AI & ML
Active Flux and Polygons: why a stabilisation and how to implement boundary conditions
arXiv cs.NA0 views
arXiv:2610.34761v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In a recent paper, the authors developed an Active Flux-type algorithm for polygonal meshes (see \cite{BP_Pampa_VEM}). The main difference between Active Flux methods on polygonal meshes and those on Cartesian or simplex meshes is that the basis functions are not explicitly known. These functions describe the solution using point-value approximations on the polygon boundaries and the average value within the polygons. In \cite{BP_Pampa_VEM}, it was shown that directly transposing the algorithm from simplexes to polygons leads to a mild instability, and a remedy was proposed without a rigorous explanation. In the present paper, we clarify this issue and demonstrate that the solution presented in \cite{BP_Pampa_VEM} is indeed correct. Furthermore, another challenge-the implementation of boundary conditions-was previously solved heuristically. Building on \cite{pampa_dg}, we show how to properly implement these boundary conditions. Finally, the method is illustrated through several examples with hybrid meshes.
Source:https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.34761PreviousA High-Order Geometric-Compatible DGSEM with Subcell Limiting for the GPR SystemNextNumerical Approximation of Maxwell Transmission Eigenvalue Problem in Dispersive Media via Holomorphic Operator Function
Related posts
Your AI agent got an HTTP error. Should it retry?
0dev.to Discuss
Is AI dangerous, or just misunderstood?
0dev.to Discuss
Why we price a developer tool per fix instead of per seat
0dev.to Productivity
My LLM-Powered Sidekick for Painless PR Descriptions
0dev.to Productivity
Reward-Adaptive Backtracking GFlowNet: A Technique Worth Understanding
0dev.to Productivity
We checked three LLM-written paper explainers against the PDFs. Two had numbers the papers never report.
0dev.to Machine Learning