Sharp bounds on the smallest eigenvalue of finite element equations with arbitrary meshes without regularity assumptions

Lennard Kamenski

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 14 references

Sharp bounds on the smallest eigenvalue of finite element equations with arbitrary meshes without regularity assumptions

T0 review · 1 major / 4 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 For arbitrary conforming simplicial meshes, the smallest eigenvalue of the finite element stiffness matrix is bounded below purely in terms of node count and patch volumes, with no mesh regularity assumptions.

desk verdict Mesh-regularity-free lower bounds on λ_min with correct proofs; the 2D case has one implicit p-independence step that is safe but should be made explicit. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03460 v3 pith:WH4UTKRW submitted 2019-08-09 math.NA cs.NA

Lennard Kamenski This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.NAcs.NA MSC 65N3065N5065N2265F15

keywords finiteelementmethodsimplicialmeshesconditioningeigenvalueestimatesextremeeigenvaluesarbitraryanisotropicpatchvolumes

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 proves lower bounds on the smallest eigenvalue of the finite element stiffness matrix that hold for any conforming, nondegenerate simplicial mesh—no shape-regularity, quasi-uniformity, or local comparability assumptions. For dimension $d \ge 3$ the bound is $\lambda_{\min}(A) \gtrsim \left(\sum_i |\omega_i|^{1-d/2}\right)^{-2/d}$, where $|\omega_i|$ is the volume of the patch of elements meeting node $i$; for $d=2$ it is $\lambda_{\min}(A) \gtrsim N^{-1}\left(1+|\ln(N|\omega_{\min}|)|\right)^{-1}$. This achieves the same form as an earlier bound that required neighboring elements to be comparable in size and shape, but without the mesh-dependent factor encoding those comparisons, and it improves on an existing arbitrary-mesh bound that averaged element volumes instead of patch volumes. If correct, the smallest eigenvalue is controlled by the number of degrees of freedom and the distribution of patch volumes alone, which matters for the conditioning of adaptive and anisotropic finite element computations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the nodal patch $\omega_i$: the union of simplices whose closures contain the node $x_i$, with volume $|\omega_i|$. The proof reassembles elementwise $L^p$ norms into nodewise sums using the identity $\sum_{K\subset\omega_i} |K| = |\omega_i|$, then applies Hölder's inequality with conjugate exponents $p=d/(d-2)$, $q=d/2$ inside a sum over nodes. The other components are standard but used with a twist: Poincaré and Sobolev inequalities convert the $H^1$ energy into an $L^{2d/(d-2)}$ or $L^p$ norm, norm equivalence on the reference simplex converts the $L^p$ norm of a finite element function into the $\ell^p$ norm of its nodal coefficients, and in $d=2$ the exponent $p$ is chosen as $\max\{2, |\ln(N|\omega_{\min}|)|\}$ to optimize the resulting bound. The mesh enters only through the patch volumes, never through shape or size ratios of neighboring elements.

What would settle it

A counterexample to Theorem 2 would be a sequence of two-dimensional conforming nondegenerate simplicial meshes satisfying the paper's assumptions for which $N\left(1+|\ln(N|\omega_{\min}|)|\right)\lambda_{\min}(A)$ tends to zero; the single-element-layer family is a concrete candidate to test. The three-dimensional analogue compares $\lambda_{\min}(A)$ with $\left(\sum_i |\omega_i|^{-1/2}\right)^{-2/3}$ on meshes with highly uneven patch volumes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the smallest eigenvalue of the stiffness matrix for Lagrangian $P_m$ finite elements on a conforming nondegenerate simplicial mesh is bounded from below, with constants independent of the mesh, by an expression in the nodal patch volumes: for $d \ge 3$, $\lambda_{\min}(A) \gtrsim \left(\sum_{i\in\mathcal{N}} |\omega_i|^{1-d/2}\right)^{-2/d}$; for $d=2$, $\lambda_{\min}(A) \gtrsim N^{-1}\left(1+|\ln(N|\omega_{\min}|)|\right)^{-1}$. Here $|\omega_i|$ is the volume of the patch of simplices containing node $i$, and $N$ is the number of degrees of freedom. The derivation goes through the $H^1$ energy, Poincaré and Sobolev inequalities, norm equivalence on the reference simplex, and Hölder's inequality, with the novel step of reassembling element contributions by nodal patches before applying Hölder. In three and more dimensions the bound is equivalent to $N^{-1}$ times a power of a Hölder mean of the ratios $|\tilde{\omega}|/|\omega_i|$, so it reacts to how irregular the patch volumes are, not to the worst element. In two dimensions the optimal choice of the $L^p$ exponent yields the logarithmic factor involving the smallest patch volume.

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument rests on one mesh-independent constant: on a standard reference simplex, the ratio between the $L^p$ size of a finite element function and the $\ell^p$ size of its list of nodal values must stay bounded as the exponent $p$ grows. This is true for a fixed polynomial degree, but if that ratio grew with $p$, the two-dimensional logarithmic bound would fail for extremely small patch volumes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In $d \ge 3$, the bound $\lambda_{\min}(A) \gtrsim \left(\sum_i |\omega_i|^{1-d/2}\right)^{-2/d}$ holds on meshes with arbitrary anisotropy and local refinement, so local mesh irregularity alone cannot drive the smallest eigenvalue to zero faster than the patch-volume sum dictates.
In two dimensions, for practical mesh sizes where $N|\omega_{\min}|$ is not astronomically small, the logarithmic factor is $O(1)$, so the smallest eigenvalue behaves like $N^{-1}$.
The new estimate removes the factor depending on the maximal volume ratio of neighboring elements that appeared in the earlier regularity-dependent bound, and replaces elementwise averaging with patch-based averaging in the previous arbitrary-mesh bound.
For the mesh families tested in the paper—Shishkin, Bakhvalov, power-graded, and single-element-layer meshes—the new bound stays close to the exact smallest eigenvalue, while the earlier estimates underestimate it by factors that grow with mesh anisotropy.
The proof uses only uniform ellipticity, Poincaré and Sobolev inequalities, and conforming nondegenerate simplicial meshes, so the same statement applies to any elliptic problem satisfying those conditions.

Reading between the lines

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

A practical rule follows from the bound: what controls the smallest eigenvalue is the distribution of patch volumes, so mesh generators and preconditioners that keep patch volumes balanced should control conditioning better than those that merely keep element shapes regular. The paper does not discuss preconditioning.
The proof technique—choosing the $L^p$ exponent before applying Hölder and then reassembling by patches—is generic enough that it may carry over to other finite element spaces, mass matrices, or nonconforming methods; testing that transfer is a natural next step.
If the two-dimensional logarithmic dependence on $|\omega_{\min}|$ is not optimal, then on meshes with one very small patch but otherwise regular volumes the exact $\lambda_{\min}(A)$ should stay close to $C N^{-1}$ even when $N|\omega_{\min}|$ becomes very small; the paper leaves this as an open direction.

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

Short version: this paper delivers what the title promises — mesh-regularity-free lower bounds on λ_min for conforming simplicial FEM, with constants that depend only on patch volumes and N. Theorem 1 improves on Graham–McLean and on the author's earlier KHX bound by removing the (MH)^{(d−2)/d} factor and replacing elementwise averaging with patch-volume averaging. The proof chain is standard but correct: coercivity, Poincaré/Sobolev, reference-element norm equivalence applied before Hölder. That ordering is the trick, and it works. The d ≥ 3 result is clean and genuinely new. The 2D logarithmic bound is also fine, with one caveat I'll come to.

The paper is honest in its numerics: the plotted curves for the old bounds use empirically calibrated constants so the comparison is about shape, not absolute constants, and the author says so. The experiments support the qualitative claims — single-element layers don't tank λ_min, and the new bound follows the exact curve better than the old ones. No code shipped, but for a theorem paper the proof is the artifact, and the proofs are complete enough that I didn't need it.

Soft spots, in proportion. First, the 2D proof uses p = max{2, |log(N|ω_min|)|}, and the norm-equivalence constant on the reference simplex is treated as p-independent. The stress test checked this: for fixed polynomial degree the constant is bounded uniformly in p, so the step is safe, but the paper never says so. A referee should ask for that sentence. It's a one-line fix.

Second, the step from the Hölder inequality to (13) replaces the full sum by N|ω_min|^{−2/(p−2)}, which is the roughest estimate in the 2D argument. The author acknowledges this in Remark 4 and notes the bound could potentially use an average patch size. This isn't a flaw in the theorem as stated — the bound is correct — but it means the 2D bound is not as tight as the d ≥ 3 one in cases where the smallest patch is much smaller than the others. The numerics show this for the single-element layer, where the exact λ_min is much larger than the log bound would suggest. The paper says this too, so it's a known limitation rather than a hidden one.

Third, minor: the choice of p is described as 'providing the largest lower bound' but it's not literally the maximizer of the final factor for all x. The bound is valid for that choice, so this is cosmetic.

On citations: the prior work is credited properly, including Graham–McLean and the author's own KHX. No circularity. The novelty over those is well-supported by the numerical comparisons.

Who's this for? Anyone working on FEM conditioning, mesh adaptation, or preconditioning. It's a theorem paper, so the value is in the bound and the proof technique. It deserves a serious referee; I'd accept it. The only request I'd make is to make the p-independence of the norm-equivalence constant explicit in the 2D proof.

Referee Report

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proves new lower bounds on the smallest eigenvalue of the finite element stiffness matrix for Lagrangian P_m elements on arbitrary conforming simplicial meshes in d ≥ 2, without any mesh regularity assumptions. In d ≥ 3 (Theorem 1, Eq. (7)) the bound is λ_min(A) ≳ (∑_{i ∈ N} |ω_i|^{1-d/2})^{-2/d}, and in d = 2 (Theorem 2, Eq. (11)) it is λ_min(A) ≳ N^{-1}(1 + |ln(N |ω_min|)|)^{-1}. The proof combines the Poincaré inequality, the Sobolev embedding (or its two-dimensional variant), the norm equivalence on the reference element, and Hölder's inequality, and avoids the local comparability Assumption 1 of Graham and McLean. Numerical experiments on Shishkin, Bakhvalov, power-graded, and single-element-layer meshes compare the new bound with the bounds of Graham–McLean and Kamenski–Huang–Xu, showing that the new bound is sharper and less dependent on mesh nonuniformity.

Significance. If correct, the main result settles a clean open point: the smallest eigenvalue of the stiffness matrix is controlled, up to constants independent of the mesh, solely by the number of degrees of freedom and the distribution of patch volumes, with no shape-regularity or local-comparability condition. The derivation is self-contained and parameter-free in the sense that no quantity in the bound is fitted from data, and the numerical section provides concrete evidence of sharpness on several challenging mesh families. The principal technical caveat is the implicit assumption that the reference-element norm-equivalence constant is uniform in the exponent p, which is needed in Theorem 2 because p is chosen to grow with the mesh; this assumption is true for fixed polynomial degree and should be stated explicitly. Overall this is a clean and useful contribution to the conditioning literature.

major comments (1)

[Section 4, proof of Theorem 2, Eq. (12)] The step labeled 'Norm equivalence ... yields' in Eq. (12) implicitly assumes that the norm-equivalence constant between ||u_h ∘ F_K||_{L^p(ˆK)} and ||u_K||_{l^p} is independent of p, or at least bounded uniformly in p for fixed polynomial degree m. In Theorem 2, p = max{2, |ln(N|ω_min|)|} depends on the mesh and can be arbitrarily large, so the final logarithmic bound (11) requires this uniformity. The author should add a short justification (e.g., via Hölder's inequality and the finite-dimensional equivalence of L^∞ and L^2 on the reference simplex) to make this step explicit. This is the only load-bearing point in the paper that I found to be implicit rather than fully stated.

minor comments (4)

[Section 4, after Eq. (13)] The phrase 'provides the largest lower bound' is not literally correct, since the specific choice p = max{2, |ln(N|ω_min|)|} does not always maximize the factor appearing in (13); it merely yields a valid lower bound of the stated form. Consider rewording to 'provides a lower bound of the stated form.'
[Remark 4] There are several typographical errors in this remark: 'bewteen' should be 'between', 'exmaples' should be 'examples', 'reguarity' should be 'regularity', and 'it not clear' should be 'it is not clear'.
[Section 5, Eqs. (14) and (15)] The constants in the numerical estimates are chosen empirically so that the bounds coincide with the exact λ_min on uniform meshes; this is disclosed in the text but could be repeated in the figure captions to prevent readers from interpreting the plotted curves as uncalibrated theoretical predictions.
[Section 5, Eq. (14b)] The factors M and H appear in Eq. (14b) without being defined in Section 5; the reader must refer back to Assumption 1. Adding a one-line reminder after Eq. (14) would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the lower bounds are derived from standard inequalities and are not fitted, self-referential, or equivalent to their inputs.

full rationale

The central claims (Theorem 1 for d >= 3 and Theorem 2 for d = 2) are self-contained derivations. Starting from the ellipticity condition (5), the proof bounds u^T A u below via Poincare and Sobolev inequalities, finite-dimensional norm equivalence on the reference simplex, and Holder's inequality. None of these inputs contains the target bound: the norm-equivalence step is a standard property of the fixed polynomial-degree space P_m on the reference element, and the constants involved are independent of the mesh and, for fixed m, bounded uniformly in p >= 2, so the p = |log(N|omega_min|)| choice in Theorem 2 is safe. The paper's citations to [11] and [8] are used only for comparison and for proof inspiration, not as load-bearing premises: the inequality chain is written out in the paper. The numerical experiments explicitly calibrate unknown constants so that plotted estimates coincide with the exact eigenvalue on uniform meshes (Figure 3 caption: 'Constants are chosen such that the bounds coincide with the exact value on uniform meshes'), and this calibration is a display choice, not part of the proof or a prediction. There is no self-definitional reduction, no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness or ansatz imported from the author's prior work. The only fragile-looking step, the p-dependence of the reference-element norm-equivalence constant, is uniform for fixed polynomial degree, so it does not threaten the derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The theorem relies only on standard inequalities (Poincaré, Sobolev, Hölder, reference-element norm equivalence) and the stated finite element assumptions. No fitted constants, hand-tuned parameters, or invented entities enter the proof. The empirically chosen constants in the numerical plots are display calibrations and are explicitly identified as such. The exponent p in Theorem 2 is chosen inside the proof to optimize the estimate and is not a model parameter.

assumptions (7)

standard math Poincaré inequality on bounded Lipschitz domain Omega for H^1_0(Omega) functions
Used in both proofs to pass from the H^1 seminorm to the H^1 norm (proof of Theorem 1, inequality (8); Theorem 2, after equation (10)).
standard math Sobolev embedding H^1(Omega) subset L^{2d/(d-2)}(Omega) for d >= 3 and H^1(Omega) subset L^p(Omega) for all finite p in d = 2
Used in the step labeled Sobolev in both proofs; the 2D version with constant O(p^{1/2}) is the source of the 1/p factor.
standard math Norm equivalence on the reference simplex between the L^q norm of a P_m function and the l^q norm of its nodal coefficients
Invoked at the line 'Norm equivalence for the finite-dimensional linear space ... yields ...' in both proofs; the constant depends on m and the reference simplex and is independent of the mesh and, for fixed m, of the exponent q.
standard math Hölder's inequality with exponents p = d/(d-2), q = d/2 (and the corresponding 2D choice)
Final step of both proofs, converting the weighted l^p sum into the l^2 norm of nodal values.
domain assumption Uniform positive definiteness of the diffusion matrix D(x), d_min I <= D(x) <= d_max I
Assumption (5) in Section 2; provides the coercivity estimate u^T A u >= d_min |u_h|_{H^1}^2 at the start of both proofs.
domain assumption Conforming, nondegenerate simplicial mesh with affine mappings F_K from a unit reference simplex
Assumptions in Section 2; needed for the elementwise volume scaling and for the patch support definition of the nodal basis functions.
domain assumption Bounded Lipschitz domain Omega
Stated in Section 2; guarantees that the Poincaré and Sobolev constants used in the proofs are finite.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sharp bounds on the smallest eigenvalue of finite element equations with arbitrary meshes without regularity assumptions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WH4UTKRW

@misc{pith2026190803460,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sharp bounds on the smallest eigenvalue of finite element equations with arbitrary meshes without regularity assumptions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WH4UTKRW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03460}
}

abstract

A proof for the lower bound is provided for the smallest eigenvalue of finite element equations with arbitrary conforming simplicial meshes. The bound has a similar form as the one by Graham and McLean [SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 44 (2006), pp. 1487--1513] but doesn't require any mesh regularity assumptions, neither global nor local. In particular, it is valid for highly adaptive, anisotropic, or non-regular meshes without any restrictions. In three and more dimensions, the bound depends only on the number of degrees of freedom $N$ and the H\"older mean $M_{1-d/2} (\lvert \tilde{\omega} \rvert / \lvert \omega_i \lvert)$ taken to the power $1-2/d$, $\lvert \tilde{\omega} \rvert$ and $\lvert \omega_i \rvert$ denoting the average mesh patch volume and the volume of the patch corresponding to the $i^{\text{th}}$ mesh node, respectively. In two dimensions, the bound depends on the number of degrees of freedom $N$ and the logarithmic term $(1 + \lvert \ln (N \lvert \omega_{\min} \rvert) \rvert)$, $\lvert \omega_{\min} \rvert$ denoting the volume of the smallest patch. Provided numerical examples demonstrate that the bound is more accurate and less dependent on the mesh non-uniformity than the previously available bounds.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03460 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** Constants are chosen such that the bounds coincide with the exact value on uniform meshes. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Shishkin meshes, ε = 0.05 (2D). 102 103 104 10−4 10−3 10−2 10−1 100 N λmin λ¯ λ¯KHX λ¯GM (a) fixed ε = 0.05, changing N 101 102 103 10−4 10−3 ε−1 λmin λ¯ λ¯KHX λ¯GM (b) fixed N = 16 384, changing ε [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (11 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Shishkin meshes (2D boundary layer). 102 103 104 10−4 10−3 10−2 10−1 N λmin λ¯ λ¯KHX λ¯GM (a) fixed ε = 0.05, changing N 101 102 103 10−4 10−3 ε−1 λmin λ¯ λ¯KHX λ¯GM (b) fixed N = 16 384, changing ε [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Shishkin meshes (2D internal layer). 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Bakhvalov-type meshes, ε = 0.05 (2D). 102 103 104 10−4 10−3 10−2 10−1 100 N λmin λ¯ λ¯KHX λ¯GM (a) fixed ε = 0.05, changing N 101 102 103 10−4 10−3 ε−1 λmin λ¯ λ¯KHX λ¯GM (b) fixed N = 16 384, changing ε [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Bakhvalov-type meshes (2D boundary layers). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Bakhvalov-type meshes (2D internal layers). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Power-graded and single element internal layer meshes (2D). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Power-graded meshes (2D). 102 103 104 10−4 10−3 10−2 10−1 N λmin λ¯ λ¯KHX λ¯GM (a) fixed ε = 0.1, changing N 101 102 103 10−4 10−3 ε−1 λmin λ¯ λ¯KHX λ¯GM (b) fixed N = 16 384, changing ε [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Single element internal layer (2D). 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_12.png]

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: Power-graded and single element internal layer meshes (2D). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_13.png]

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: Power-graded meshes (3D). 103 104 10−4 10−3 10−2 N λmin λ¯ λ¯KHX λ¯GM (a) fixed ε = 0.05, changing N 101 102 103 10−5 10−4 10−3 10−2 ε−1 λmin λ¯ λ¯KHX λ¯GM (b) fixed N = 1 728, changing ε [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_14.png]

**Figure 15.** Figure 15: Single element internal layer (3D). 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

14 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

[1]

Ainsworth, W

M. Ainsworth, W. McLean, and T. Tran. The conditioning of boundary element equations on locally reﬁned meshes and preconditioning by diagonal scaling. SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 36(6):1901–1932, 1999

work page 1901
[2]

Ainsworth, W

M. Ainsworth, W. McLean, and T. Tran. Diagonal scaling of stiﬀness matrices in the Galerkin boundary element method. ANZIAM J., 42(1):141–150, 2000. Papers in honour of David Elliott on the occasion of his sixty-ﬁfth birthday

work page 2000
[3]

R. E. Bank and L. R. Scott. On the conditioning of ﬁnite element equations with highly reﬁned meshes.SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 26(6):1383–1394, 1989

work page 1989
[4]

Bezanson, A

J. Bezanson, A. Edelman, S. Karpinski, and V.B. Shah. Julia: a fresh approach to numerical computing.SIAM Rev., 59(1):65– 98, 2017

work page 2017
[5]

Q. Du, D. Wang, and L. Zhu. On mesh geometry and stiﬀness matrix conditioning for general ﬁnite element spaces.SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 47(2):1421–1444, 2009

work page 2009
[6]

Ern and J.-L

A. Ern and J.-L. Guermond.Theory and practice of ﬁnite ele- ments, volume 159 ofApplied Mathematical Sciences. Springer- Verlag, New York, 2004

work page 2004
[7]

I. Fried. Bounds on the spectral and maximum norms of the ﬁnite element stiﬀness, ﬂexibility and mass matrices.Internat. J. Solids and Structures, 9:1013–1034, 1973

work page 1973
[8]

I. G. Graham and W. McLean. Anisotropic mesh reﬁnement: the conditioning of Galerkin boundary element matrices and simple preconditioners. SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 44(4):1487–1513, 2006

work page 2006

Show all 14 references

[9]

StabilityofexplicitRunge- Kutta methods for high order ﬁnite element approximation of linear parabolic equations

W.Huang, L.Kamenski, andJ.Lang. StabilityofexplicitRunge- Kutta methods for high order ﬁnite element approximation of linear parabolic equations. In Numerical mathematics and advanced applications—ENUMATH 2013, volume 103 ofLect. Notes Comput. Sci. Eng., pages 165–173. Springe...

2013
[10]

Kamenski and W

L. Kamenski and W. Huang. A study on the conditioning of ﬁnite element equations with arbitrary anisotropic meshes via a density function approach. J. Math. Study, 47(2):151–172, 2014

2014
[11]

Kamenski, W

L. Kamenski, W. Huang, and H. Xu. Conditioning of ﬁnite element equations with arbitrary anisotropic meshes. Math. Comp., 83:2187–2211, 2014

2014
[12]

Shewchuk

J.R. Shewchuk. What is a good linear ﬁnite element? Interpola- tion, conditioning, anisotropy, andqualitymeasures, 2002.https: //www.cs.berkeley.edu/~jrs/jrspapers.html#quality

2002
[13]

Zhu and Q

L. Zhu and Q. Du. Mesh-dependent stability for ﬁnite element approximations of parabolic equations with mass lumping.J. Comput. Appl. Math., 236(5):801–811, 2011

2011
[14]

Zhu and Q

L. Zhu and Q. Du. Mesh dependent stability and condition number estimates for ﬁnite element approximations of parabolic problems. Math. Comp., 83(285):37–64, 2014. 6 0 1 0 1 (a) boundary layer 0 1 0 1 (b) internal layer Figure 4: Shishkin meshes,ε= 0.05 (2D). 102 103 104 10−4 ...

2014

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Ainsworth, W

M. Ainsworth, W. McLean, and T. Tran. The conditioning of boundary element equations on locally reﬁned meshes and preconditioning by diagonal scaling. SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 36(6):1901–1932, 1999

work page 1901

[2] [2]

Ainsworth, W

M. Ainsworth, W. McLean, and T. Tran. Diagonal scaling of stiﬀness matrices in the Galerkin boundary element method. ANZIAM J., 42(1):141–150, 2000. Papers in honour of David Elliott on the occasion of his sixty-ﬁfth birthday

work page 2000

[3] [3]

R. E. Bank and L. R. Scott. On the conditioning of ﬁnite element equations with highly reﬁned meshes.SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 26(6):1383–1394, 1989

work page 1989

[4] [4]

Bezanson, A

J. Bezanson, A. Edelman, S. Karpinski, and V.B. Shah. Julia: a fresh approach to numerical computing.SIAM Rev., 59(1):65– 98, 2017

work page 2017

[5] [5]

Q. Du, D. Wang, and L. Zhu. On mesh geometry and stiﬀness matrix conditioning for general ﬁnite element spaces.SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 47(2):1421–1444, 2009

work page 2009

[6] [6]

Ern and J.-L

A. Ern and J.-L. Guermond.Theory and practice of ﬁnite ele- ments, volume 159 ofApplied Mathematical Sciences. Springer- Verlag, New York, 2004

work page 2004

[7] [7]

I. Fried. Bounds on the spectral and maximum norms of the ﬁnite element stiﬀness, ﬂexibility and mass matrices.Internat. J. Solids and Structures, 9:1013–1034, 1973

work page 1973

[8] [8]

I. G. Graham and W. McLean. Anisotropic mesh reﬁnement: the conditioning of Galerkin boundary element matrices and simple preconditioners. SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 44(4):1487–1513, 2006

work page 2006