2019
DOI: 10.1007/s10915-019-00951-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Positivity Preserving Moving Mesh Finite Element Method for the Keller–Segel Chemotaxis Model

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…where Ω = [−0.5, −0.5] 2 . In [11], the estimated blow-up time is reported around 1.21e − 4. Given a set of N 0 = 400 and N b = 200 training data, we try to train the wavelet network growing up to ten centers with q = 4.…”
Section: A One-dimensional Examplementioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…where Ω = [−0.5, −0.5] 2 . In [11], the estimated blow-up time is reported around 1.21e − 4. Given a set of N 0 = 400 and N b = 200 training data, we try to train the wavelet network growing up to ten centers with q = 4.…”
Section: A One-dimensional Examplementioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, many of existed approximating methods have some sort of limitations that can only solve the problem under certain conditions. The finite element method (FEM) [11] and the finite volume method (FVM) [12] are two classical numerical schemes, both of which are domain-dependent techniques and need a mesh over the domain. Because the chemotaxis models with blow-up are convection-dominated diffusion equations, employing the standard FEM leads to spurious oscillations over the domain, and therefore, it is a challenge to capture the blow-up of solutions of the chemotaxis models.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nevertheless, Algorithm 2 does use a mass lumping technique for some terms in equations ( 20) and (21). The stabilization of equation ( 20) is based on the new discretization (18) of the chemotaxis term, which obligates to redesign the stabilizing term B u 2 in (22) and the shock detector ᾱi in (23) as well. Remark 2.1.…”
Section: Algorithmmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Remark 2.1. In principle, there is no drawback with applying the shock detector α i defined in (16), which acts on both maxima and minima to limit the action of the stabilizing term (22). The reason for not doing so is that the nonlinear solver used to obtain the solution of each time step does not work properly for some numerical tests.…”
Section: Algorithmmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Numerical algorithms are mainly designed so as to keep lower bounds and to be mass-preserving. We refer the reader to [11][12][13][14][15][16]. We were pointed out by a referee the paper [17].…”
Section: The Keller-segel Equationsmentioning
confidence: 99%