A new anisotropic mesh adaptation method based upon hierarchical a posteriori error estimates

Jens Lang; Lennard Kamenski; Weizhang Huang

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 33 references

A new anisotropic mesh adaptation method based upon hierarchical a posteriori error estimates

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 The paper claims that anisotropic finite element meshes can be steered by a hierarchical a posteriori error estimate, computed approximately with a few symmetric Gauss-Seidel iterations, instead of by a recovered Hessian, and that this…

desk verdict This paper makes global hierarchical error estimators practical for anisotropic adaptation; the L2 saturation gap is real but explicitly acknowledged and partially checked numerically. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04242 v1 pith:W6EM25MD submitted 2019-08-12 math.NA cs.NA

Weizhang Huang , Lennard Kamenski , Jens Lang This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.NAcs.NA MSC 65N5065N3065N15

keywords anisotropicmeshadaptationhierarchicalaposteriorierrorestimatesfiniteelementmethodmetrictensorGauss-SeideliterationellipticboundaryvalueproblemsHessianrecoveryinterpolation

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 proposes that anisotropic adaptive meshes for finite element solutions of elliptic equations can be steered by a posteriori error estimates rather than by recovered Hessians of the exact solution. The central object is a global hierarchical error estimate $z_h$, the finite element correction obtained by projecting the residual error onto a space of edge-bubble functions. Because solving the global error problem exactly is expensive, the authors solve it approximately with a few symmetric Gauss-Seidel iterations and show numerically that three to seven iterations provide enough directional information to align stretched elements with shocks and boundary layers. If the claim holds, mesh generation can use reliable directional error information even for problems with discontinuous coefficients, where recovery-based Hessians concentrate elements unnecessarily along known interfaces.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the hierarchy $V_h \oplus W_h$ and the global error problem $(E_h)$: find $z_h$ in $W_h$ such that $a(z_h, w_h) = F(w_h) - a(u_h, w_h)$ for all $w_h$ in $W_h$. Here $W_h$ is spanned by edge-bubble (quadratic) functions, so $z_h$ captures directional residual information that local element-based estimators miss. The reconstructed solution $R_h u_h = u_h + z_h$ inherits the property that interpolation of $R_h u_h$ reproduces $u_h$, which turns the finite element error bound into an interpolation error bound for $z_h$ alone; the optimal anisotropic metric then follows from a trace-determinant interpolation estimate using the Hessian of $z_h$. Symmetric Gauss-Seidel iterations on the global error system provide a cheap approximation to $z_h$, and the paper's experiments indicate that only a few sweeps are needed for useful mesh geometry.

What would settle it

For a problem with a known exact solution $u$, compute the ratio $\|u-(u_h+z_h)\|/\|u-u_h\|$ on a sequence of anisotropic meshes produced by the method; if this ratio does not stay bounded below 1 on some mesh, the saturation assumption fails and the interpolation-error bound that justifies the metric is not valid.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's core claim is that the metric tensor for anisotropic mesh generation can be computed from the Hessian of a globally defined hierarchical error estimator $z_h$ instead of from a recovered Hessian of the numerical solution. Starting from a linear finite element solution $u_h$, one solves the global error problem $a(z_h, w_h) = F(w_h) - a(u_h, w_h)$ for $w_h$ in a hierarchical extension space $W_h$; then $R_h u_h = u_h + z_h$ is treated as an improved reconstruction. Under the saturation assumption that this reconstruction is closer to the exact solution than $u_h$ is, the finite element error is bounded, up to a constant, by the interpolation error of $z_h$. The paper then minimizes that interpolation error using the standard $M$-uniform mesh framework, obtaining a metric tensor involving $|H(z_h)|$, the Hessian of the estimated error, regularized by one scalar parameter. The numerical experiments show this estimator-driven metric matches quadratic least-squares Hessian recovery in accuracy on smooth anisotropic examples, works for piecewise-linear solutions with discontinuous gradients, and avoids artificial over-refinement near interfaces because the estimator vanishes when the numerical solution is already exact.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation assumes the saturation property: the corrected solution $u_h + z_h$ is genuinely closer to the true solution $u$ than $u_h$ is, with a contraction factor $\beta < 1$; the paper assumes this rather than proving it, and the error-control inequality collapses if $\beta \ge 1$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Anisotropic mesh generation becomes feasible without any recovered Hessian, using only a few approximate solves of the global error problem, so the method applies to problems where gradient or Hessian recovery is unreliable.
For solutions with discontinuous gradients or coefficient jumps, the estimator-driven metric avoids unnecessary element concentration along interfaces; when the finite element solution is exact on a conforming mesh, the error estimator and hence the correction to the metric vanish.
The measured accuracy on boundary-layer and shock examples is comparable to that of quadratic least-squares Hessian recovery, with similar element aspect ratios and orientation.
Because the error problem is global, the directional information of the error controls element alignment; reduced local estimators give correct mesh concentration but fail to produce proper shape and orientation adaptation.
The number of Gauss-Seidel iterations is a practical tuning parameter: three iterations sufficed for smooth anisotropic examples, while seven were used for the thermal battery with large material-coefficient jumps.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural extension is to make the Gauss-Seidel tolerance or iteration count adaptive per adaptation step, stopping when the metric tensor no longer changes materially, which could reduce cost without losing alignment.
The framework suggests replacing recovered Hessians by Hessians of any globally defined error estimator; if other global estimators also satisfy a saturation-type property, the same metric construction would transfer.
A rigorous proof or counterexample for the saturation assumption on $M$-uniform anisotropic meshes would settle whether the interpolation-error bound is truly justified; numerical tracking of the ratio $\|u-(u_h+z_h)\|/\|u-u_h\|$ on the paper's test problems is a direct check.
When the numerical solution is already in the finite element space, the error estimator is zero and the metric becomes uniform; this gives an automatic 'no refinement needed' signal that recovery-based adaptivity lacks.

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

The one thing you should know: this is the paper that shows you can drive anisotropic mesh adaptation from a global hierarchical a posteriori error estimate, solved only approximately, and get results comparable to Hessian recovery. It's a practical method paper, not a deep theory paper, and the numerics are convincing.

What's actually new: the authors solve the global error problem (Eh) for the hierarchical estimate z_h, then use the Hessian of z_h to define the metric tensor for an M-uniform mesh. Previous work used local estimators or recovered Hessians. They show that a few symmetric Gauss-Seidel iterations (three in the first examples) give an approximation good enough for adaptation, which makes the global estimator affordable. The comparison with edge- and node-based estimators makes the point that local estimators lack the directional information global ones provide. The discontinuous-coefficient example with a pre-defined interface is a nice capstone: Hessian recovery over-refines near the interface, while the error estimator correctly produces a uniform mesh because the solution is in the FE space.

The theory borrows from Huang and Sun's interpolation error estimates, and the metric derivation is clean. The part I'd flag is the saturation assumption, Eq. (1), with beta < 1. The stress-test note is right that the exact solution of (Eh) gives saturation automatically in the energy norm but not in the L2 norm, and the metric is built for L2. That is a real gap in rigor. However, the paper explicitly calls it an assumption, and the figures in Section 5.2 actually plot beta and effectivity indices, so the authors are not ignoring it. The numbers presumably support the assumption for those test problems. It's a soft spot, not a fatal one.

The GS iteration count is calibrated per example (3 vs. 7 for the thermal battery), with no a priori guide to when more iterations are needed. That's a minor weakness. Also, everything is in 2D with linear elements, so the scope is limited. The paper never overclaims beyond its examples.

The citation pattern looks fine, and there's no circularity: z_h comes from solving a residual equation independent of the target error tolerance.

Verdict: if you care about anisotropic adaptation or a posteriori error estimation, this is worth reading and citing. It deserves a serious referee; I'd have recommended acceptance with minor revisions, mainly asking for a remark on the L2 saturation issue and a caveat about the heuristic GS iteration count.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an anisotropic mesh adaptation method for linear finite element solutions of elliptic PDEs. Instead of recovering the Hessian of the solution, it computes a hierarchical a posteriori error estimate zh by solving the global error problem (Eh), then uses the elementwise Hessian of zh to construct an optimal metric tensor via the interpolation error theory of Huang and Sun. To reduce cost, the global error problem is solved approximately with a small number of symmetric Gauss–Seidel iterations. The method is compared with edge- and node-based local error estimators and with two Hessian recovery techniques on smooth examples, a discontinuous-gradient example, and a thermal battery problem with large orthotropic coefficient jumps. The central claims are that a few GS iterations suffice for mesh adaptation and that the new method is comparable in accuracy to Hessian recovery while avoiding over-concentration near internal interfaces.

Significance. If the theoretical and numerical claims hold, the paper offers a principled alternative to Hessian recovery for metric-based anisotropic adaptation, with the directional information coming from a globally defined error estimator rather than from recovered derivatives. This is potentially valuable for problems with discontinuous coefficients, where recovered Hessians are unreliable. The numerical study is thorough: it compares three ways of solving the error problem, reports convergence histories in the L2 norm, and includes a challenging thermal battery benchmark with jumping coefficients. The examples in Section 5.3 provide a clean, falsifiable demonstration that the hierarchical estimator does not over-refine when the finite element solution is exact on interface-fitted meshes, in contrast to Hessian recovery. The main theoretical gap is that inequality (9), which justifies minimizing the interpolation error of zh, rests on the saturation assumption (1) in the L2 norm, and this assumption is not established for the L2 norm or for the inexact GS solves actually used.

major comments (2)

[§2.5, Eq. (1) and Eq. (9)] The saturation assumption (1) is load-bearing, but it is only guaranteed in the energy norm for the exact solution of the error problem (Eh). Since zh solves a(zh, wh) = a(eh, wh) for all wh in Wh, zh is the a-orthogonal projection of eh onto Wh, giving ||u - (uh + zh)||_a^2 = ||eh||_a^2 - ||zh||_a^2 <= ||eh||_a^2. This does not imply β < 1 in the L2 norm, yet the metric tensor in Section 3.3 and the convergence plots in Section 5 are all for the L2 norm (q = 2). The paper states Eq. (1) as an assumption and plots β in Figures 5(b) and 6(b), but the norm in which β is measured is not defined and the plotted values are not discussed. If β >= 1 on any adapted mesh, inequality (9) ceases to be an upper bound and minimizing E(Th, zh) is not justified as a way to control ||u - uh||_{L2}. Please either prove L2 saturation under stated assumptions, or report β computed in the L2 norm on every adapted mesh for each example and verify that it stays below 1; alternatively, derive the metric from an energy-norm interpolation estimate and justify the use of that metric for L2 error control.
[§4.2 and §6] The number of symmetric Gauss–Seidel iterations is a tuned parameter (three in Section 5.1, seven in Section 6), and the inexact solve invalidates even the energy-norm saturation argument. When zh is only an approximate solution of (Eh), the orthogonality relation a(eh - zh, wh) = 0 no longer holds, so neither energy-norm nor L2 saturation is guaranteed. The claim that a few GS iterations are sufficient is supported only by the closeness of the convergence curves in Figure 4(a) for one example. The paper should provide quantitative evidence, such as effectivity indices or measured β as a function of iteration count, showing that the inexact zh still satisfies (1) on the meshes actually used, or clearly state that the method is heuristic with the saturation condition as a monitorable quantity. This is particularly important because Section 6 reports that three iterations were not enough for the thermal battery example, so the iteration count is problem-dependent.

minor comments (5)

[§3.2, Eq. (16)] Equation (16) contains typographical artifacts from the typesetting, including what appear to be missing parentheses around the Hölder exponent; please re-set the displayed formula so that the summation and exponent structure is unambiguous.
[§3.3, Eq. (24)] The lower and upper bounds for αh in Eq. (24) are garbled in the current text, with misplaced brackets and summation limits; please re-typeset this displayed equation carefully.
[§5.2, Figures 5(b) and 6(b)] The captions of Figures 5(b) and 6(b) mention an 'error estimator effectivity index and β', but the text never defines the effectivity index or the norm used for β, nor does it interpret the plotted values. This is directly relevant to the saturation assumption (1) and should be explained in the text.
[§4.1] The stopping tolerance εmesh = 0.1 is chosen without a sensitivity study; since the quality measure Qmesh is used as the termination criterion, a short discussion of how the results depend on this tolerance would help.
[§5.3 and §6] The comparison between the hierarchical-estimator method and Hessian recovery depends strongly on whether interface edges are present in the mesh; the text explains this, but the abstract and conclusions could state more explicitly that the efficiency advantage is specific to problems with known internal interfaces and to meshes that resolve them.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the hierarchical error estimator is computed from independent residual equations and the metric is derived in-text; the unproved L2 saturation assumption is a correctness gap, not an input-output equivalence.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained. The hierarchical estimator zh is obtained by solving the global residual problem (Eh), a(zh,wh)=F(wh)-a(uh,wh) for wh in Wh, independently of the mesh metric or of the target error. The metric tensor (22)/(26) is derived in Section 3 from the elementwise interpolation error bound (13), and the regularization parameter alpha_h is fixed by the algebraic balancing equation (23), which concentrates about half the elements where det(M) is large; no constant is fitted to observed errors. The central bound (9) rests on the saturation assumption (1), beta<1, stated in Section 2.5: 'We assume that the reconstruction Rhuh = uh + zh, where zh is computed from (Eh), gives a better approximation to u than uh, i.e., beta<1 in (1).' This property is not established for the L2 norm used later (q=2), so the argument has an unproved premise and a correctness/rigor concern; however, this is not circularity because zh is not defined in terms of the quantity being predicted and no fitted value of beta is used in the metric. Self-citations to Huang-Sun [5] and Huang [25,28] supply background interpolation estimates and the metric-formula framework, but the paper re-derives the necessary bounds in Sections 3.2-3.3, so the central claim does not reduce to those citations. The numerical comparisons in Sections 5.1-5.3 use exact solutions; the thermal-battery example in Section 6 compares methods via the hierarchical error estimator, which is an evaluation choice, not a fitted prediction. Overall, no step in the derivation is equivalent to its inputs by construction.

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

The method introduces no new physical or mathematical entity. It adds algorithmic parameters (alpha_h, q, GS-RTOL, iteration count, epsilon_mesh) and relies on one unproved saturation assumption; the remaining supporting facts are cited from the prior interpolation and hierarchical-estimation literature.

free parameters (5)

Regularization parameter alpha_h = Implicitly defined by Eq. (23)
Balances uniform and Hessian-driven adaptation; solved by bisection. The factor 2 in Eq. (23) is inherited from earlier work and is not derived from the target error.
Error norm exponent q = 2
General framework allows q >= 1, but all experiments use q = 2 because the error is measured in L2. The metric formula (22) depends on q.
Gauss-Seidel relative tolerance GS-RTOL = 0.01
Stopping tolerance for the iterative solution of the error problem; set in Section 5.
Number of symmetric Gauss-Seidel iterations = 3 in Section 5 examples; 7 for the thermal battery in Section 6
Empirically calibrated: the paper reports 3 sweeps sufficient for the simpler examples and increases to 7 for the thermal battery because 3 was not enough for full mesh adaptation.
Mesh quality stopping tolerance epsilon_mesh = 0.1
Adaptation stops when Qmesh <= 1 + epsilon_mesh; a user-selected tolerance, Section 4.1.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Saturation: there exists beta < 1 with norm(Rhuh - u) <= beta * norm(uh - u) for Rhuh = uh + zh, where zh solves the approximate global error problem (Eh).
Introduced in Section 2.3, Eq. (1), and used to derive error bounds (2)-(9). Not proved in the paper; it is load-bearing for the claim that minimizing the interpolation error of zh controls the solution error.
standard math Elementwise anisotropic interpolation error bound (13) of Huang and Sun [5] is valid for piecewise quadratic functions on arbitrary meshes, including high-aspect-ratio elements.
External theorem cited in Section 3.2. The optimal metric (18), (22) is derived by minimizing this bound.
domain assumption Hierarchical basis error estimators are reliable and efficient on anisotropic meshes, so the global error problem (Eh) carries directional information.
Cites Dobrowolski et al. [24] and motivates the global estimator in Sections 4 and 5.
ad hoc to paper The mesh generator bamg produces meshes that satisfy the alignment and equidistribution conditions closely enough for the quality stopping criterion used in the experiments.
The optimality arguments assume exact M-uniform meshes, but the numerical experiments rely on bamg approximations; Section 4.1 and figures.
standard math The bilinear form a(.,.) in the model problem is coercive and continuous, so the variational problems (P) and (Ph) have unique solutions.
Stated in Section 2.1; standard well-posedness assumption for the elliptic model.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A new anisotropic mesh adaptation method based upon hierarchical a posteriori error estimates." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W6EM25MD

@misc{pith2026190804242,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A new anisotropic mesh adaptation method based upon hierarchical a posteriori error estimates},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W6EM25MD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04242}
}

read the original abstract

A new anisotropic mesh adaptation strategy for finite element solution of elliptic differential equations is presented. It generates anisotropic adaptive meshes as quasi-uniform ones in some metric space, with the metric tensor being computed based on hierarchical a posteriori error estimates. A global hierarchical error estimate is employed in this study to obtain reliable directional information of the solution. Instead of solving the global error problem exactly, which is costly in general, we solve it iteratively using the symmetric Gauss--Seidel (GS) method. Numerical results show that a few GS iterations are sufficient for obtaining a reasonably good approximation to the error for use in anisotropic mesh adaptation. The new method is compared with several strategies using local error estimators or recovered Hessians. Numerical results are presented for a selection of test examples and a mathematical model for heat conduction in a thermal battery with large orthotropic jumps in the material coefficients.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04242 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Example 5.1: a comparison of the error for adaptive finite element solutions obtained with mesh adaptation controlled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Example 5.1: adaptive meshes obtained by means of the reduced and full a posteriori error estimators (left) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (7 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Example 5.1: (a) effects of the number of Gauß-Seidel iterations and (b) comparison of global error estimation and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: BVP (27) with the exact solution u(x, y) = 1/(1 + e x+y−1.25 0.05 ): adaptive meshes (left) and close-up views at (0.7, 0.7) (right). The desired number of mesh elements is 600. 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: BVP (27) with the exact solution u(x, y) = e−25x + e−25y: adaptive meshes (left) and close-up views at (0.1, 0.1) (right). The desired number of mesh elements is 600. 17 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Example 5.3: gradient jump along the line [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Heat conduction in a thermal battery: (a) device geometry, (b) contour plot, and (c) surface plot of a linear finite [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Heat conduction in a thermal battery: a comparison of the error for adaptive finite element solutions obtained on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Heat conduction in a thermal battery: adaptive meshes obtained with (a) quadratic least squares Hessian recovery [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

[1]

E. F. D’Azevedo, Optimal triangular mesh generation by coordinate transformation, SIAM J. Sci. Stat. Comput. 12 (4) (1991) 755–786

work page 1991
[2]

R. B. Simpson, Anisotropic mesh transformations and optimal error control, Appl. Numer. Math. 14 (1-3) (1994) 183 – 198

work page 1994
[3]

Formaggia, S

L. Formaggia, S. Perotto, New anisotropic a priori error estimates, Numer. Math. 89 (4) (2001) 641–667

work page 2001
[4]

Huang, Measuring mesh qualities and application to variational mesh adaptation, SIAM J

W. Huang, Measuring mesh qualities and application to variational mesh adaptation, SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 26 (5) (2005) 1643–1666

work page 2005
[5]

Huang, W

W. Huang, W. W. Sun, Variational mesh adaptation II: error estimates and monitor functions, J. Comput. Phys. 184 (2) (2003) 619–648

work page 2003
[6]

Apel, Anisotropic Finite Elements: Local Estimates and Applications, B

T. Apel, Anisotropic Finite Elements: Local Estimates and Applications, B. G. Teubner, Stuttgart, 1999

work page 1999
[7]

Kunert, Robust a posteriori error estimation for a singularly perturbed reaction-diﬀusion equation on anisotropic tetrahedral meshes, Adv

G. Kunert, Robust a posteriori error estimation for a singularly perturbed reaction-diﬀusion equation on anisotropic tetrahedral meshes, Adv. Comput. Math. 15 (1-4) (2001) 237–259

work page 2001
[8]

Formaggia, S

L. Formaggia, S. Perotto, Anisotropic error estimates for elliptic problems, Numer. Math. 94 (1) (2003) 67–92

work page 2003

Show all 33 references

[9]

Picasso, An anisotropic error indicator based on Zienkiewicz–Zhu error estimator: Application to elliptic and parabolic problems, SIAM J

M. Picasso, An anisotropic error indicator based on Zienkiewicz–Zhu error estimator: Application to elliptic and parabolic problems, SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 24 (4) (2003) 1328–1355

2003
[10]

O. C. Zienkiewicz, J. Z. Zhu, The superconvergent patch recovery and a posteriori error estimates. Part 1: The recovery technique, Int. J. Numer. Methods Engrg. 33 (7) (1992) 1331–1364

1992
[11]

O. C. Zienkiewicz, J. Z. Zhu, The superconvergent patch recovery and a posteriori error estimates. Part 2: Error estimates and adaptivity, Int. J. Numer. Methods Engrg. 33 (7) (1992) 1365–1382

1992
[12]

Dolejší, Anisotropic mesh adaptation for ﬁnite volume and ﬁnite element methods on triangular meshes, Comput

V. Dolejší, Anisotropic mesh adaptation for ﬁnite volume and ﬁnite element methods on triangular meshes, Comput. Vis. Sci. 1 (3) (1998) 165–178

1998
[13]

Zhang, A

Z. Zhang, A. Naga, A new ﬁnite element gradient recovery method: Superconvergence property, SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 26 (4) (2005) 1192–1213

2005
[14]

Vallet, C.-M

M.-G. Vallet, C.-M. Manole, J. Dompierre, S. Dufour, F. Guibault, Numerical comparison of some Hessian recovery techniques, Int. J. Numer. Methods Engrg. 72 (8) (2007) 987–1007

2007
[15]

Vassilevski, K

Y. Vassilevski, K. Lipnikov, An adaptive algorithm for quasioptimal mesh generation, Comput. Math. Math. Phys. 39 (9) (1999) 1468–1486

1999
[16]

J. S. Ovall, Function, gradient, and Hessian recovery using quadratic edge-bump functions, SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 45 (3) (2007) 1064–1080

2007
[17]

R. E. Bank, J. Xu, Asymptotically exact a posteriori error estimators, part I: Grids with superconvergence, SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 41 (6) (2003) 2294–2312

2003
[18]

R. E. Bank, J. Xu, Asymptotically exact a posteriori error estimators, part II: General unstructured grids, SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 41 (6) (2003) 2313–2332

2003
[19]

Y. He, W. Huang, A posteriori error analysis for ﬁnite element solution of elliptic diﬀerential equations using equidistributing meshes, arXiv:0911.0065 (2009)

2009 arXiv
[20]

J. Lang, W. Cao, W. Huang, R. D. Russell, A two-dimensional moving ﬁnite element method with local reﬁnement based on a posteriori error estimates, Appl. Numer. Math. 46 (1) (2003) 75 – 94

2003
[21]

W. Cao, W. Huang, R. D. Russell, Comparison of two-dimensional r-adaptive ﬁnite element methods using various error indicators, Math. Comput. Simulation 56 (2) (2001) 127 – 143

2001
[22]

T. Apel, S. Grosman, P. K. Jimack, A. Meyer, A new methodology for anisotropic mesh reﬁnement based upon error gradients, Appl. Numer. Math. 50 (3-4) (2004) 329 – 341

2004
[23]

Agouzal, K

A. Agouzal, K. Lipnikov, Y. Vassilevski, Generation of quasi-optimal meshes based on a posteriori error estimates, in: Proceedings of the 16th International Meshing Roundtable, 2008, pp. 139–148

2008
[24]

Dobrowolski, S

M. Dobrowolski, S. Gräf, C. Pﬂaum, On a posteriori error estimators in the ﬁnite element method on anisotropic meshes, Electron. Trans. Numer. Anal. 8 (1999) 36–45

1999
[25]

Huang, Metric tensors for anisotropic mesh generation, J

W. Huang, Metric tensors for anisotropic mesh generation, J. Comput. Phys. 204 (2) (2005) 633 – 665

2005
[26]

R. E. Bank, R. K. Smith, A posteriori error estimates based on hierarchical bases, SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 30 (4) (1993) 921–935

1993
[27]

Deuﬂhard, P

P. Deuﬂhard, P. Leinen, H. Yserentant, Concepts of an adaptive hierarchical ﬁnite element code, Impact Comput. Sci. Engrg. 1 (1) (1989) 3 – 35

1989
[28]

Huang, Mathematical principles of anisotropic mesh adaptation, Commun

W. Huang, Mathematical principles of anisotropic mesh adaptation, Commun. Comput. Phys. 1 (2) (2006) 276–310

2006
[29]

L. Chen, P. Sun, J. Xu, Optimal anisotropic meshes for minimizing interpolation errors inLp-norm, Math. Comp. 76 (2007) 179–204

2007
[30]

Hecht, BAMG: Bidimensional Anisotropic Mesh Generator, Source code: https://www.ljll.math.upmc.fr/hecht/ftp/bamg (2006)

F. Hecht, BAMG: Bidimensional Anisotropic Mesh Generator, Source code: https://www.ljll.math.upmc.fr/hecht/ftp/bamg (2006)

2006
[31]

Lang, Adaptive Multilevel Solution of Nonlinear Parabolic PDE, Lecture Notes in Computational Science and Engineering, 16, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2001

J. Lang, Adaptive Multilevel Solution of Nonlinear Parabolic PDE, Lecture Notes in Computational Science and Engineering, 16, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2001

2001
[32]

J. S. Ovall, The dangers to avoid when using gradient recovery methods for ﬁnite element error estimation and adaptivity, Tech. Rep. 6, Max Planck Institute for Mathematics in the Sciences (2006)

2006
[33]

Pardo, L

D. Pardo, L. Demkowicz, Integration of hp-adaptivity and a two-grid solver for elliptic problems, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 195 (7-8) (2006) 674 – 710. 23

2006

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

E. F. D’Azevedo, Optimal triangular mesh generation by coordinate transformation, SIAM J. Sci. Stat. Comput. 12 (4) (1991) 755–786

work page 1991

[2] [2]

R. B. Simpson, Anisotropic mesh transformations and optimal error control, Appl. Numer. Math. 14 (1-3) (1994) 183 – 198

work page 1994

[3] [3]

Formaggia, S

L. Formaggia, S. Perotto, New anisotropic a priori error estimates, Numer. Math. 89 (4) (2001) 641–667

work page 2001

[4] [4]

Huang, Measuring mesh qualities and application to variational mesh adaptation, SIAM J

W. Huang, Measuring mesh qualities and application to variational mesh adaptation, SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 26 (5) (2005) 1643–1666

work page 2005

[5] [5]

Huang, W

W. Huang, W. W. Sun, Variational mesh adaptation II: error estimates and monitor functions, J. Comput. Phys. 184 (2) (2003) 619–648

work page 2003

[6] [6]

Apel, Anisotropic Finite Elements: Local Estimates and Applications, B

T. Apel, Anisotropic Finite Elements: Local Estimates and Applications, B. G. Teubner, Stuttgart, 1999

work page 1999

[7] [7]

Kunert, Robust a posteriori error estimation for a singularly perturbed reaction-diﬀusion equation on anisotropic tetrahedral meshes, Adv

G. Kunert, Robust a posteriori error estimation for a singularly perturbed reaction-diﬀusion equation on anisotropic tetrahedral meshes, Adv. Comput. Math. 15 (1-4) (2001) 237–259

work page 2001

[8] [8]

Formaggia, S

L. Formaggia, S. Perotto, Anisotropic error estimates for elliptic problems, Numer. Math. 94 (1) (2003) 67–92

work page 2003