Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

A single finite-volume scheme provably converges to strong Euler solutions in both the compressible and low-Mach regimes, with error linear in sqrt(h), sqrt(Δt), and ε.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 05:38 UTC pith:YZSHNTOH

load-bearing objection Solid conditional error analysis; the load-bearing Hypothesis 4.3 (uniform L∞ bounds on the numerical solution) is never proved, so the claimed 'rigorous' estimates are really conditional. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2603.27421 v3 pith:YZSHNTOH submitted 2026-03-28 math.NA cs.NA

Error analysis of an asymptotic-preserving, energy-stable finite volume method for barotropic Euler equations

Megala Anandan , K.R. Arun , Amogh Krishnamurthy , M\'aria Luk\'a\v{c}ov\'a-Medvid'ov\'a This is my paper
classification math.NA cs.NA MSC 65M0865M1276M12
keywords barotropic Euler equationsfinite volume schemeasymptotic preservationrelative energylow Mach number limitenergy stabilityconvergence ratesincompressible Euler equations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper designs a semi-implicit finite-volume method for the barotropic Euler equations parameterized by Mach number ε, and proves that it is both energy-stable and asymptotically preserving. For fixed ε, the numerical solution converges to a strong solution of the compressible Euler system as the mesh and time step shrink. In the low-Mach limit, the same scheme tracks a strong solution of the incompressible Euler system, with relative-energy error of order ε+√h+√Δt, so the discrete solutions converge as ε, h, and Δt go to zero simultaneously. The proof uses the relative energy functional as a metric between numerical and strong solutions and exploits a velocity-shift stabilisation proportional to the stiff pressure gradient. Numerical experiments confirm first-order behaviour, better than the proven rates.

Core claim

The central result (Theorem 5.6) states that for well-prepared initial data, ∫ E_rel(ϱ_{h,Δt,ε}, u_{h,Δt,ε} | 1, v)(τ) dx ≲ C(ε + √Δt + √h), where E_rel is the relative energy between the piecewise-constant numerical solution and a strong solution v of the incompressible Euler system. This implies simultaneous convergence of density and momentum to (1, v) as ε, h, Δt → 0, establishing the asymptotic-preserving property of the scheme in the weak-strong sense. A companion result (Theorem 5.2) gives the analogous fixed-ε bound against a strong compressible solution. The load-bearing pieces are the discrete relative-energy inequality, consistency estimates with residuals of order (1+ε)(√h+√Δt)+h

What carries the argument

The relative energy functional E_rel(ϱ,u|r,v)=½ϱ|u-v|²+P(ϱ)-P(r)-P'(r)(ϱ-r) (with the relative internal energy Π(ϱ|1) downscaled by 1/ε² in the low-Mach case) is the system-specific metric that measures the gap between numerical and strong solutions. The scheme itself is a staggered finite-volume method with an upwind mass flux and a momentum flux using a shifted velocity w=⟦u⟧-δu, where δu = ηΔt/ε² ∇_E p(ϱ^{n+1}) is a pressure-gradient stabilisation. This choice yields the local energy and entropy inequalities that supply the a priori dissipation used in the consistency estimates; the discrete dual-grid gradient ∇_E and reconstruction operators turn the piecewise-constant data into consiste

Load-bearing premise

The entire error analysis assumes an a priori uniform L∞ bound on the discrete density and velocity — 0<ϱ≤ϱ_{h,Δt,ε}≤ϱ̄ and |u_{h,Δt,ε}|≤ū with constants independent of h, Δt, ε (Hypothesis 4.3); the paper does not prove these bounds, and every consistency estimate, the relative-energy equivalence, and the Gronwall steps fail if the bound is violated.

What would settle it

Run the scheme on a well-prepared stationary vortex with ε=h=Δt=2^{-j} and measure ∫ E_rel(ϱ_h^m,u_h^m | 1,v(t^m,·)) dx at the final time; if the values do not decay like ε+√h+√Δt (or faster), Theorem 5.6 is false for that case. Alternatively, pick initial data that drive the density toward vacuum (or unbounded velocity) on a fixed mesh; if the discrete density leaves the interval [ϱ,ϱ̄] for any sequence of meshes, then Hypothesis 4.3, and with it the proof, is contradicted.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • For fixed ε, Corollary 5.3 gives L² convergence of density and momentum to a strong compressible solution at rate h^{1/4}+Δt^{1/4}.
  • In the low-Mach regime, Corollary 5.7 gives ‖ϱ_{h,Δt,ε}-1‖_{L²} ≲ ε(√ε+h^{1/4}+Δt^{1/4}) and ‖ϱ u - v‖_{L²} ≲ √ε+h^{1/4}+Δt^{1/4}, quantifying the joint limit.
  • The scheme is provably energy-stable: the discrete total energy is non-increasing in time under explicit conditions on Δt and η, and the density remains positive.
  • The theoretical rates are suboptimal; experiments show uniform first-order convergence and second-order density convergence, so the estimates can potentially be sharpened.
  • The error estimate is linear in ε, so the same discretisation works across the full Mach-number range with no ε-dependent time-step restriction apart from the stability conditions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Because the bound is O(ε+√h+√Δt), choosing h and Δt proportional to ε² would yield a first-order low-Mach scheme with error O(ε); this coupling is not tested in the paper and would be a cheap way to recover the optimal scaling in practice.
  • The unproved Hypothesis 4.3 (uniform L∞ bounds) is the main gap; the discrete entropy inequality alone only yields L²-type control on the density fluctuation (Lemma 5.4), so an interesting testable extension is to add a positivity-preserving limiter or a discrete maximum principle that would make the bound a theorem rather than an assumption.
  • The same relative-energy-plus-consistency template should transfer to other singular limits with a stiff pressure or Froude number, e.g., low-Froude shallow water flows, whenever the flux stabilisation can be written as a gradient shift and the consistency residuals stay uniform in the small parameter.
  • The scheme requires solving a nonlinear elliptic problem for the density each time step; the paper leaves open whether the implicit time-step condition (Lemma 6.1) can be satisfied uniformly in ε without a nonlinear solve, and a fixed-point or IMEX implementation would be needed for guaranteed performance in the strict limit ε→0.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a semi-implicit, stabilization-based finite volume scheme for the barotropic Euler equations parametrized by the Mach number ε. The scheme uses a shifted velocity proportional to the discrete pressure gradient to obtain energy stability and an asymptotic-preserving character. Using the relative-energy framework, the authors derive two sets of error estimates: for fixed ε, convergence of the numerical solution to a strong solution of the compressible Euler system at rate O(√h + √Δt); and, for well-prepared initial data, a combined low-Mach/discretization error estimate against a strong solution of the incompressible Euler system of the form O(ε + √h + √Δt). This implies convergence as ε, h, Δt tend to zero simultaneously, i.e. the AP property in a weak-strong sense. The proofs are based on a consistency theorem, a relative-energy inequality, and Gronwall estimates. Numerical experiments for a stationary vortex are reported and show better-than-theoretical convergence rates.

Significance. If the theorems were fully unconditional, the contribution would be significant: a rigorous, energy-stable, asymptotic-preserving finite volume method for barotropic Euler with quantitative error estimates in both the compressible and low-Mach regimes is a valuable and nontrivial result. The paper has clear strengths: the energy stability proof in Appendix A is largely self-contained, the relative-energy structure is used systematically, and the numerical experiments are concrete and supportive. However, the central claims are conditional on Hypothesis 4.3, a set of uniform L∞ bounds that is not proved, and on a consistency proof in Appendix B that is partly delegated to prior work. These gaps are load-bearing, so the significance is currently conditional rather than established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Hypothesis 4.3, Eq. (4.21); used in Lemma 5.1, Lemma 5.4, Proposition 5.5, Theorems 5.2 and 5.6] The paper assumes, but never proves, the existence of constants 0<ϱ≤ϱ_{h,Δt,ε}≤ϱ̄ and |u_{h,Δt,ε}|≤ū independent of ε,h,Δt. This hypothesis is used in essential places: the relative-energy equivalence (Lemma 5.1, Proposition 5.5), the lower bound on P''(ρ†) in Lemma 5.4, the Gronwall estimates in Theorems 5.2 and 5.6, and throughout the consistency proof in Appendix B. The discrete entropy inequality (A.11) only gives Σ Δt ‖∇_E ρ^{n+1}‖²_{L²} ≲ h^{-1}ε² and Σ ‖ρ^{n+1}-ρ^n‖²_{L²} ≲ ε²; neither implies uniform L∞ bounds, and the gradient estimate actually diverges as h→0. Theorem 4.2 proves positivity and existence but not uniform L∞ control. Thus the two main theorems are conditional on an unproved a priori bound. Please either prove such a bound (e.g. by a maximum principle for the nonlinear elliptic step (4.9a)+(4.17)) or state explicitly in the theorems and abstract that the results ar
  2. [Appendix B, Theorem 4.4] The consistency theorem underpins both main results, but its proof is a sketch with several crucial estimates deferred to [13]. In particular, the bound for R7 is justified only by 'obtained exactly as done for the term E4 on page 336 of [13]', and the momentum consistency estimate (B.6) combines Hypothesis 4.3 with several unexplained steps. Since Theorem 4.4 is the bridge between the scheme and the relative-energy framework, the proof needs to be either self-contained or, at minimum, specify exactly which statements of [13] are being used and why they transfer to the present stabilization. As written, the consistency bounds (4.24) are not fully verified in the manuscript.
  3. [Section 6, Lemma 6.1, Eq. (6.1)] The sufficient time-step condition contains the term sqrt(η/ε²)|Jp^{n+1}|, so it is not immediate that the condition can be satisfied uniformly in ε. For the simultaneous limit ε,h,Δt→0 in Theorem 5.6 to be meaningful, one must show that the admissible Δt does not need to shrink with ε (or if it does, how this interacts with the error bound). For well-prepared data one may expect |Jp|~ε², making the pressure term O(ε), but this is not demonstrated. Without such an analysis, the AP convergence statement is incomplete. The paper should analyze the ε-dependence of (6.1) and of the other stability conditions in Theorem 4.1.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Corollary 2.2] The proof and statement refer to 'Proposition 2.1' but the result is Theorem 2.1; please correct the cross-reference.
  2. [Eq. (5.33) and nearby text] In the proof of Theorem 5.6, 'u_{T,Δt,ε}' appears to be a typo for 'u_{h,Δt,ε}'.
  3. [Theorem 5.6] The theorem statement does not explicitly repeat the assumptions of Theorem 4.4 or Hypothesis 4.3, although the proof uses them. Please state the required hypotheses explicitly.
  4. [Tables 2 and 3] The experimental orders of convergence for h=1/32 show a noticeable dip (e.g. EOC ≈ 0.25 and 0.30) before recovering to roughly first order. A brief comment on this non-monotone behavior would help the reader interpret the numerical validation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: relative-energy error estimates are derived in-paper; unproved L∞ bound is a correctness gap, not a circular input.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The central error estimates (Theorems 5.2 and 5.6) are obtained by deriving a discrete relative-energy inequality from the consistency formulation (Appendix B, Theorem 4.4) and the energy/entropy inequalities proven in Appendix A (eqs. (4.18)-(4.19)), then applying Gronwall's lemma. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no target inequality is inserted as an input. The main caveats are non-circular. Hypothesis 4.3 (eq. (4.21)) assumes uniform L∞ bounds on the numerical density and velocity; the paper does not prove these from the discrete entropy inequality (A.11). This hypothesis is load-bearing in Lemma 5.1, Lemma 5.4, the consistency estimates (4.24), and the Gronwall steps, so the theorems are conditional; however, an unproved hypothesis is a correctness gap, not an equivalence-by-construction. Theorem 4.2 (existence/positivity) and Lemma 5.1 (relative-energy equivalence) are delegated to the authors' prior works [3] and [27]; these self-citations are auxiliary, published, parameter-free results whose assumptions do not include the target error estimate, so under the scoring rules they are real evidence and do not make the derivation circular. Numerical experiments in Section 6 provide external validation. Therefore no circular step is exhibited.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central theorems rest on a small set of imported assumptions: local strong-solution regularity, well-prepared initial data, and the unproved Hypothesis 4.3. The scheme has one hand-chosen stabilization parameter η. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • η (stabilization coefficient) = unspecified; requires η > (3d/2) {{1/ϱ^{n+1}}}_σ per interior edge
    Introduced in (4.17) as δu = ηΔt/ε² ∇_E p^{n+1}; its size is a free design choice needed for energy stability (Theorem 4.1, condition (1)) and it affects the time-step condition (6.1). Not fitted to data, but chosen by hand and not quantified in the numerical experiments.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Strong solutions with W^{2,∞} regularity exist locally for smooth initial data (Theorem 2.1, Corollary 2.2, Theorem 3.2, Corollary 3.3).
    Used to define the reference compressible and incompressible solutions; the regularity is imported from the cited literature [23, 28].
  • ad hoc to paper Hypothesis 4.3: uniform L∞ bounds on discrete density and velocity independent of h, Δt, ε.
    Never proved; all main estimates depend on it (Lemma 5.1, Appendix B, Gronwall steps in Theorems 5.2 and 5.6).
  • domain assumption Well-prepared initial data (5.22)-(5.23) for the asymptotic regime.
    Needed for initial relative energy O(ε²+h²) and for Lemma 5.4; standard in low-Mach analysis.
  • standard math The boundary conditions are periodic or no-flux and the domain is bounded.
    Used to drop boundary integrals such as ∫ div(p v) dx = 0; needed in the relative-energy computations.
  • domain assumption Barotropic pressure law p(ϱ)=ϱ^γ with γ>1.
    The relative-energy framework uses P(z)=z^γ/(γ-1) and its convexity; all error estimates are specific to this pressure law.
  • ad hoc to paper The stability conditions of Theorem 4.1 (CFL-type conditions involving the discrete flux) hold along the numerical solution.
    These conditions involve the unknown solution itself; Lemma 6.1 gives a sufficient explicit condition, but its ε-uniformity is not analyzed.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 28015 in / 19757 out tokens · 204339 ms · 2026-08-04T05:38:48.570273+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We propose and analyse an energy-stable and asymptotic-preserving finite volume scheme for the compressible Euler system. Using the relative energy framework, we establish rigorous error estimates that yield convergence of the numerical solutions in two distinct regimes. For a fixed Mach number $\varepsilon>0$, we derive error estimates between the numerical solutions and a strong solution of the compressible Euler system that are uniform with respect to the discretisation parameters, ensuring convergence as the underlying mesh is refined. In the low Mach number regime, we analyse the error between the numerical solutions and a strong solution of the incompressible Euler system and obtain asymptotic error estimates that are uniform in $\varepsilon$ and the discretisation parameters. These results imply convergence of the numerical solutions toward a strong solution of the incompressible Euler system as $\varepsilon$, and the discretisation parameters simultaneously tend to zero. Numerical experiments are presented to validate the theoretical analysis.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.27421 by Amogh Krishnamurthy, K.R. Arun, M\'aria Luk\'a\v{c}ov\'a-Medvid'ov\'a, Megala Anandan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Dual grid. 4.1. Mesh and Unknowns. We consider a tessellation T of Ω ⊂ R d , consisting of closed, possibly non-uniform rectangles (d = 2) or closed, possibly non-uniform cuboids (d = 3) such that Ω = ∪K∈T K. The elements K ∈ T are referred to as primal cells or control volumes. By xK, we denote the cell center of the primal cell K ∈ T . The collection of all edges (d = 2) or faces (d = 3) is denoted by E,… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The deviation of the density ϱ from 1 at the final time T = 0.1 for different values of ε on a 512 × 512 grid. Now, we wish to illustrate the convergence of the compressible solution towards the incompressible solution. As done in [14], we set ε = h = 2−j , j = 3, . . . , 9, and we compute the following errors: e ∞,1 Erel = sup 1≤n≤N Z Ω Erel(ϱ n h ,u n h |1, v(t n , ·)) dx, e 2,2 ϱ = ∥ϱh − 1∥L2L2 , e∞,2 ϱ… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The flow Mach number at the final time T = 0.1 for different values of ε on a 512 × 512 grid. convergence of the numerical solutions toward a strong solution of the compressible Euler system with error bounds uniform in the discretisation parameters. In the low Mach number regime, the obtained error estimates yield the convergence toward a strong solution of the incompressible Euler system as ε and the dis… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Relative kinetic energy over time for different values of ε. ε h ∥ϱh − ϱref ∥L2 EOC ∥m1,h − m1,ref ∥L2 EOC ∥m2,h − m2,ref ∥L2 EOC 1/8 7.811e-4 - 2.132e-2 - 2.111e-2 - 1/16 7.421e-4 0.073 1.799e-2 0.245 1.693e-2 0.318 1 1/32 1.062e-4 2.803 1.836e-3 3.292 1.829e-3 3.210 1/64 5.928e-5 0.842 1.038e-3 0.823 1.022e-3 0.839 1/128 2.924e-5 1.019 5.129e-4 1.017 5.121e-4 0.996 1/256 1.121e-5 1.382 1.928e-4 1.411 1.9… view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Convergence of entropy-conservative summation-by-parts discretizations to smooth solutions of hyperbolic conservation laws

    math.NA 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0

    Entropy-conservative diagonal-norm SBP flux-differencing schemes converge at order p to smooth solutions of general entropy-symmetrizable hyperbolic systems under periodic boundaries.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Anandan and M

    M. Anandan and M. Luk´ aˇ cov´ a-Medviˇdov´ a. Provably fully discrete energy stable and asymptotic preserving scheme for barotropic Euler equations.arXiv:, 2025

    2025

  2. [2]

    Anandan, M

    M. Anandan, M. Luk´ aˇ cov´ a-Medviˇdov´ a, and S. Raghurama Rao. An asymptotic preserving scheme satisfying entropy stability for the barotropic Euler system.SeMA Journal, 2025

    2025

  3. [3]

    K. R. Arun, R. Ghorai, and M. Kar. An asymptotic preserving and energy stable scheme for the barotropic Euler system in the incompressible limit.J. Sci. Comput., 97(3):73, Nov 2023

    2023

  4. [4]

    K. R. Arun and A. Krishnamurthy. A semi-implicit finite volume scheme for dissipative measure-valued solutions to the barotropic Euler system.ESAIM Math. Model. Numer. Anal., 58(1):47–77, 2024

    2024

  5. [5]

    K. R. Arun, A. Krishnamurthy, and M. Luk´ aˇ cov´ a-Medviˇdov´ a. Asymptotic preserving finite volume method for the compressible Euler equations: analysis via dissipative measure-valued solutions, 2024

    2024

  6. [6]

    Basari´ c, M

    D. Basari´ c, M. Luk´ aˇ cov´ a-Medvid’ov´ a, H. Mizerov´ a, B. She, and Y. Yuan. Error estimates of a finite volume method for the compressible Navier-Stokes-Fourier system.Math. Comp., 92(344):2543–2574, 2023

    2023

  7. [7]

    Bispen, K

    G. Bispen, K. R. Arun, M. Luk´ aˇ cov´ a-Medvid’ov´ a, and S. Noelle. IMEX large time step finite volume methods for low Froude number shallow water flows.Commun. Comput. Phys., 16(2):307–347, 2014

    2014

  8. [8]

    Brunk, H

    A. Brunk, H. Egger, O. Habrich, and M. Luk´ aˇ cov´ a-Medvid’ov´ a. Error analysis for a second order approximation of a viscoelastic phase separation model.Numerische Mathematik, 157(5):1449–1489, 2025

    2025

  9. [9]

    Cockburn, F

    B. Cockburn, F. Coquel, and P. LeFloch. An error estimate for finite volume methods for multidimensional conservation laws.Math. Comp., 63(207):77–103, 1994

    1994

  10. [10]

    Couderc, A

    F. Couderc, A. Duran, and J.-P. Vila. An explicit asymptotic preserving low Froude scheme for the multilayer shallow water model with density stratification.J. Comput. Phys., 343:235–270, 2017

    2017

  11. [11]

    C. M. Dafermos.Hyperbolic conservation laws in continuum physics, volume 325 ofGrundlehren der mathema- tischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences]. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2000

    2000

  12. [12]

    Degond and M

    P. Degond and M. Tang. All speed scheme for the low Mach number limit of the isentropic Euler equations. Commun. Comput. Phys., 10(1):1–31, 2011. ASYMPTOTIC-PRESER VING AND ENERGY-STABLE METHOD FOR EULER EQUATIONS 27

    2011

  13. [13]

    Feireisl, M

    E. Feireisl, M. Luk´ aˇ cov´ a-Medvid’ov´ a, H. Mizerov´ a, and B. She.Numerical analysis of compressible fluid flows, volume 20 ofMS&A. Modeling, Simulation and Applications. Springer, Cham, [2021]©2021

    2021

  14. [14]

    Feireisl, M

    E. Feireisl, M. Luk´ aˇ cov´ a-Medvid’ov´ a,ˇS. Neˇ casov´ a, A. Novotn´ y, and B. She. Asymptotic preserving error estimates for numerical solutions of compressible Navier-Stokes equations in the low Mach number regime.Multiscale Model. Simul., 16(1):150–183, 2018

    2018

  15. [15]

    Feireisl, M

    E. Feireisl, M. Luk´ aˇ cov´ a-Medvid’ov´ a, and B. She. Improved error estimates for the finite volume and the MAC schemes for the compressible Navier-Stokes system.Numer. Math., 153(2-3):493–529, 2023

    2023

  16. [16]

    Feireisl and A

    E. Feireisl and A. Novotn´ y.Singular limits in thermodynamics of viscous fluids. Advances in Mathematical Fluid Mechanics. Birkh¨ auser/Springer, Cham, 2017. Second edition of [ MR2499296]

    2017

  17. [17]

    Gallou¨ et, R

    T. Gallou¨ et, R. Herbin, D. Maltese, and A. Novotny. Error estimates for a numerical approximation to the compressible barotropic Navier–Stokes equations.IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis, 36(2):543–592, 2015

    2015

  18. [18]

    Godlewski and P.-A

    E. Godlewski and P.-A. Raviart.Numerical approximation of hyperbolic systems of conservation laws, volume 118 ofApplied Mathematical Sciences. Springer-Verlag, New York, [2021]©2021. Second edition [of 1410987 ]

    2021

  19. [19]

    Herbin, J.-C

    R. Herbin, J.-C. Latch´ e, and K. Saleh. Low Mach number limit of some staggered schemes for compressible barotropic flows.Math. Comp., 90(329):1039–1087, 2021

    2021

  20. [20]

    S. Jin. Efficient asymptotic-preserving (AP) schemes for some multiscale kinetic equations.SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 21(2):441–454, 1999

    1999

  21. [21]

    S. Jin. Asymptotic preserving (AP) schemes for multiscale kinetic and hyperbolic equations: a review.Riv. Mat. Univ. Parma, pages 177–216, 2012

    2012

  22. [22]

    Jovanovi´ c and C

    V. Jovanovi´ c and C. Rohde. Error estimates for finite volume approximations of classical solutions for nonlinear systems of hyperbolic balance laws.SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 43(6):2423–2449, 2006

    2006

  23. [23]

    T. Kato. Nonstationary flows of viscous and ideal fluids inR 3.J. Functional Analysis, pages 296–305, 1972

    1972

  24. [24]

    Klainerman and A

    S. Klainerman and A. Majda. Compressible and incompressible fluids.Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 35(5):629–651, 1982

    1982

  25. [25]

    N. N. Kuznecov. The accuracy of certain approximate methods for the computation of weak solutions of a first order quasilinear equation. ˇZ. Vyˇ cisl. Mat i Mat. Fiz., 16(6):1489–1502, 1627, 1976

    1976

  26. [26]

    Luk´ aˇ cov´ a-Medvid’ov´ a and A

    M. Luk´ aˇ cov´ a-Medvid’ov´ a and A. Sch¨ omer. Compressible Navier-Stokes equations with potential temperature transport: stability of the strong solution and numerical error estimates.J. Math. Fluid Mech., 25(1):Paper No. 1, 38, 2023

    2023

  27. [27]

    Luk´ aˇ cov´ a-Medvid’ov´ a, B

    M. Luk´ aˇ cov´ a-Medvid’ov´ a, B. She, and Y. Yuan. Error estimates of the Godunov method for the multidimensional compressible Euler system.J. Sci. Comput., 91(3):Paper No. 71, 27, 2022

    2022

  28. [28]

    Majda.Compressible fluid flow and systems of conservation laws in several space variables, volume 53 of Applied Mathematical Sciences

    A. Majda.Compressible fluid flow and systems of conservation laws in several space variables, volume 53 of Applied Mathematical Sciences. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1984

    1984

  29. [29]

    Noelle, G

    S. Noelle, G. Bispen, K. R. Arun, M. Luk´ aˇ cov´ a-Medviˇdov´ a, and C.-D. Munz. A weakly asymptotic preserving low Mach number scheme for the Euler equations of gas dynamics.SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 36(6):B989–B1024, 2014

    2014

  30. [30]

    Parisot and J.-P

    M. Parisot and J.-P. Vila. Centered-potential regularization for the advection upstream splitting method.SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 54(5):3083–3104, 2016

    2016

  31. [31]

    Tadmor and T

    E. Tadmor and T. Tang. Pointwise error estimates for scalar conservation laws with piecewise smooth solutions. SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 36(6):1739–1758, 1999

    1999

  32. [32]

    Tang and Z.-h

    T. Tang and Z.-h. Teng. Viscosity methods for piecewise smooth solutions to scalar conservation laws.Math. Comp., 66(218):495–526, 1997

    1997

  33. [33]

    Teng and P

    Z.-H. Teng and P. Zhang. OptimalL 1-rate of convergence for the viscosity method and monotone scheme to piecewise constant solutions with shocks.SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 34(3):959–978, 1997

    1997

  34. [34]

    E. F. Toro.Riemann solvers and numerical methods for fluid dynamics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1997. A practical introduction

    1997

  35. [35]

    J.-P. Vila. Convergence and error estimates in finite volume schemes for general multidimensional scalar conser- vation laws. I. Explicit monotone schemes.RAIRO Mod´ el. Math. Anal. Num´ er., 28(3):267–295, 1994. 28 ANANDAN, ARUN, KRISHNAMURTHY, AND LUK ´A ˇCOV ´A-MEDVI ˇDOV ´A Institut f¨ur Mathematik, Johannes Gutenberg-Universit¨at Mainz, Staudingerweg...

    1994