pith. sign in

arxiv: 2208.04850 · v3 · pith:ZWGFRRGYnew · submitted 2022-08-09 · 🧮 math.NA · cs.NA

Evolving finite elements for advection diffusion with an evolving interface

C. M. Elliott , T. Ranner , P. Stepanov This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 10:41 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.NA cs.NA
keywords evolving finite elementsadvection-diffusionevolving interfaceerror estimatesisoparametric elementsparabolic equationsnumerical analysis
0
0 comments X

The pith

Optimal order error bounds hold for arbitrary order evolving isoparametric finite elements on advection-diffusion problems with moving interfaces.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper extends an abstract evolving finite element framework to parabolic equations that include an evolving interface. It first derives a weak formulation that fits the moving-interface setting and then proves that isoparametric elements of any polynomial degree deliver the optimal convergence rate in the appropriate norms. This matters because many physical models involve interfaces that move, such as phase boundaries or fluid fronts, and reliable high-order methods with proven accuracy are needed to simulate them. The work closes with numerical tests on a model problem that match the predicted rates.

Core claim

The central claim is that an appropriate weak formulation allows the abstract evolving finite element framework to be applied directly to advection-diffusion problems with an evolving interface, yielding optimal-order a priori error bounds for evolving isoparametric finite elements of arbitrary order.

What carries the argument

Evolving isoparametric finite elements that deform with the interface while preserving approximation order.

If this is right

  • The scheme supplies a convergent high-order method for any polynomial degree on moving interfaces.
  • The same error analysis applies to a family of parabolic interface problems once the weak form is available.
  • Numerical experiments on model problems confirm that the theoretical rates are attained in practice.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same construction could be tested on problems with nonlinear diffusion or source terms that depend on the interface position.
  • Extension to three space dimensions would require only the corresponding mesh evolution and quadrature rules.
  • The approach suggests that other abstract frameworks for evolving domains might be specialized to interface problems by analogous weak-form derivations.

Load-bearing premise

The abstract evolving finite element framework from the cited 2021 paper applies once a suitable weak formulation is written for the advection-diffusion problem with a moving interface.

What would settle it

A sequence of computations on a concrete advection-diffusion problem with a known exact solution in which the observed convergence rate for degree-k elements falls below k+1 in the energy norm would falsify the optimal-order claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2208.04850 by C. M. Elliott, P. Stepanov, T. Ranner.

Figure 2.1
Figure 2.1. Figure 2.1: An example configuration of the domain. 2.2. Setting up the Domain. Let Ω be a stationary domain in R d , d = 2, 3, with piecewise linear boundary and let {Γ(t), t ∈ I} be a family of closed compact connected C 2+k (k ≥ 0) hypersurfaces with Γ(t) ⊂ Ω. Let Ω1(t) be a domain in Ω without boundary ∂Ω1(t) = Γ(t) for all t ∈ I. Let Ω2(t) := Ω\Ω1(t) and assume that Γ(t) ∩ ∂Ω = ∅ for all t ∈ I, then: Ω = Ω1(t) … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3.1
Figure 3.1. Figure 3.1: Showing the difference between a non viable initial mesh and an adequate one for a circle enclosed in a square. The one on the left breaking condition M5 whereas the one on the right following condition M5. M2 The set Ωeh 2 := Ω \ Ωeh 1 is polyhedral and we construct a partition into d-dimensional simplices Jeh 1 := {Kej 2 } M2 j=1 with maximum diameter eh. Let Jeh = ∪ 2 i=1Jeh i assume that all partitio… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3.2
Figure 3.2. Figure 3.2: shows how the map ˜I hΨh deforms the original mesh. We are initially given two tetrahedral elements of the initial meshes, one in Ωeh 1 and one in Ωeh 2 , intersecting on an interface element. Applying the map ˜I hΨh to this yields isoparametric elements whose intersection is the image of the interface element under ˜I hΨh . a˜2 a˜1 a˜2 a˜3 Ω˜ h 2(0) Ω˜ h 1(0) Γ(0) Ψh a˜1 a˜3 Ω h 2(0) Ω h 1(0) Γ h (0) ˜I… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3.3
Figure 3.3. Figure 3.3: Example of the temporal deformation of an interior element in three space dimensions. The Broken Sobolev space is defined as follows: W 1,p T (J h i (t)) = {η ∈ L 1 (Ωh i (t)), η|Ki(t) ∈ W1,p(Ki(t)) ∀Ki(t) ∈ J h i (t), η|∂Ki(t) = η|∂K′ i (t) ∀K′ i (t) ∈ J h i (t) s.t K′ i (t) ∩ Ki(t) ̸= ∅}, equipped with the Broken Sobolev norm: ∥η h ∥ p W1,p(J h i (t)) := X Ki(t)∈J h i (t) ∥η h ∥ p W1,p(Ki(t)), ∥η h ∥W1… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3.4
Figure 3.4. Figure 3.4: Schematic of the setup used. Λh (t; x) might be needed, depending on the problem, to define the discrete data. However once the discrete problem is known, only the knowledge of Ωh i (0), Γh (0) and Φh (t; ·) are needed to calculate the discrete solution U h (t; ·). Φl is only needed in the analysis of theoretical error estimates. 4. Evolving finite element method 4.1. Scheme. For any U h , ζh ∈ V h (t), … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6.1
Figure 6.1. Figure 6.1: L 2 error for advection-diffusion problem for d = 2 (top) and d = 3 (bot￾tom). Appendix A. Proof of Regularity In this section, we will show some results on the additional regularity of the smooth solution to (4.2). Lemma A.1 (The Trace Map). There exists a bounded and continuous linear operator τe(·) : L 2 V → L 2 VΓ such that τetφ(t) = τtφ(t) ∀φ ∈ CV , where τt : V (t) → VΓ(t) is the classical trace ma… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The aim of this paper is to develop a numerical scheme to approximate evolving interface problems for parabolic equations based on the abstract evolving finite element framework proposed in (C M Elliott, T Ranner, IMA J Num Anal, 41:3, 2021, doi:10.1093/imanum/draa062). An appropriate weak formulation of the problem is derived for the use of evolving finite elements designed to accommodate a moving interface. Optimal order error bounds are proved for arbitrary order evolving isoparametric finite elements. The paper concludes with numerical results for a model problem verifying orders of convergence.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper extends the abstract evolving finite element framework of Elliott and Ranner (IMA J. Num. Anal. 2021) to advection-diffusion equations with an evolving interface. It derives a suitable weak formulation, proves optimal-order a priori error bounds for arbitrary-order evolving isoparametric finite elements, and reports numerical experiments on a model problem that confirm the predicted convergence rates.

Significance. If the error analysis holds, the work supplies a rigorous, high-order method for parabolic moving-interface problems by leveraging an existing abstract framework, with the numerical verification providing direct evidence of practical utility. The parameter-free nature of the error bounds (inherited from the 2021 framework) and the explicit weak-form derivation are notable strengths.

minor comments (3)
  1. The abstract and introduction state that the 2021 framework applies directly after deriving the weak form, but a short remark clarifying how the advection term is incorporated into the evolving finite-element bilinear form (without introducing additional geometric error) would improve readability.
  2. Numerical results are reported to verify optimal rates, but the manuscript does not specify the precise polynomial degrees tested or the mesh-refinement strategy used to isolate the interface evolution error; adding this detail would strengthen the experimental section.
  3. A few minor typographical inconsistencies appear in the notation for the interface velocity and the material derivative; these do not affect the mathematics but should be standardized for clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive summary of the manuscript, recognition of its strengths (parameter-free error bounds, explicit weak-form derivation, and numerical verification), and recommendation of minor revision. No specific major comments were listed in the report.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Minor self-citation to 2021 framework; central weak-form derivation independent

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Abstract]
    "based on the abstract evolving finite element framework proposed in (C M Elliott, T Ranner, IMA J Num Anal, 41:3, 2021, doi:10.1093/imanum/draa062). An appropriate weak formulation of the problem is derived for the use of evolving finite elements designed to accommodate a moving interface. Optimal order error bounds are proved for arbitrary order evolving isoparametric finite elements."

    The optimal-order error bounds are obtained by direct application of the cited 2021 framework after the new weak formulation is derived; the framework itself originates from overlapping authors, making the error-analysis step dependent on that self-citation (though the 2021 result is a separately published journal paper).

full rationale

The paper derives a new weak formulation tailored to advection-diffusion with an evolving interface and then invokes the abstract evolving finite-element framework from the 2021 paper (by two of the three authors) to obtain the optimal-order a priori bounds. This is a standard application of prior published theory rather than any reduction of the claimed results to the inputs of the present paper by construction. No self-definitional steps, fitted predictions, or ansatz smuggling occur within the derivation chain of this manuscript.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the applicability of the 2021 abstract framework and the validity of the derived weak formulation for the advection-diffusion case.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The abstract evolving finite element framework from Elliott and Ranner (2021) is valid and can be adapted to this problem class.
    The paper states it is based on that framework.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5630 in / 1049 out tokens · 41290 ms · 2026-05-24T10:41:46.927559+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Helmut Abels, Harald Garcke, Kei Fong Lam, and Josef Weber. 2017. Two-Phase Flow with Sur- factants: Diffuse Interface Models and Their Analysis. In Transport Processes at Fluidic Interfaces. Springer International Publishing, 255–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56602-3_10

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-56602-3_10 2017

  2. [2]

    Slimane Adjerid, Nabil Chaabane, and Tao Lin. 2015. An immersed discontinuous finite element method for Stokes interface problems. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 293 (2015), 170–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2015.04.006

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cma.2015.04.006 2015

  3. [3]

    Amal Alphonse, Diogo Caetano, Ana Djurdjevac, and Charles M. Elliott. 2023. Function spaces, time derivatives and compactness for evolving families of Banach spaces with applications to PDEs. Journal of Differential Equations 353 (2023), 268–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jde.2022. 12.032

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jde.2022 2023

  4. [4]

    Amal Alphonse, Charles Elliott, and Bj¨ orn Stinner. 2015. An abstract framework for parabolic PDEs on evolving spaces. Portugal. Math. 72, 1 (2015), 1–46. https://doi.org/10.4171/pm/1955

    work page doi:10.4171/pm/1955 2015

  5. [5]

    Amal Alphonse, Charles Elliott, and Bj¨ orn Stinner. 2015. On some linear parabolic PDEs on moving hypersurfaces. Interface. Free Bound. 17, 2 (2015), 157–187. https://doi.org/10.4171/ifb/338

    work page doi:10.4171/ifb/338 2015

  6. [6]

    Elliott, and Bj¨ orn Stinner

    Amal Alphonse, Charles M. Elliott, and Bj¨ orn Stinner. 2015. On some linear parabolic PDEs on moving hypersurfaces. Interfaces Free Bound. 17, 2 (2015), 157–187. https://doi.org/10.4171/ IFB/338 40 C.M. ELLIOTT, T. RANNER, AND P. STEPANOV ESFEM PARABOLIC TRANSMISSION

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Adams, Jed Brown, Peter Brune, Kris Buschel- man, Lisandro Dalcin, Victor Eijkhout, William D

    Satish Balay, Shrirang Abhyankar, Mark F. Adams, Jed Brown, Peter Brune, Kris Buschel- man, Lisandro Dalcin, Victor Eijkhout, William D. Gropp, Dmitry Karpeyev, Dinesh Kaushik, Matthew G. Knepley, Dave A. May, Lois Curfman McInnes, Richard Tran Mills, Todd Munson, Karl Rupp, Patrick Sanan, Barry F. Smith, Stefano Zampini, Hong Zhang, and Hong Zhang. 2019....

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Gropp, Lois Curfman McInnes, and Barry F

    Satish Balay, William D. Gropp, Lois Curfman McInnes, and Barry F. Smith. 1997. Efficient Man- agement of Parallelism in Object Oriented Numerical Software Libraries. In Modern Software Tools in Scientific Computing , E. Arge, A. M. Bruaset, and H. P. Langtangen (Eds.). Birkh¨ auser Press, 163–202

    work page 1997

  9. [9]

    Barrett, Harald Garcke, and Robert N¨ urnberg

    John W. Barrett, Harald Garcke, and Robert N¨ urnberg. 2008. On the parametric finite element approximation of evolving hypersurfaces in R3. J. Comput. Phys. 227, 9 (2008), 4281–4307. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2007.11.023

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2007.11.023 2008

  10. [10]

    Barrett, Harald Garcke, and Robert N¨ urnberg

    John W. Barrett, Harald Garcke, and Robert N¨ urnberg. 2014. Stable phase field approximations of anisotropic solidification. IMA J. Numer. Anal. 34, 4 (2014), 1289–1327. https://doi.org/10. 1093/imanum/drt044

    work page 2014

  11. [11]

    Barrett, Harald Garcke, and Robert N¨ urnberg

    John W. Barrett, Harald Garcke, and Robert N¨ urnberg. 2015. On the stable numerical approximation of two-phase flow with insoluble surfactant. ESAIM Math. Model. Numer. Anal. 49, 2 (2015), 421–

    work page 2015

  12. [12]

    https://doi.org/10.4208/cicp.190313.010813a

    work page doi:10.4208/cicp.190313.010813a

  13. [13]

    Dietrich Braess. 2007. Finite elements (third ed.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. xviii+365 pages. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511618635 Theory, fast solvers, and applications in elasticity theory, Translated from the German by Larry L. Schumaker

    work page doi:10.1017/cbo9780511618635 2007

  14. [14]

    Brenner and L

    Susanne C. Brenner and L. Ridgway Scott. 2008. The mathematical theory of finite element methods (third ed.). Texts in Applied Mathematics, Vol. 15. Springer, New York. xviii+397 pages. https: //doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-75934-0

    work page doi:10.1007/978-0-387-75934-0 2008

  15. [15]

    P. G. Ciarlet and P.-A. Raviart. 1972. The combined effect of curved boundaries and numerical integration in isoparametric finite element methods. In The mathematical foundations of the finite element method with applications to partial differential equations (Proc. Sympos., Univ. Maryland, Baltimore, Md., 1972) , A. K. Aziz (Ed.). Academic Press, New Yor...

    work page 1972

  16. [16]

    Dalcin, Rodrigo R

    Lisandro D. Dalcin, Rodrigo R. Paz, Pablo A. Kler, and Alejandro Cosimo. 2011. Parallel distributed computing using Python. Adv. Water Resour. 34, 9 (Sept. 2011), 1124–1139. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.advwatres.2011.04.013 New Computational Methods and Software Tools

    work page doi:10.1016/j.advwatres.2011.04.013 2011

  17. [17]

    Jim Douglas and Todd Dupont. 1973. Galerkin methods for parabolic equations with nonlinear boundary conditions. Numer. Math. 20, 3 (June 1973), 213–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/ bf01436565

    work page 1973

  18. [18]

    Gerhard Dziuk and Charles M. Elliott. 2012. A fully discrete evolving surface finite element method. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 50, 5 (2012), 2677–2694. https://doi.org/10.1137/110828642

    work page doi:10.1137/110828642 2012

  19. [20]

    C. M. Elliott and H. Fritz. 2016. On algorithms with good mesh properties for problems with moving boundaries based on the Harmonic Map Heat Flow and the DeTurck trick. SMAI Journal of Computational Mathematics 2 (2016), 141–176

    work page 2016

  20. [21]

    Elliott and Hans Fritz

    Charles M. Elliott and Hans Fritz. 2017. On approximations of the curve shortening flow and of the mean curvature flow based on the DeTurck trick. IMA J. Numer. Anal. 37, 2 (2017), 543–603. https://doi.org/10.1093/imanum/drw020

    work page doi:10.1093/imanum/drw020 2017

  21. [22]

    C. M. Elliott and T. Ranner. 2013. Finite element analysis for a coupled bulk–surface partial differential equation. IMA J. Numer. Anal. doi: 10.1093/imanum/drs022 (2013)

    work page doi:10.1093/imanum/drs022 2013

  22. [23]

    C M Elliott and T Ranner. 2021. A unified theory for continuous-in-time evolving finite element space approximations to partial differential equations in evolving domains. IMA J. Numer. Anal. 41 ESFEM PARABOLIC TRANSMISSION C.M. ELLIOTT, T. RANNER, AND P. STEPANOV 41, 3 (July 2021), 1696–1845. https://doi.org/10.1093/imanum/draa062

    work page doi:10.1093/imanum/draa062 2021

  23. [24]

    Evans and Ronald F

    Lawrence C. Evans and Ronald F. Gariepy. 1992. Measure theory and fine properties of functions . CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. viii+268 pages

    work page 1992

  24. [25]

    Robert L. Foote. 1984. Regularity of the distance function. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 92, 1 (1984), 153–155. https://doi.org/10.2307/2045171

    work page doi:10.2307/2045171 1984

  25. [26]

    Christophe Geuzaine and Jean-Fran¸ cois Remacle. 2009. Gmsh: A 3-D finite element mesh generator with built-in pre- and post-processing facilities. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Eng. 79, 11 (May 2009), 1309–1331. https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.2579

    work page doi:10.1002/nme.2579 2009

  26. [27]

    Trudinger

    David Gilbarg and Neil S. Trudinger. 2001. Elliptic partial differential equations of second order . Springer-Verlag, Berlin. xiv+517 pages. Reprint of the 1998 edition

    work page 2001

  27. [28]

    Sven Gross and Arnold Reusken. 2011. Numerical Methods for Two-phase Incompressible Flows . Springer Series In Computational Mathematics, Vol. 47. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https: //doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19686-7

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-19686-7 2011

  28. [29]

    Morton E. Gurtin. 1988. Toward a nonequilibrium thermodynamics of two-phase materials. Arch. Ration. Mech. An. 100, 3 (Sept. 1988), 275–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00251518

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00251518 1988

  29. [30]

    H¨ akkinen, S

    Teemu J. H¨ akkinen, S. Susanna Sova, Ian J. Corfe, Leo Tj¨ aderhane, Antti Hannukainen, and Jukka Jernvall. 2019. Modeling enamel matrix secretion in mammalian teeth. PLOS Computational Biology 15, 5 (05 2019), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007058

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007058 2019

  30. [31]

    Philip Hartman. 2002. Ordinary differential equations . Classics in Applied Mathematics, Vol. 38. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM), Philadelphia, PA. xx+612 pages. https: //doi.org/10.1137/1.9780898719222 Corrected reprint of the second (1982) edition [Birkh¨ auser, Boston, MA; MR0658490 (83e:34002)], With a foreword by Peter Bates

    work page doi:10.1137/1.9780898719222 2002

  31. [32]

    2016.Analysis in Banach spaces

    Tuomas Hyt¨ onen, Jan van Neerven, Mark Veraar, and Lutz Weis. 2016.Analysis in Banach spaces. Vol. I. Martingales and Littlewood-Paley theory. Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete

    work page 2016

  32. [33]

    A Series of Modern Surveys in Mathematics, Vol

    Folge. A Series of Modern Surveys in Mathematics, Vol. 63. Springer, Cham. xvi+614 pages

    work page

  33. [34]

    Ponthot Jean Donea, Antonio Huerta and A

    J.-Ph. Ponthot Jean Donea, Antonio Huerta and A. Rodrigez-Ferran. 2004. Arbitrary Lagrangian- Eulerian Methods. In Encyclopedia of Computational Mechanics , R. de Borst E. Sterin and T.J.R. Hughes (Eds.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Chapter 14, 413–437

    work page 2004

  34. [35]

    J¨ urgen Jost and Xianqing Li-Jost. 1998. Calculus of variations . Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, Vol. 64. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. xvi+323 pages

    work page 1998

  35. [36]

    Masato Kimura. 2008. Geometry of hypersurfaces and moving hypersurfaces in Rm for the study of moving boundary problems. In Topics in mathematical modeling. Jind ich Ne˘ cas Cent. Math. Model. Lect. Notes, Vol. 4. Matfyzpress, Prague, 39–93

    work page 2008

  36. [37]

    Bal´ azs Kov´ acs and Christian Andreas Power Guerra. 2016. Error analysis for full discretizations of quasilinear parabolic problems on evolving surfaces. Numer. Meth. Part. D. E. 32, 4 (Feb. 2016), 1200–1231. https://doi.org/10.1002/num.22047

    work page doi:10.1002/num.22047 2016

  37. [38]

    Buyang Li, Yinhua Xia, and Zongze Yang. 2022. Optimal convergence of arbitrary La- grangian–Eulerian iso-parametric finite element methods for parabolic equations in an evolving do- main. IMA J. Numer. Anal. 43, 1 (Jan. 2022), 501–534. https://doi.org/10.1093/imanum/ drab099

    work page doi:10.1093/imanum/ 2022

  38. [39]

    H. Li, V. Nistor, and Y. Qiao. 2013. Uniform Shift Estimates for Transmission Problems and Optimal Rates of Convergence for the Parametric Finite Element Method. Lect. Notes. Comput. Sc. (2013), 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41515-9_2

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-41515-9_2 2013

  39. [40]

    MacDonald, J

    G. MacDonald, J. A. Mackenzie, M. Nolan, and R. H. Insall. 2016. A computational method for the coupled solution of reaction-diffusion equations on evolving domains and manifolds: application to a model of cell migration and chemotaxis. J. Comput. Phys. 309 (2016), 207–226. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2015.12.038

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2015.12.038 2016

  40. [41]

    Masset, R

    Sergey E. Mikhailov. 2011. Traces, extensions and co-normal derivatives for elliptic systems on Lipschitz domains. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 378, 1 (2011), 324–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 42 C.M. ELLIOTT, T. RANNER, AND P. STEPANOV ESFEM PARABOLIC TRANSMISSION jmaa.2010.12.027

    work page doi:10.1016/j 2011

  41. [42]

    Lin Mu and Xu Zhang. 2019. An immersed weak Galerkin method for elliptic interface problems. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 362 (Dec. 2019), 471–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2018.08.023

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cam.2018.08.023 2019

  42. [43]

    1967.Les m´ ethodes directes en th´ eorie des ´ equations elliptiques

    Jindˇ rich Neˇ cas. 1967.Les m´ ethodes directes en th´ eorie des ´ equations elliptiques. Masson et Cie, ´Editeurs, Paris; Academia, ´Editeurs, Prague. 351 pages

    work page 1967

  43. [44]

    2016.Moving interfaces and quasilinear parabolic evolution equations

    Jan Pr¨ uss and Gieri Simonett. 2016.Moving interfaces and quasilinear parabolic evolution equations. Monographs in Mathematics, Vol. 105. Birkh¨ auser/Springer, [Cham]. xix+609 pages. https: //doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27698-4

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-27698-4 2016

  44. [45]

    Thomas Ranner. 2023. firedrake moving interfaces. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo. 8068963

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo 2023

  45. [46]

    Firedrake: automating the finite element method by composing abstractions

    Florian Rathgeber, David A. Ham, Lawrence Mitchell, Michael Lange, Fabio Luporini, Andrew T. T. Mcrae, Gheorghe-Teodor Bercea, Graham R. Markall, and Paul H. J. Kelly. 2017. Fire- drake. ACM Trans. Math. Software 43, 3 (Jan. 2017), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1145/2998441 arXiv:1501.01809

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1145/2998441 2017

  46. [47]

    Michael Renardy and Robert C. Rogers. 2004. An introduction to partial differential equations (second ed.). Texts in Applied Mathematics, Vol. 13. Springer-Verlag, New York. xiv+434 pages

    work page 2004

  47. [48]

    Roubicek

    T. Roubicek. 2005. Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations with Applications . International seies of numerical mathematics, Vol. 153. Birkh¨ auser-Verlag, Basel Boston Berlin. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/3-7643-7397-0

    work page doi:10.1007/3-7643-7397-0 2005

  48. [49]

    Ryder, Yasin F

    Lauren S. Ryder, Yasin F. Dagdas, Michael J. Kershaw, Chandrasekhar Venkataraman, Anotida Madzvamuse, Xia Yan, Neftaly Cruz-Mireles, Darren M. Soanes, Miriam Oses-Ruiz, Vanessa Styles, Jan Sklenar, Frank L. H. Menke, and Nicholas J. Talbot. 2019. A sensor kinase controls turgor- driven plant infection by the rice blast fungus. Nature 574, 7778 (Oct. 2019)...

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1637-x 2019

  49. [50]

    Jorge San Mart´ ın, Loredana Smaranda, and Tak´ eo Takahashi. 2009. Convergence of a finite el- ement/ALE method for the Stokes equations in a domain depending on time. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 230, 2 (Aug. 2009), 521–545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2008.12.021

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cam.2008.12.021 2009

  50. [51]

    Schramm, Elaine N

    Laurier L. Schramm, Elaine N. Stasiuk, and D. Gerrard Marangoni. 2003. 2 Surfactants and their applications. Annu. Rep. Prog. Chem., Sect. C: Phys. Chem. 99 (2003), 3–48. https://doi.org/ 10.1039/b208499f

    work page doi:10.1039/b208499f 2003

  51. [52]

    Philipp Werner, Martin Burger, Florian Frank, and Harald Garcke. 2022. A Diffuse Interface Model for Cell Blebbing Including Membrane-Cortex Coupling with Linker Dynamics.SIAM J. Appl. Math. 82, 3 (June 2022), 1091–1112. https://doi.org/10.1137/21m1433642

    work page doi:10.1137/21m1433642 2022

  52. [53]

    Qing Yang and Xu Zhang. 2016. Discontinuous Galerkin immersed finite element methods for parabolic interface problems. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 299 (June 2016), 127–139. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cam.2015.11.020 Recent Advances in Numerical Methods for Systems of Partial Differential Equations. C. M. Elliott Mathematics Institute, University of W arwick, Z...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cam.2015.11.020 2016