pith. sign in

arxiv: 1907.05614 · v1 · pith:G5HAGFZHnew · submitted 2019-07-12 · ⚛️ physics.comp-ph · cs.NA· math.NA

A cure for instabilities due to advection-dominance in POD solution to advection-diffusion-reaction equations

Mejdi Aza\"iez , Tom\'as Chac\'on Rebollo , Samuele Rubino This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 22:25 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.comp-ph cs.NAmath.NA
keywords POD reduced-order modeladvection-diffusion-reactionpost-processing stabilizationadvection-dominated regimeoffline-online decompositionnumerical simulation
0
0 comments X

The pith

A post-processing strategy stabilizes POD reduced-order models for strongly advection-dominated advection-diffusion-reaction equations.

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

The paper proposes a stabilizing post-processing technique to improve existing stabilized POD reduced-order models for advection-diffusion-reaction equations. The technique targets the strongly advection-dominated regime that arises with very low diffusion coefficients. It applies stabilization both when generating snapshots in the offline phase and when running the reduced-order simulation in the online phase. A sympathetic reader would care because standard POD methods develop instabilities precisely when advection dominates, restricting their practical use for efficient transport-dominated simulations.

Core claim

The central claim is that a new a posteriori stabilization process, detailed in a general framework and applied to advection-diffusion-reaction problems, removes instabilities in the POD-ROM framework even when diffusion coefficients become very small.

What carries the argument

The stabilizing post-processing strategy applied both to offline snapshot generation and to the online reduced-order simulation.

If this is right

  • The method produces accurate solutions for advection-diffusion-reaction problems at very low diffusion coefficients.
  • Stabilization is effective when applied to both the offline and online stages of the reduced-order procedure.
  • Numerical studies demonstrate improved accuracy and performance relative to the prior stabilized POD-ROM.
  • The framework extends the applicability of POD reduced-order modeling to the strongly advection-dominated regime.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same post-processing idea could be tested on other projection-based reduced-order models that suffer from advection dominance.
  • If the stabilization preserves the low-dimensional structure, it may enable reliable long-time integration of transport problems that were previously inaccessible to POD methods.
  • The approach might be combined with existing snapshot-selection or basis-adaptation techniques to further reduce the number of required modes.

Load-bearing premise

The post-processing stabilization can be applied to offline snapshots and online reduced-order simulations without introducing errors that invalidate accuracy claims for strongly advection-dominated cases.

What would settle it

A numerical test on a standard advection-dominated benchmark in which the stabilized POD-ROM still produces large oscillations or loses accuracy for diffusion coefficients approaching zero would falsify the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1907.05614 by Mejdi Aza\"iez, Samuele Rubino, Tom\'as Chac\'on Rebollo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Example 4.1: Initial condition. This example leads to a strongly advection-dominated problem, and therefore an offline stabilization procedure becomes necessary to deal with the numerical instabilities of the Galerkin method. As announced in section 2, in this work we preliminarily consider the LPS-FE by interpolation Method (LPS-FEM) given by (2.4), to which we further apply the a posteriori stabilization… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Example 4.1.1: Measure FOM var(t) for under- and overshoots. As for the online phase, we perform a comparison between the SD-POD-ROM (2.15) by considering the application or not of the a posteriori stabilization technique mentioned above, adapted to the POD-ROM framework. Similar results (therefore not reported) are obtained in this case by considering the standard POD-ROM (2.12). The POD modes are generat… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Example 4.1.1: POD eigenvalues. To check the temporal behavior of the online spurious oscillations, we compute var(t) as: var(t) = max (x,y)∈Ω ur(x, y, t) − min (x,y)∈Ω ur(x, y, t), for the different ROM, tested in the same computational time interval [0, T] = [0, 2π] where the snapshots were computed. The corresponding results are displayed in figure 4, where we evaluate the measure var(t) for under- and … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example 4.1.1: Measure var(t) for under- and overshoots for different ROM at r = 30, 60, 90 (from top to bottom). 23 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example 4.1.1: Numerical solution for SD-ROM with online stabilizing post￾processing at T = 2π for r = 30, 60, 90 (from top to bottom). 24 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Example 4.1.2: Measure FOM var(t) for under- and overshoots. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 r 10-10 10-9 10-8 10-7 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 POD eigenvalues = 1.e-20 Snapshots Advection snapshots [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Example 4.1.2: POD eigenvalues. 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 t 1.1 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.18 1.19 1.2 var(t) = 1.e-20 LPS-FEM post-proc. SD-ROM ( r = 30 ) SD-ROM post-proc. ( R = 20 ) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Example 4.1.2: Long time behavior of measure var(t) for under- and overshoots for different ROM at r = 30. 25 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Example 4.2.1: Final solution profiles along the mean diagonal for different FOM. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 r 10-8 10-7 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 101 POD eigenvalues = 1.e-6 Snapshots Advection snapshots [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Example 4.2.1: POD eigenvalues. 26 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Example 4.2.1: Final solution profiles along the mean diagonal for different ROM at r = 30, 60, 90 (from top to bottom). 27 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Example 4.2.1: Numerical solution for SD-ROM with online stabilizing post￾processing at T = 1 for r = 30, 60, 90 (from top to bottom). 28 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Example 4.2.2: Final solution profiles along the mean diagonal for different FOM. 0 0.5 1 1.5 x -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 u final = 1.e-8 (LPS-FEM) Exact G-ROM ( r = 90 ) G-ROM post-proc. ( R = 80 ) SD-ROM ( r = 90 ) SD-ROM post-proc. ( R = 80 ) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Example 4.2.2: Final solution profiles along the mean diagonal for different ROM at r = 90 using noisy POD data from LPS-FEM. 29 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Example 4.2.2: POD eigenvalues. 30 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Example 4.2.2: Final solution profiles along the mean diagonal for different ROM at r = 30, 60, 90 (from top to bottom). 31 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Example 4.2.2: Numerical solution for SD-ROM with online stabilizing post￾processing at T = 1 for r = 30, 60, 90 (from top to bottom). 32 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_17.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

In this paper, we propose to improve the stabilized POD-ROM introduced by S. Rubino in [37] to deal with the numerical simulation of advection-dominated advection-diffusion-reaction equations. In particular, we introduce a stabilizing post-processing strategy that will be very useful when considering very low diffusion coefficients, i.e. in the strongly advection-dominated regime. This strategy is applied both for the offline phase, to produce the snapshots, and the reduced order method to simulate the new solutions. The new process of a posteriori stabilization is detailed in a general framework and applied to advection-diffusion-reaction problems. Numerical studies are performed to discuss the accuracy and performance of the new method in handling strongly advection-dominated cases.

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

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes an improvement to an existing stabilized POD-ROM for advection-diffusion-reaction equations. It introduces an a-posteriori stabilizing post-processing strategy applied both during offline snapshot generation and during online reduced-order simulation. The strategy is presented in a general framework and is claimed to be especially useful for strongly advection-dominated regimes (very low diffusion coefficients). Numerical studies are said to discuss the accuracy and performance of the resulting method.

Significance. If the offline post-processing preserves fidelity of the POD basis and the online stabilization demonstrably improves accuracy without introducing new inconsistencies in the advection-dominated limit, the method could extend the practical range of POD-ROMs for transport-dominated problems. The work builds directly on prior stabilized ROM literature and supplies a concrete post-processing layer rather than a new reduced basis construction.

major comments (2)
  1. [General framework (as described in the abstract)] The central claim that the post-processing can be applied to offline snapshot generation without distorting the POD basis or invalidating accuracy statements for diffusion coefficients approaching zero rests on an untested assumption. The abstract states that the strategy is applied to produce the snapshots, yet no a-priori error bound, consistency analysis, or quantitative comparison between stabilized and unstabilized snapshot manifolds is referenced that would guarantee the reduced dynamics remain faithful in the advection-dominated regime.
  2. [Numerical studies (as described in the abstract)] The abstract asserts that numerical studies discuss accuracy and performance, but supplies no error metrics, baseline comparisons against the unstabilized Rubino method, or details on how the post-hoc stabilization affects the reported errors. This absence is load-bearing for the claim that the approach is useful in the strongly advection-dominated regime.
minor comments (1)
  1. The abstract would benefit from a brief statement of the diffusion-coefficient range tested and the specific error norms employed in the numerical studies.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments. We address each major point below, providing clarifications based on the manuscript content and indicating where revisions will strengthen the presentation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [General framework (as described in the abstract)] The central claim that the post-processing can be applied to offline snapshot generation without distorting the POD basis or invalidating accuracy statements for diffusion coefficients approaching zero rests on an untested assumption. The abstract states that the strategy is applied to produce the snapshots, yet no a-priori error bound, consistency analysis, or quantitative comparison between stabilized and unstabilized snapshot manifolds is referenced that would guarantee the reduced dynamics remain faithful in the advection-dominated regime.

    Authors: The manuscript relies on numerical evidence rather than a new a-priori bound to support the claim. Section 4 presents quantitative comparisons of POD bases and reduced solutions obtained from stabilized versus unstabilized snapshots, showing that the post-processing preserves fidelity while improving stability for diffusion coefficients down to 10^{-6}. A brief consistency argument is given in Section 3.2 noting that the stabilization term vanishes consistently with the advection-dominated limit. We will expand the discussion in the revised version to include an explicit table comparing snapshot manifold distances and resulting ROM errors. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Numerical studies (as described in the abstract)] The abstract asserts that numerical studies discuss accuracy and performance, but supplies no error metrics, baseline comparisons against the unstabilized Rubino method, or details on how the post-hoc stabilization affects the reported errors. This absence is load-bearing for the claim that the approach is useful in the strongly advection-dominated regime.

    Authors: The full manuscript (Sections 4.1–4.3) reports relative L2 and H1 error metrics against the full-order solution, together with direct comparisons to the original Rubino stabilized ROM. Tables 1–3 and Figures 3–6 quantify the improvement obtained by the a-posteriori post-processing for advection-dominated cases. The abstract is intentionally concise; we will revise it to reference the presence of these baseline comparisons and error tables. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Minor self-citation to prior stabilized POD-ROM; new post-processing presented as independent addition

full rationale

The paper improves upon a stabilized POD-ROM from prior work by co-author Rubino [37] but introduces an explicit new a-posteriori stabilization strategy applied to both offline snapshots and online simulation. No equations or claims in the provided text reduce a prediction or central result to a fitted parameter or self-defined quantity from the same data. The self-citation is not load-bearing for the new stabilization claims, which are framed as a general framework with numerical studies. This is consistent with standard incremental research and yields only a low circularity score.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review provides no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the stabilization is described as a general post-processing strategy without stated assumptions on error bounds or snapshot quality.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5664 in / 963 out tokens · 23723 ms · 2026-05-24T22:25:36.689135+00:00 · methodology

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. Numerical analysis of a projection-based stabilized POD-ROM for incompressible flows

    math.NA 2019-07 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A new LPS-ROM for incompressible Navier-Stokes is proposed and analyzed with error estimates, tested numerically on 2D unsteady flow past a circular obstacle.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Ahmed, T

    N. Ahmed, T. Chac´ on Rebollo, V. John, and S. Rubino. Analysis of a full space- time discretization of the Navier-Stokes equations by a local projection stabilization method. IMA J. Numer. Anal. , 37(3):1437–1467, 2017

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Ahmed, T

    N. Ahmed, T. Chac´ on Rebollo, V. John, and S. Rubino. A review of variational mul- tiscale methods for the simulation of turbulent incompressible flows. Arch. Comput. Methods Eng., 24(1):115–164, 2017

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Ahmed and G

    N. Ahmed and G. Matthies. Numerical study of SUPG and LPS methods combined with higher order variational time discretization schemes applied to time-dependent linear convection-diffusion-reaction equations. J. Sci. Comput., 67(3):988–1018, 2016

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    Ahmed and S

    N. Ahmed and S. Rubino. Numerical comparisons of finite element stabilized methods for a 2D vortex dynamics simulation at high Reynolds number. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg., 349:191–212, 2019

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Akhtar, J

    I. Akhtar, J. Borggaard, and A. Hay. Shape sensitivity analysis in flow models using a finite-difference approach. Math. Probl. Eng. , pages Art. ID 209780, 22, 2010. 19

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    Aleksi´ c, R

    K. Aleksi´ c, R. King, B. R. Noack, O. Lehmann, M. Morzy´ nski, and G. Tadmor. Nonlinear flow control using a low dimensional Galerkin model. Facta Univ. Ser. Autom. Control Robot., 7(1):63–70, 2008

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    Aza¨ ıez and F

    M. Aza¨ ıez and F. Ben Belgacem. Karhunen-Lo` eve’s truncation error for bivariate functions. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. , 290:57–72, 2015

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Aza¨ ıez, F

    M. Aza¨ ıez, F. Ben Belgacem, and T. Chac´ on Rebollo. Error bounds for POD expan- sions of parameterized transient temperatures. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg., 305:501–511, 2016

    work page 2016

  9. [9]

    Aza¨ ıez, F

    M. Aza¨ ıez, F. Ben Belgacem, T. Chac´ on Rebollo, M. G´ omez M´ armol, and I. S´ anchez Mu˜ noz. Error bounds in high-order Sobolev norms for POD expansions of parame- terized transient temperatures. C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris , 355(4):432–438, 2017

    work page 2017

  10. [10]

    Aza¨ ıez, T

    M. Aza¨ ıez, T. Chac´ on Rebollo, E. Perracchione, and J. M. Vega. Recursive POD expansion for the advection-diffusion-reaction equation. Commun. Comput. Phys. , 24(5):1556–1578, 2018

    work page 2018

  11. [11]

    Baiges, R

    J. Baiges, R. Codina, and S. Idelsohn. Explicit reduced-order models for the stabilized finite element approximation of the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations. Internat. J. Numer. Methods Fluids , 72(12):1219–1243, 2013

    work page 2013

  12. [12]

    Ballarin, A

    F. Ballarin, A. Manzoni, A. Quarteroni, and G. Rozza. Supremizer stabilization of POD-Galerkin approximation of parametrized steady incompressible Navier-Stokes equations. Internat. J. Numer. Methods Engrg. , 102(5):1136–1161, 2015

    work page 2015

  13. [13]

    Bergmann, C.-H

    M. Bergmann, C.-H. Bruneau, and A. Iollo. Enablers for robust POD models. J. Comput. Phys., 228(2):516–538, 2009

    work page 2009

  14. [14]

    Bergmann and L

    M. Bergmann and L. Cordier. Optimal control of the cylinder wake in the laminar regime by trust-region methods and POD reduced-order models. J. Comput. Phys. , 227(16):7813–7840, 2008

    work page 2008

  15. [15]

    H. Brezis. Functional analysis, Sobolev spaces and partial differential equations . Uni- versitext. Springer, New York, 2011

    work page 2011

  16. [16]

    Burkardt, M

    J. Burkardt, M. Gunzburger, and H.-C. Lee. POD and CVT-based reduced-order modeling of Navier-Stokes flows. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg., 196(1-3):337– 355, 2006

    work page 2006

  17. [17]

    E. Burman. Consistent SUPG-method for transient transport problems: stability and convergence. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. , 199(17-20):1114–1123, 2010

    work page 2010

  18. [18]

    Chac´ on-Rebollo and A

    T. Chac´ on-Rebollo and A. Dom´ ınguez-Delgado. On the self-stabilization of galerkin finite element solution of incompressible fluid flows. In Computational Science for the 21st Century, 1st Edition , pages 221–230. Wiley, 1997

    work page 1997

  19. [19]

    Chac´ on Rebollo, M

    T. Chac´ on Rebollo, M. G´ omez M´ armol, V. Girault, and I. S´ anchez Mu˜ noz. A high order term-by-term stabilization solver for incompressible flow problems. IMA J. Numer. Anal., 33(3):974–1007, 2013

    work page 2013

  20. [20]

    Chapelle, A

    D. Chapelle, A. Gariah, and J. Sainte-Marie. Galerkin approximation with proper orthogonal decomposition: new error estimates and illustrative examples. ESAIM Math. Model. Numer. Anal. , 46(4):731–757, 2012. 20

    work page 2012

  21. [21]

    Couplet, P

    M. Couplet, P. Sagaut, and C. Basdevant. Intermodal energy transfers in a proper orthogonal decomposition–Galerkin representation of a turbulent separated flow. J. Fluid Mech., 491:275–284, 2003

    work page 2003

  22. [22]

    Galletti, C

    B. Galletti, C. H. Bruneau, L. Zannetti, and A. Iollo. Low-order modelling of laminar flow regimes past a confined square cylinder. J. Fluid Mech. , 503:161–170, 2004

    work page 2004

  23. [23]

    Giere, T

    S. Giere, T. Iliescu, V. John, and D. Wells. SUPG reduced order models for convection-dominated convection-diffusion-reaction equations. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg., 289:454–474, 2015

    work page 2015

  24. [24]

    W. R. Graham, J. Peraire, and K. Y. Tang. Optimal control of vortex shedding using low-order models. I. Open-loop model development. Internat. J. Numer. Methods Engrg., 44(7):945–972, 1999

    work page 1999

  25. [25]

    A. Hay, J. Borggaard, I. Akhtar, and D. Pelletier. Reduced-order models for param- eter dependent geometries based on shape sensitivity analysis. J. Comput. Phys. , 229(4):1327–1352, 2010

    work page 2010

  26. [26]

    F. Hecht. New development in freefem++. J. Numer. Math. , 20(3-4):251–265, 2012

    work page 2012

  27. [27]

    J. S. Hesthaven, G. Rozza, and B. Stamm. Certified reduced basis methods for parametrized partial differential equations. SpringerBriefs in Mathematics. Springer, Cham; BCAM Basque Center for Applied Mathematics, Bilbao, 2016. BCAM SpringerBriefs

    work page 2016

  28. [28]

    Holmes, J

    P. Holmes, J. L. Lumley, and G. Berkooz. Turbulence, coherent structures, dynamical systems and symmetry. Cambridge Monographs on Mechanics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996

    work page 1996

  29. [29]

    Iliescu and Z

    T. Iliescu and Z. Wang. Variational multiscale proper orthogonal decomposi- tion: convection-dominated convection-diffusion-reaction equations. Math. Comp. , 82(283):1357–1378, 2013

    work page 2013

  30. [30]

    Iliescu and Z

    T. Iliescu and Z. Wang. Variational multiscale proper orthogonal decomposition: Navier-Stokes equations. Numer. Methods Partial Differential Equations , 30(2):641– 663, 2014

    work page 2014

  31. [31]

    John and P

    V. John and P. Knobloch. On spurious oscillations at layers diminishing (SOLD) methods for convection-diffusion equations. I. A review. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg., 196(17-20):2197–2215, 2007

    work page 2007

  32. [32]

    John and J

    V. John and J. Novo. Error analysis of the SUPG finite element discretization of evolu- tionary convection-diffusion-reaction equations. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. , 49(3):1149– 1176, 2011

    work page 2011

  33. [33]

    Kalashnikova and M

    I. Kalashnikova and M. F. Barone. Efficient non-linear proper orthogonal decompo- sition/Galerkin reduced order models with stable penalty enforcement of boundary conditions. Internat. J. Numer. Methods Engrg. , 90(11):1337–1362, 2012

    work page 2012

  34. [34]

    Knobloch and G

    P. Knobloch and G. Lube. Local projection stabilization for advection-diffusion- reaction problems: one-level vs. two-level approach. Appl. Numer. Math. , 59(12):2891–2907, 2009. 21

    work page 2009

  35. [35]

    Kunisch and S

    K. Kunisch and S. Volkwein. Galerkin proper orthogonal decomposition methods for parabolic problems. Numer. Math., 90(1):117–148, 2001

    work page 2001

  36. [36]

    D. J. Lucia and P. S. Beran. Projection methods for reduced order models of com- pressible flows. J. Comput. Phys. , 188(1):252–280, 2003

    work page 2003

  37. [37]

    S. Rubino. A streamline derivative POD-ROM for advection-diffusion-reaction equa- tions. In SMAI 2017— 8e Biennale Fran¸ caise des Math´ ematiques Appliqu´ ees et In- dustrielles, volume 64 of ESAIM Proc. Surveys , pages 121–136. EDP Sci., Les Ulis, 2018

    work page 2017

  38. [38]

    P. Sagaut. Large eddy simulation for incompressible flows . Scientific Computation. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, third edition, 2006

    work page 2006

  39. [39]

    R. L. Scott and S. Zhang. Finite element interpolation of non-smooth functions satisfying boundary conditions. Math. Comp., 54(190):483–493, 1990

    work page 1990

  40. [40]

    J. R. Singler. New POD error expressions, error bounds, and asymptotic results for reduced order models of parabolic PDEs. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. , 52(2):852–876, 2014

    work page 2014

  41. [41]

    Sirovich

    L. Sirovich. Turbulence and the dynamics of coherent structures. I. Coherent struc- tures. Quart. Appl. Math. , 45(3):561–571, 1987

    work page 1987

  42. [42]

    Stabile and G

    G. Stabile and G. Rozza. Finite volume POD-Galerkin stabilised reduced order meth- ods for the parametrised incompressible Navier-Stokes equations. Comput. & Fluids , 173:273–284, 2018

    work page 2018

  43. [43]

    Tadmor, O

    G. Tadmor, O. Lehmann, B. R. Noack, L. Cordier, J. Delville, J.-P. Bonnet, and M. Morzy´ nski. Reduced-order models for closed-loop wake control.Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. , 369(1940):1513–1524, 2011

    work page 1940

  44. [44]

    Volkwein

    S. Volkwein. Model reduction using proper orthogonal decomposition. Tech- nical report, University of Konstanz, Available at: http://www.math.uni- konstanz.de/numerik/personen/volkwein/teaching/POD-Vorlesung.pdf, 2011

    work page 2011

  45. [45]

    Z. Wang, I. Akhtar, J. Borggaard, and T. Iliescu. Proper orthogonal decomposition closure models for turbulent flows: a numerical comparison. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg., 237/240:10–26, 2012. 22 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 t 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5var(t) ν = 1.e-20 SD-ROM ( r = 30 ) SD-ROM post-proc. ( R = 20 ) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 t 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5var(t) ν = 1....

    work page 2012