2508.10347
An Analysis of the Riemann Problem for a 2×2 System of Keyfitz–Kranzer Type Balance Laws With a Time-Dependent Source Term
Josh Culver, Aubrey Ayres, Evan Halloran, Ryan Lin, Emily Peng, Charis Tsikkou
correctmedium confidence
- Category
- math.DS
- Journal tier
- Specialist/Solid
- Processed
- Sep 28, 2025, 12:57 AM
- arXiv Links
- Abstract ↗PDF ↗
Audit review
Both the paper and the model derive the generalized Rankine–Hugoniot ODEs for a delta-shock ansatz by testing against smooth functions and splitting regular and singular parts. The paper carries out the calculation explicitly from the weak formulation for the conservative system obtained via ũ = u − ∫ a, yielding dω/dt = [f1] − s[ρ] and d(ωũδ)/dt = [f2] − s[ρũ], together with the kinematic relation x′ = ũδ + ∫ a (with [·] taken as left minus right) . The model reproduces the same distributional identities and ODEs (with the opposite jump convention [·] = right − left), and correctly shows how the original balance law follows from the conservative form via u = ũ + ∫ a. Minor omissions in the model are: it does not state the kinematic relation x′ = ũδ + ∫ a explicitly, and it does not discuss the paper’s caveat on defining singular products and the role of a < 0 vs. the shadow-wave construction for a > 0 . The paper also imposes overcompressivity as an admissibility hypothesis for its main theorem, whereas the model notes it is not needed for the algebra—this is consistent with the paper’s statement of Theorem 1 (admissibility is for selection, not for the distributional verification itself) .
Referee report (LaTeX)
\textbf{Recommendation:} minor revisions \textbf{Journal Tier:} specialist/solid \textbf{Justification:} The paper and the model converge on the same distributional verification of delta shocks for a non-autonomous Keyfitz–Kranzer-type system. The paper’s argument is correct and complete for its stated aims, with clear derivations of the GRH ODEs and an admissibility framework. The model’s proof mirrors this and is correct modulo conventions and a minor omission (explicit kinematic relation). Clarifying jump conventions, foregrounding the kinematic identity, and briefly explaining the role of a in the direct delta-ansatz would further improve clarity.