. Morduchow, P. A. Libby, On a complete solution of the one-dimensional flow equations of a viscous, heat-conducting, compressible gas, Journal of the Aeronautical Sciences 16 (1949) 674–684. doi: 10.2514/8.11882

    1949 doi

  84. [94]

    L. G. Margolin, J. M. Reisner, P. M. Jordan, Entropy in self-similar shock profiles, Interna- tional Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics 95 (2017) 333–346. doi:10.1016/j.ijnonlinmec. 2017.07.003

    2017 doi

  85. [95]

    C.-D. Munz, P. Omnes, R. Schneider, E. Sonnendr¨ ucker, U. Voss, Divergence correction techniques for Maxwell solvers based on a hyperbolic model, Journal of Computational Physics 161 (2000) 484–511. doi: 10.1006/jcph.2000.6507

    2000

  86. [96]

    Dedner, F

    A. Dedner, F. Kemm, D. Kr¨ oner, C.-D. Munz, T. Schnitzer, M. Wesenberg, Hyperbolic divergence cleaning for the MHD equations, Journal of Computational Physics 175 (2002) 645–673. doi:10.1006/jcph.2001.6961

    2002

  87. [97]

    Derigs, A

    D. Derigs, A. R. Winters, G. J. Gassner, S. Walch, M. Bohm, Ideal GLM-MHD: About the entropy consistent nine-wave magnetic field divergence diminishing ideal mag- netohydrodynamics equations, Journal of Computational Physics 364 (2018) 420–467. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2018.03.002

    2018 doi

  88. [98]

    D. A. Kopriva, A conservative staggered-grid Chebyshev multidomain method for com- pressible flows. II. A semi-structured method, Journal of Computational Physics 128 (1996) 475–488. doi: 10.1006/jcph.1996.0225. 50 D. Doehring, H. Ranocha, and M. Torrilhon

    1996

  89. [99]

    J. Chan, M. J. Bencomo, D. C. Del Rey Fern´ andez, Mortar-based entropy-stable discontin- uous Galerkin methods on non-conforming quadrilateral and hexahedral meshes, Journal of Scientific Computing 89 (2021) 1–33. doi: 10.1007/s10915-021-01652-3

    2021 doi

  90. [100]

    Bassi, S

    F. Bassi, S. Rebay, A high-order accurate discontinuous finite element method for the numerical solution of the compressible Navier–Stokes equations, Journal of Computational Physics 131 (1997) 267–279. doi: 10.1006/jcph.1996.5572

    1997

  91. [101]

    G. J. Gassner, A. R. Winters, F. J. Hindenlang, D. A. Kopriva, The BR1 scheme is stable for the compressible Navier–Stokes equations, Journal of Scientific Computing 77 (2018) 154–200. doi:10.1007/s10915-018-0702-1

    2018 doi

  92. [102]

    Cockburn, C.-W

    B. Cockburn, C.-W. Shu, The local discontinuous Galerkin method for time-dependent convection-diffusion systems, SIAM journal on numerical analysis 35 (1998) 2440–2463. doi:10.1137/S0036142997316712

    1998 doi

  93. [103]

    Cockburn, B

    B. Cockburn, B. Dong, An analysis of the minimal dissipation local discontinuous Galerkin method for convection–diffusion problems, Journal of Scientific Computing 32 (2007) 233–

    2007

  94. [104]

    M. Bohm, A. R. Winters, G. J. Gassner, D. Derigs, F. Hindenlang, J. Saur, An entropy stable nodal discontinuous Galerkin method for the resistive MHD equations. Part I: The- ory and numerical verification, Journal of Computational Physics 422 (2020) 108076. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2...

    2020 doi

  95. [105]

    Warburton, G

    T. Warburton, G. E. Karniadakis, A discontinuous Galerkin method for the viscous MHD equations, Journal of computational Physics 152 (1999) 608–641. doi:10.1006/jcph.1999. 6248

    1999 doi

  96. [106]

    K. G. Powell, P. L. Roe, T. J. Linde, T. I. Gombosi, D. L. De Zeeuw, A solution-adaptive upwind scheme for ideal magnetohydrodynamics, Journal of Computational Physics 154 (1999) 284–309. doi: 10.1006/jcph.1999.6299

    1999

  97. [107]

    T´ oth, The div(b)=0 constraint in shock-capturing magnetohydrodynamics codes, Jour- nal of Computational Physics 161 (2000) 605–652

    G. T´ oth, The div(b)=0 constraint in shock-capturing magnetohydrodynamics codes, Jour- nal of Computational Physics 161 (2000) 605–652. doi: 10.1006/jcph.2000.6519

    2000

  98. [108]

    Derigs, A

    D. Derigs, A. R. Winters, G. J. Gassner, S. Walch, A novel high-order, entropy stable, 3D AMR MHD solver with guaranteed positive pressure, Journal of Computational Physics 317 (2016) 223–256. doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2016.04.048

    2016 doi

  99. [109]

    H. T. Huynh, Third international workshop on high-order CFD methods, https://www1. grc.nasa.gov/research-and-engineering/hiocfd/, 2015

    2015

  100. [110]

    Schmitt, F

    V. Schmitt, F. Charpin, Pressure distributions on the ONERA-M6 wing at transonic Mach numbers, Technical Report Advisory Report AR-138, AGARD, 1979. Experimental Data Base for Computer Program Assessment

    1979

  101. [111]

    J. W. Slater, ONERA M6 Wing: Study #1: Demonstrate computation for a 3D wing flow, Technical Report, NASA John H. Glenn Research Center, 2002. URL: https://www.grc. nasa.gov/www/wind/valid/m6wing/m6wing.html

    2002

  102. [112]

    Mengaldo, D

    G. Mengaldo, D. De Grazia, F. Witherden, A. Farrington, P. Vincent, S. Sherwin, J. Peiro, A guide to the implementation of boundary conditions in compact high-order methods for compressible aerodynamics, in: 7th AIAA Theoretical Fluid Mechanics Conference, 2014, p. 2923. doi: ...

    2014 doi

  103. [113]

    Uranga, P.-O

    A. Uranga, P.-O. Persson, M. Drela, J. Peraire, Implicit large eddy simulation of tran- sition to turbulence at low Reynolds numbers using a Discontinuous Galerkin method, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 87 (2011) 232–261. doi: 10. 1002/nme.3036

    2011

  104. [114]

    M. R. L´ opez-Morales, J. R. Bull, J. Crabill, T. D. Economon, D. E. Manosalvas, J. Romero, A. Sheshadri, J. E. Watkins, D. M. Williams, F. Palacios, A. Jameson, Verification and validation of HiFiLES: a high-order LES unstructured solver on multi- GPU platforms, in: 32nd AIAA...

    2014 doi

  105. [115]

    Tselios, T

    K. Tselios, T. E. Simos, Runge–Kutta methods with minimal dispersion and dissipation for problems arising from computational acoustics, Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics 175 (2005) 173–181. doi: 10.1016/j.cam.2004.06.012

    2005 doi

  106. [116]

    C. A. Kennedy, M. H. Carpenter, R. M. Lewis, Low-storage, explicit Runge–Kutta schemes for the compressible Navier–Stokes equations, Applied numerical mathematics 35 (2000) 177–219. doi:10.1016/S0168-9274(99)00141-5

    2000 doi

  107. [117]

    Van der Houwen, Explicit Runge-Kutta formulas with increased stability boundaries, Numerische Mathematik 20 (1972) 149–164

    P. Van der Houwen, Explicit Runge-Kutta formulas with increased stability boundaries, Numerische Mathematik 20 (1972) 149–164. doi: 10.1007/BF01404404

    1972 doi

  108. [118]

    Crawford, G

    C. Crawford, G. Karniadakis, Control of external flows via electro-magnetic fields, in: Processings of the 26th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference, 1995, p. 12. doi: 10.2514/6. 1995-2185

    1995 doi

  109. [119]

    Weier, G

    T. Weier, G. Gerbeth, G. Mutschke, E. Platacis, O. Lielausis, Experiments on cylinder wake stabilization in an electrolyte solution by means of electromagnetic forces localized on the cylinder surface, Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 16 (1998) 84–91. doi:10. 1016/S0894-...

    1998

  110. [120]

    Kanaris, X

    N. Kanaris, X. Albets, D. Grigoriadis, S. Kassinos, Three-dimensional numerical simula- tions of magnetohydrodynamic flow around a confined circular cylinder under low, mod- erate, and strong magnetic fields, Physics of Fluids 25 (2013). doi: 10.1063/1.4811398

    2013 doi

  111. [121]

    D. A. Kopriva, A. R. Winters, M. Schlottke-Lakemper, J. A. Schoonover, H. Ranocha, HOHQMesh: An all quadrilateral/hexahedral unstructured mesh generator for high order elements, Journal of Open Source Software 9 (2024) 7476. doi: 10.21105/joss.07476

    2024 doi

  112. [122]

    J. J. W. van der Vegt, H. van der Ven, Slip flow boundary conditions in discontinuous Galerkin discretizations of the Euler equations of gas dynamics, Technical Report NLR- TP-2002-300, National Aerospace Laboratory NLR, 2002. URL: https://core.ac.uk/ download/pdf/53034515.pdf

    2002

  113. [123]

    Harten, P

    A. Harten, P. D. Lax, B. v. Leer, On upstream differencing and Godunov-type schemes for hyperbolic conservation laws, SIAM Review 25 (1983) 35–61. doi: 10.1137/1025002

    1983 doi

  114. [124]

    S. F. Davis, Simplified second-order Godunov-type methods, SIAM Journal on Scientific and Statistical Computing 9 (1988) 445–473. doi: 10.1137/0909030

    1988 doi

  115. [125]

    A. M. Rueda-Ram´ ırez, S. Hennemann, F. J. Hindenlang, A. R. Winters, G. J. Gassner, An entropy stable nodal discontinuous Galerkin method for the resistive MHD equations. Part II: Subcell finite volume shock capturing, Journal of Computational Physics 444 (2021) 110580. doi: ...

    2021

  116. [126]

    Geuzaine, J.-F

    C. Geuzaine, J.-F. Remacle, Gmsh: A 3-d finite element mesh generator with built-in pre- and post-processing facilities, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 79 (2009) 1309–1331. doi: 10.1002/nme.2579

    2009 doi

  117. [127]

    E. F. Toro, Riemann solvers and numerical methods for fluid dynamics: A practical intro- duction, 3 ed., Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 2013. doi: 10.1007/b79761

    2013 doi

  118. [128]

    G. G., E. van der Weide, M. Sv¨ ard, M. H. Carpenter, K. Mattson, Case C1.2: Flow over the NACA0012 airfoil, https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/C1.2_ Twente.pdf, 2015

    2015

  119. [129]

    J. A. Heyns, O. F. Oxtoby, A. Steenkamp, Modelling high-speed flow using a matrix- free coupled solver, in: Proceedings of the 9th OpenFOAM Workshop, Zagreb, Croatia, 2014, pp. 23–26. Mesh provided at https://gitlab.com/hisa/hisa/-/blob/master/ examples/oneraM6/mesh/p3dMesh/m6...

    2014

  120. [130]

    T. D. Economon, F. Palacios, S. R. Copeland, T. W. Lukaczyk, J. J. Alonso, SU2: An open-source suite for multiphysics simulation and design, AIAA Journal 54 (2016) 828–

    2016

  121. [131]

    Ralston, Runge-Kutta methods with minimum error bounds, Mathematics of Compu- tation 16 (1962) 431–437

    A. Ralston, Runge-Kutta methods with minimum error bounds, Mathematics of Compu- tation 16 (1962) 431–437. doi: 10.2307/2003133

    1962 doi

  122. [132]

    Vassberg, M

    J. Vassberg, M. Dehaan, M. Rivers, R. Wahls, Development of a common research model for applied CFD validation studies, in: 26th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, 2008, p. 6919. doi: 10.2514/6.2008-6919

    2008 doi

  123. [133]

    D. I. Ketcheson, L. L´ oczi, M. Parsani, Internal error propagation in explicit Runge- Kutta methods, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis 52 (2014) 2227–2249. doi: 10.1137/ 130936245. 53

    2014

  124. [262]

    doi:10.1007/s10915-007-9130-3

    doi

  125. [362]

    English translations: Impact waves and detonation

    doi: 10.1007/BF01329605, in German. English translations: Impact waves and detonation. Part I. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19930090862 Part II. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19930090863

  126. [846]

    io/tutorials/Inviscid_ONERAM6/

    doi:10.2514/1.J053813, inviscid ONERA M6 tutorial: https://su2code.github. io/tutorials/Inviscid_ONERAM6/

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.