Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 98 references

A unified multi-perspective quadratic manifold for mitigating the Kolmogorov barrier in multiphysics damage

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a multi-perspective quadratic manifold, built field-by-field and state-by-state, breaks the Kolmogorov barrier that stalls linear reduced-order models on coupled damage-plasticity problems.

desk verdict A plausible new nonlinear ROM idea for coupled damage-plasticity, but the abstract's success criterion is too weak to back the barrier-mitigation claim, and the supplied full text is unreadable. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.18220 v1 pith:MBK2XTCK submitted 2025-08-25 math-ph math.MP

Qinghua Zhang , Stephan Ritzert , Jian Zhang , Jannick Kehls , Stefanie Reese , Tim Brepols This is my paper · ORCID
classification math-phmath.MP
keywords reduced-ordermodelsKolmogorovbarrierquadraticmanifolddamagemechanicsthermo-mechanicalcouplingplasticitynonlinearmodelreductionmulti-fielddecomposition
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to establish that the Kolmogorov barrier in linear reduced-order models can be overcome for thermo-mechanically coupled damage-plasticity simulations by replacing the single linear subspace with a set of quadratic manifolds, one per physical field and material state. In linear ROMs the solution set's Kolmogorov n-width decays slowly, so the error stops falling once enough modes are added. The authors argue that a multi-perspective quadratic manifold, with mode counts selected from the material's physical response, avoids this plateau and produces a smooth, monotonic error decrease as modes increase. If correct, this makes nonlinear model reduction reliable enough for industrial damage simulations, where linear ROMs currently stall.

What carries the argument

The central object is the multi-perspective quadratic manifold: a reduced approximation in which each physical field (such as temperature and displacement) and each material state (such as plastic and damage variables) has its own quadratic map from latent coordinates to full-field coordinates, with the maps then assembled into one coupled system. The quadratic terms supply curvature that a linear subspace lacks, and the per-field, per-state splitting prevents one field's features from being averaged out by a global basis. Mode numbers are allocated according to the material's physical response, which is the mechanism intended to keep the manifold aligned with the true solution manifold and

What would settle it

A concrete test is to take a coupled damage benchmark with a propagating localization band crossing a thermal gradient and compare the decoupled multi-perspective manifold against a full-state quadratic manifold trained on the full coupled solution. If the decoupled version's error plateaus or oscillates with mode count while the full-state manifold keeps improving, the claim that the multi-perspective splitting defeats the Kolmogorov barrier is refuted. A complementary diagnostic is to check whether the decoupled manifold's tangent space at damage-localization snapshots contains the dominant

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Kolmogorov barrier is not intrinsic to coupled damage-plasticity problems but a limitation of linear subspace approximation. The paper's framework maps each physical field and each material state through its own quadratic manifold, then couples them into one reduced system; the mode number per field is chosen on physical grounds rather than by a single global energy criterion. On benchmark problems, this multi-perspective quadratic manifold gives a smooth, monotonic decrease in error with mode count, while the linear projection ROM saturates. The paper presents this as evidence that the multi-perspective splitting captures the cross-field and cross-state interac

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a quadratic manifold assembled from separately reduced fields and states still contains the cross-coupling terms that actually drive damage evolution; if the decoupling discards those interactions, adding modes cannot repair the representation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On the benchmark thermo-mechanically coupled damage-plasticity problems, the framework yields ROM error that decreases monotonically as modes are added, instead of reaching the linear ROMs' plateau.
  • The per-field, per-state decomposition lets an engineer see which field or material state dominates the error budget, guiding where to spend additional modes.
  • The reduction scheme is agnostic to the exact damage model: the same quadratic-manifold construction can be applied to other damage-involved multiphysics settings with a re-allocation of modes.
  • Because the online approximation stays quadratic, the computational savings of projection-based ROMs are largely retained while the nonlinear capacity is increased.
  • The framework turns mode selection into a physics-informed decision rather than a purely algebraic one, which is what the authors argue removes the barrier.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A sharper diagnostic than the error-vs-modes curve would be to compare the tangent spaces of the true coupled solution manifold with the tangent spaces of the decoupled per-field quadratic manifolds; if the decoupled tangent directions span the coupled ones only in the tested regimes, the smooth decay may not transfer to moving damage zones or crack branching.
  • The physics-based mode rule could likely be automated by estimating damage-zone width or temperature-boundary-layer thickness a priori, turning a benchmark-informed choice into a transferable criterion.
  • The same multi-perspective idea may extend to other multiphysics systems whose fields have very different spatial regularity, such as fluid-structure or electro-thermo-mechanical problems, where a single global linear basis mixes scales and loses accuracy.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a unified multi-perspective quadratic manifold reduced-order model (ROM) framework for thermo-mechanically coupled damage-plasticity problems. The abstract claims that by decomposing the solution into multiple physical fields and material states, and by selecting mode counts per field based on material physics, the method achieves a smooth and monotonic decrease in ROM error as the number of modes increases, thereby mitigating the Kolmogorov barrier of linear projection-based ROMs. The full text supplied for review is severely corrupted: it consists largely of unreadable mojibake and begins with the arXiv header of an unrelated astro-ph paper (2508.18221v1). Only the abstract is legible. Consequently, the governing equations, the definition of the quadratic manifold, the mode-selection procedure, and the benchmark results cannot be inspected.

Significance. If the claimed results could be verified, the paper would be a useful contribution to nonlinear model order reduction for damage mechanics, where linear ROMs are known to suffer from slow Kolmogorov n-width decay. The idea of constructing block-separated quadratic manifolds per field/state is plausible. However, the manuscript in its current form provides no verifiable evidence for the central claim: no error curves, no comparison against linear ROMs, no definition of the error metric, and no machine-checked proofs. The conceptual criticism that monotonic error decrease is generic for optimal approximation also applies, so the abstract's success criterion is insufficient to establish barrier mitigation. Therefore the significance is currently potential rather than demonstrated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Full text (entire manuscript)] The submitted full text is unreadable due to character-encoding corruption and includes the header of an unrelated arXiv paper (2508.18221v1 [astro-ph.HE]). Equations, section numbering, benchmark descriptions, and numerical results cannot be verified. This is a load-bearing issue: the central claim about benchmark performance is entirely unsupported. The authors must provide a clean, complete manuscript before review can proceed.
  2. [Abstract, key-features paragraph] The only evidence cited for mitigating the Kolmogorov barrier is 'a smooth and monotonic decrease in error as the number of modes increases.' This is not sufficient: for any nested family of linear subspaces, the Kolmogorov n-width is non-increasing in n, and least-squares projection errors are monotone non-increasing by construction. The barrier is about the rate and saturation of the decay, not monotonicity. To substantiate the claim, the paper must compare the proposed quadratic-manifold error decay against the best linear-subspace benchmark in the same total reduced dimension, and report actual error values and convergence rates for each benchmark. Without such a comparison, the headline claim is a non-sequitur.
  3. [Abstract, mode-selection claim] The 'multi-field and multi-state decomposition strategy grounded in the material's physical response' is stated but no concrete selection rule is given in the abstract, and the full text is unreadable. Per-field mode counts appear to be free parameters selected for each benchmark. If these counts are chosen after seeing the test errors, the monotone error curves may be an artifact of tuning rather than a property of the manifold. A fixed, a-priori selection criterion or a sensitivity study over mode-count choices is required to rule out circularity.
  4. [Section 3 (manifold construction, based on readable fragments)] The proposed quadratic manifold appears to be built by concatenating per-field, per-state modes. If the resulting manifold is block-diagonal in field components, the cross-coupling between displacement, temperature, and damage is only representable through the quadratic terms of each block. It is not demonstrated that such a block-separated manifold can faithfully represent the coupled solution manifold that drives damage evolution. A formal argument or a targeted numerical experiment (e.g., comparing manifold projection error against a full coupled quadratic manifold) is needed. Currently this point cannot be assessed because of the corrupted text.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Full text] Fix the character encoding and re-submit a clean PDF/TeX source. Remove the extraneous arXiv header from 2508.18221v1.
  2. [Benchmark description] Define the error metric precisely (e.g., relative L2 error in space-time) and report the total reduced dimension, not just per-field mode counts.
  3. [Numerical results] Include error bars or repeated-run variability, and clarify whether the benchmarks are deterministic. Report wall-clock or online-cost comparisons against the full-order model.
  4. [Comparisons] Add a comparison with a standard linear POD-Galerkin ROM and, if possible, with a standard quadratic manifold without the multi-perspective decomposition, to isolate the benefit of the proposed construction.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The abstract's key evidence for 'mitigating the Kolmogorov barrier' is a monotonic error decrease, which is a generic property of enlarging approximation spaces; this makes the benchmark success criterion satisfied by construction rather than by the manifold's specific content.

  1. self definitional [Abstract, final benchmark-evidence sentence]
    "Benchmark tests demonstrate that the proposed approach mitigates the Kolmogorov barrier of linear projection-based ROMs by ensuring a smooth and monotonic decrease in error as the number of modes increases."

    The stated evidence for 'mitigating the Kolmogorov barrier' is a smooth, monotonic decrease in error with increasing mode count. For any nested family of approximation sets — in particular for any family of n-dimensional subspaces or manifolds obtained by adding modes to a basis while retaining the previous manifold — the least-squares/optimal approximation error is non-increasing by construction. The Kolmogorov n-width is defined as the infimum error over such n-dimensional subspaces, so monotonic decrease is a defining property of the quantity being approximated, not a distinctive consequence of the multi-perspective quadratic manifold. Thus the benchmark criterion is satisfied even when the proposed manifold contributes nothing beyond enlarging the mode set; the claimed 'mitigation' red

full rationale

The readable parts of the paper provide no explicit evidence of a fitted parameter being renamed as a prediction, nor of a derivation in which an output quantity is defined in terms of the claimed prediction. The per-field and per-state mode-count selection ('grounded in the material's physical response') is a hyperparameter choice; without evidence that the same benchmark data were used both to choose these counts and to report the error curves, I do not treat it as a fitted-input-called-prediction circularity. No load-bearing self-citation chain is visible in the available text. The one genuine circularity-adjacent feature is the abstract's success criterion: the benchmark demonstration is described as a monotonic error decrease, and monotonicity is guaranteed for essentially any mode-enlarging approximation family. That makes the central claim 'mitigates the Kolmogorov barrier' partially self-definitional rather than independently demonstrated. The score of 6 reflects this partial reduction of the central benchmark claim to a generic property, while noting that the framework itself may still contain independent content not invalidated by this evidence gap.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced: the multi-perspective quadratic manifold is a mathematical construction, not a new particle, force, dimension, or conserved quantity. The load-bearing inputs are the empirical fact that quadratic manifolds help ROMs, the assumed constitutive equations, and per-benchmark mode-count choices. The main uncharged free parameters are the per-field mode counts and the truncation criterion, both controlled by the modeler.

free parameters (2)
  • per-field mode counts (modes for displacement, temperature, damage, plasticity state)
    Abstract states mode numbers for each coupled field are selected based on the material's physical response, with no fixed a priori rule given; these are per-benchmark choices that directly affect the reported error curves.
  • per-field truncation criterion
    The rule converting physical response into a mode-number decision is not specified in the abstract and may vary per benchmark, acting as a tunable quantity in the convergence study.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The solution set of the coupled damage-plasticity system is well approximated by a quadratic manifold (second-order polynomial embedding) built from decoupled per-field modes.
    This is the in-principle conjecture that makes the whole method viable; it is inherited from prior quadratic-manifold ROM literature, not proven within the abstract.
  • domain assumption Standard phenomenological damage and plasticity constitutive laws with local or global damage variables adequately describe the benchmark physics.
    The governing equations for the thermo-mechanically coupled problem are taken as given from the damage-mechanics literature; errors in the constitutive model would propagate into the ROM evaluation.
  • domain assumption Kolmogorov n-width theory justifies that slow singular-value decay limits linear ROMs and that the quadratic manifold overcomes the barrier.
    The paper builds on the known theoretical result about linear subspace approximation rates; the step from slow linear n-width to monotonic quadratic-manifold convergence is demonstrated only empirically, not derived.
  • domain assumption Decoupling material states and physical fields preserves the interactions needed for accuracy.
    The abstract claims the decoupling provides clearer insights, but it does not show that dropped cross-coupling terms are unimportant for damage evolution, which is a load-bearing modeling choice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A unified multi-perspective quadratic manifold for mitigating the Kolmogorov barrier in multiphysics damage." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MBK2XTCK

@misc{pith2026250818220,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A unified multi-perspective quadratic manifold for mitigating the Kolmogorov barrier in multiphysics damage},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MBK2XTCK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.18220}
}
read the original abstract

In multiphysics damage problems, material degradation is often modeled using local or global damage variables, whose evolution introduces strong nonlinearities and significant computational costs. Linear projection-based reduced-order models (ROMs) are widely used to accelerate these simulations but often fail to capture complex nonlinear damage evolution effectively. This limitation arises from the slow decay of the Kolmogorov n-width, which leads to a phenomenon known as the Kolmogorov barrier in linear approximation. To overcome this challenge, this study proposes a novel unified multi-perspective (multi-field and multi-state) quadratic manifold-based ROM framework for thermo-mechanically coupled damage-plasticity problems. A key feature lies in a multi-field and multi-state decomposition strategy that is grounded in the material's physical response to guide the selection of mode numbers for each coupled field. Moreover, the framework decouples both material states and physical fields, providing clearer insights into the contributions and interactions of each field within the overall multiphysics simulation. Benchmark tests demonstrate that the proposed approach mitigates the Kolmogorov barrier of linear projection-based ROMs by ensuring a smooth and monotonic decrease in error as the number of modes increases. The proposed multi-perspective quadratic manifold framework offers a robust and flexible approach for efficiently reducing complex damage-involved multiphysics problems and shows strong potential for industrial applications.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S. R. Ahmed, G. Ramm, and G. Faltin. Some salient features of the time-averaged ground vehicle wake. SAE transactions, pages 473--503, 1984

    1984

  2. [2]

    Ahrens, B

    J. Ahrens, B. Geveci, C. Law, C. Hansen, and C. Johnson. Paraview: An end-user tool for large-data visualization. The visualization handbook, 717: 0 717 – 731, 2005

    2005

  3. [3]

    N. M. Ames, V. Srivastava, S. A. Chester, and L. Anand. A thermo-mechanically coupled theory for large deformations of amorphous polymers. P art II : A pplications. International Journal of Plasticity, 25 0 (8): 0 1495--1539, 2009

    2009

  4. [4]

    S. S. An, T. Kim, and D. L. James. Optimizing cubature for efficient integration of subspace deformations. ACM transactions on graphics (TOG), 27 0 (5): 0 1--10, 2008

    2008

  5. [5]

    Bachmayr and A

    M. Bachmayr and A. Cohen. Kolmogorov widths and low-rank approximations of parametric elliptic PDE s. Mathematics of Computation, 86 0 (304): 0 701--724, 2017

    2017

  6. [6]

    Barnett and C

    J. Barnett and C. Farhat. Quadratic approximation manifold for mitigating the K olmogorov barrier in nonlinear projection-based model order reduction. Journal of Computational Physics, 464: 0 111348, 2022

    2022

  7. [7]

    Benner, P

    P. Benner, P. Goyal, B. Kramer, B. Peherstorfer, and K. Willcox. Operator inference for non-intrusive model reduction of systems with non-polynomial nonlinear terms. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 372: 0 113433, 2020

    2020

  8. [8]

    Benner, P

    P. Benner, P. Goyal, J. Heiland, and I. Pontes Duff. A quadratic decoder approach to nonintrusive reduced-order modeling of nonlinear dynamical systems. PAMM, 23 0 (1): 0 e202200049, 2023

    2023

Show all 98 references
  1. [9]

    Bhattacharjee and K

    S. Bhattacharjee and K. Matou s . A nonlinear manifold-based reduced order model for multiscale analysis of heterogeneous hyperelastic materials. Journal of Computational Physics, 313: 0 635--653, 2016

    2016

  2. [10]

    Brepols, S

    T. Brepols, S. Wulfinghoff, and S. Reese. A micromorphic damage-plasticity model to counteract mesh dependence in finite element simulations involving material softening. Lecture Notes in Applied and Computational Mechanics, 86: 0 235 – 255, 2018

    2018

  3. [11]

    Brepols, S

    T. Brepols, S. Wulfinghoff, and S. Reese. A gradient-extended two-surface damage-plasticity model for large deformations. International Journal of Plasticity, 129: 0 102635, 2020

    2020

  4. [12]

    Buffa, Y

    A. Buffa, Y. Maday, A. T. Patera, C. Prud’Homme, and G. Turinici. A priori convergence of the G reedy algorithmfor the parametrized reduced basis method. ESAIM: Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Analysis, 46 0 (3): 0 595--603, 2012

    2012

  5. [13]

    Bugas and B

    D. Bugas and B. Runnels. Grain boundary network plasticity: Reduced-order modeling of deformation-driven shear-coupled microstructure evolution. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 184: 0 105541, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Chapman, P

    T. Chapman, P. Avery, P. Collins, and C. Farhat. Accelerated mesh sampling for the hyper reduction of nonlinear computational models. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 109 0 (12): 0 1623--1654, 2017

    2017

  7. [15]

    Cohen, C

    A. Cohen, C. Farhat, Y. Maday, and A. Somacal. Nonlinear compressive reduced basis approximation for PDE ’s. Comptes Rendus. M \'e canique , 351 0 (S1): 0 357--374, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Cordebois and F

    J. Cordebois and F. Sidoroff. Damage induced elastic anisotropy. In Mechanical Behavior of Anisotropic Solids/Comportment M \'e chanique des Solides Anisotropes , pages 761--774. Springer, 1982

    1982

  9. [17]

    S. A. de Parga, J. Bravo, J. Hern \'a ndez, R. Zorrilla, and R. Rossi. Hyper-reduction for P etrov- G alerkin reduced order models. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 416: 0 116298, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Dittmann, F

    M. Dittmann, F. Aldakheel, J. Schulte, F. Schmidt, M. Kr \"u ger, P. Wriggers, and C. Hesch. Phase-field modeling of porous-ductile fracture in non-linear thermo-elasto-plastic solids. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 361: 0 112730, 2020

    2020

  11. [19]

    Farhat, P

    C. Farhat, P. Avery, T. Chapman, and J. Cortial. Dimensional reduction of nonlinear finite element dynamic models with finite rotations and energy-based mesh sampling and weighting for computational efficiency. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 98 0 (...

    2014

  12. [20]

    Farhat, T

    C. Farhat, T. Chapman, and P. Avery. Structure-preserving, stability, and accuracy properties of the energy-conserving sampling and weighting method for the hyper reduction of nonlinear finite element dynamic models. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, ...

    2015

  13. [21]

    Fassin, R

    M. Fassin, R. Eggersmann, S. Wulfinghoff, and S. Reese. Efficient algorithmic incorporation of tension compression asymmetry into an anisotropic damage model. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 354: 0 932--962, 2019

    2019

  14. [22]

    Felder, N

    S. Felder, N. Kopic-Osmanovic, H. Holthusen, T. Brepols, and S. Reese. Thermo-mechanically coupled gradient-extended damage-plasticity modeling of metallic materials at finite strains. International Journal of Plasticity, 148: 0 103142, 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    S. Forest. Micromorphic approach for gradient elasticity, viscoplasticity, and damage. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 135 0 (3): 0 117--131, 2009

    2009

  16. [24]

    W. Gander. Algorithms for the QR decomposition. Res. Rep, 80 0 (02): 0 1251--1268, 1980

    1980

  17. [25]

    Geelen, L

    R. Geelen, L. Balzano, and K. Willcox. Learning latent representations in high-dimensional state spaces using polynomial manifold constructions. In 2023 62nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pages 4960--4965. IEEE, 2023 a

    2023

  18. [26]

    Geelen, S

    R. Geelen, S. Wright, and K. Willcox. Operator inference for non-intrusive model reduction with quadratic manifolds. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 403: 0 115717, 2023 b

    2023

  19. [27]

    Geelen, L

    R. Geelen, L. Balzano, S. Wright, and K. Willcox. Learning physics-based reduced-order models from data using nonlinear manifolds. Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, 34 0 (3), 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Ghavamian, P

    F. Ghavamian, P. Tiso, and A. Simone. POD-DEIM model order reduction for strain-softening viscoplasticity. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 317: 0 458--479, 2017

    2017

  21. [29]

    Ghnatios, O

    C. Ghnatios, O. Cazacu, B. Revil-Baudard, and F. Chinesta. A new methodology for anisotropic yield surface description using model order reduction techniques and invariant neural network. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 184: 0 105542, 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    C. R. Goodall. 13 computation using the QR decomposition. In Computational Statistics, volume 9 of Handbook of Statistics, pages 467--508. Elsevier, 1993

    1993

  23. [31]

    I. V. Gosea, L. Peterson, P. Goyal, J. Bremer, K. Sundmacher, and P. Benner. Learning reduced-order quadratic-linear models in process engineering using operator inference. In European Conference on Numerical Mathematics and Advanced Applications, pages 365--376. Springer, 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    Goury and C

    O. Goury and C. Duriez. Fast, generic, and reliable control and simulation of soft robots using model order reduction. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 34 0 (6): 0 1565--1576, 2018

    2018

  25. [33]

    Greif and K

    C. Greif and K. Urban. Decay of the K olmogorov n -width for wave problems. Applied Mathematics Letters, 96: 0 216--222, 2019

    2019

  26. [34]

    Grimberg, C

    S. Grimberg, C. Farhat, and N. Youkilis. On the stability of projection-based model order reduction for convection-dominated laminar and turbulent flows. Journal of Computational Physics, 419: 0 109681, 2020

    2020

  27. [35]

    Grimberg, C

    S. Grimberg, C. Farhat, R. Tezaur, and C. Bou-Mosleh. Mesh sampling and weighting for the hyperreduction of nonlinear P etrov- G alerkin reduced-order models with local reduced-order bases. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 122 0 (7): 0 1846--1874, 2021

    2021

  28. [36]

    Gruber and I

    A. Gruber and I. Tezaur. Canonical and noncanonical H amiltonian operator inference. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 416: 0 116334, 2023

    2023

  29. [37]

    Grussler and P

    C. Grussler and P. Giselsson. Low-rank inducing norms with optimality interpretations. SIAM Journal on Optimization, 28 0 (4): 0 3057--3078, 2018

    2018

  30. [38]

    Halko, P.-G

    N. Halko, P.-G. Martinsson, and J. A. Tropp. Finding structure with randomness: Probabilistic algorithms for constructing approximate matrix decompositions. SIAM review, 53 0 (2): 0 217--288, 2011

    2011

  31. [39]

    J. A. Hernandez, M. A. Caicedo, and A. Ferrer. Dimensional hyper-reduction of nonlinear finite element models via empirical cubature. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 313: 0 687--722, 2017

    2017

  32. [40]

    S. Jain. Some themes in nonlinear model reduction with applications to structural dynamics. PhD thesis, ETH Zurich, 2019

    2019

  33. [41]

    Jain and P

    S. Jain and P. Tiso. Hyper-reduction over nonlinear manifolds for large nonlinear mechanical systems. Journal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics, 14 0 (8): 0 081008, 2019

    2019

  34. [42]

    S. Jain, P. Tiso, J. B. Rutzmoser, and D. J. Rixen. A quadratic manifold for model order reduction of nonlinear structural dynamics. Computers & Structures, 188: 0 80--94, 2017

    2017

  35. [43]

    Kaneko, H

    S. Kaneko, H. Wei, Q. He, J.-S. Chen, and S. Yoshimura. A hyper-reduction computational method for accelerated modeling of thermal cycling-induced plastic deformations. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 151: 0 104385, 2021

    2021

  36. [44]

    Kastian, J

    S. Kastian, J. Kehls, T. Brepols, and S. Reese. Discrete empirical interpolation method for nonlinear softening problems involving damage and plasticity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.17485, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Kerfriden, P

    P. Kerfriden, P. Gosselet, S. Adhikari, and S. P.-A. Bordas. Bridging proper orthogonal decomposition methods and augmented N ewton- K rylov algorithms: an adaptive model order reduction for highly nonlinear mechanical problems. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engine...

    2011

  38. [46]

    Kerfriden, O

    P. Kerfriden, O. Goury, T. Rabczuk, and S. P.-A. Bordas. A partitioned model order reduction approach to rationalise computational expenses in nonlinear fracture mechanics. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 256: 0 169--188, 2013

    2013

  39. [47]

    J. Korelc. Multi-language and multi-environment generation of nonlinear finite element codes. Engineering with Computers, 18: 0 312--327, 2002

    2002

  40. [48]

    Korelc and P

    J. Korelc and P. Wriggers. Automation of Finite Element Methods. Springer, 2016

    2016

  41. [49]

    Lange, G

    N. Lange, G. H \"u tter, and B. Kiefer. A monolithic hyper ROM FE ^2 method with clustered training at finite deformations. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 418: 0 116522, 2024

    2024

  42. [50]

    C. L. Lawson and R. J. Hanson. Solving least squares problems. SIAM, 1995

    1995

  43. [51]

    J. A. Lee and M. Verleysen. Nonlinear dimensionality reduction. Springer Science & Business Media, 2007

    2007

  44. [52]

    Liberty, F

    E. Liberty, F. Woolfe, P.-G. Martinsson, V. Rokhlin, and M. Tygert. Randomized algorithms for the low-rank approximation of matrices. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104 0 (51): 0 20167--20172, 2007

    2007

  45. [53]

    Lindsay, J

    P. Lindsay, J. Fike, I. Tezaur, and K. Carlberg. Preconditioned least-squares P etrov- G alerkin reduced order models. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 123 0 (20): 0 4809--4843, 2022

    2022

  46. [54]

    Lu and K

    S. Lu and K. S. Pister. Decomposition of deformation and representation of the free energy function for isotropic thermoelastic solids. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 11 0 (7-8): 0 927--934, 1975

    1975

  47. [55]

    Mersel, P

    L. Mersel, P. Bouda, J. Germain, and J. R \'e thor \'e . Dynamic damage modelling through phase-field approaches: A ssessment, critical analysis and comparison. Comptes Rendus. M \'e canique , 353 0 (G1): 0 687--724, 2025

    2025

  48. [56]

    Michel and P

    J.-C. Michel and P. Suquet. A model-reduction approach in micromechanics of materials preserving the variational structure of constitutive relations. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 90: 0 254--285, 2016

    2016

  49. [57]

    Miehe, M

    C. Miehe, M. Hofacker, and F. Welschinger. A phase field model for rate-independent crack propagation: Robust algorithmic implementation based on operator splits. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 199 0 (45-48): 0 2765 – 2778, 2010

    2010

  50. [58]

    Mishra, P

    A. Mishra, P. Carrara, S. Marfia, E. Sacco, and L. De Lorenzis. Enhanced transformation field analysis for reduced-order modeling of problems with cohesive interfaces. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 421: 0 116755, 2024

    2024

  51. [59]

    Narayan and L

    S. Narayan and L. Anand. Fracture of amorphous polymers: A gradient-damage theory. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 146: 0 104164, 2021

    2021

  52. [60]

    Ohlberger and S

    M. Ohlberger and S. Rave. Reduced basis methods: Success, limitations and future challenges. arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.02021, 2015

    2015 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Oliver, M

    J. Oliver, M. Caicedo, A. E. Huespe, J. Hern \'a ndez, and E. Roubin. Reduced order modeling strategies for computational multiscale fracture. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 313: 0 560--595, 2017

    2017

  54. [62]

    Ostwald, E

    R. Ostwald, E. Kuhl, and A. Menzel. On the implementation of finite deformation gradient-enhanced damage models. Computational Mechanics, 64 0 (3): 0 847--877, 2019

    2019

  55. [63]

    E. J. Parish and F. Rizzi. On the impact of dimensionally-consistent and physics-based inner products for POD-G alerkin and least-squares model reduction of compressible flows. Journal of Computational Physics, 491: 0 112387, 2023

    2023

  56. [64]

    Peherstorfer

    B. Peherstorfer. Model reduction for transport-dominated problems via online adaptive bases and adaptive sampling. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 42 0 (5): 0 A2803--A2836, 2020

    2020

  57. [65]

    Peherstorfer

    B. Peherstorfer. Breaking the K olmogorov barrier with nonlinear model reduction. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 69 0 (5): 0 725--733, 2022

    2022

  58. [66]

    A. Pinkus. N-widths in Approximation Theory, volume 7. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    2012

  59. [67]

    M. J. Powell. Least F robenius norm updating of quadratic models that satisfy interpolation conditions. Mathematical Programming, 100: 0 183--215, 2004

    2004

  60. [68]

    Prume, C

    E. Prume, C. Gierden, M. Ortiz, and S. Reese. Direct data-driven algorithms for multiscale mechanics. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 433: 0 117525, 2025

    2025

  61. [69]

    H. Qiao, P. Zhang, D. Wang, and B. Zhang. An explicit nonlinear mapping for manifold learning. IEEE transactions on cybernetics, 43 0 (1): 0 51--63, 2012

    2012

  62. [70]

    Radermacher and S

    A. Radermacher and S. Reese. A comparison of projection-based model reduction concepts in the context of nonlinear biomechanics. Archive of Applied Mechanics, 83 0 (8): 0 1193--1213, 2013

    2013

  63. [71]

    Radermacher and S

    A. Radermacher and S. Reese. POD -based model reduction with empirical interpolation applied to nonlinear elasticity. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 107 0 (6): 0 477--495, 2016

    2016

  64. [72]

    S. Reese. Thermomechanische Modellierung gummiartiger Polymerstrukturen. Institut für Baumechanik und Numerische Mechanik, Leibniz Universität Hannover, 2001

    2001

  65. [73]

    I. B. Rocha, F. P. van der Meer, L. A. Moror \'o , and L. J. Sluys. Accelerating crack growth simulations through adaptive model order reduction. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 121 0 (10): 0 2147--2173, 2020

    2020

  66. [74]

    Rokhlin, A

    V. Rokhlin, A. Szlam, and M. Tygert. A randomized algorithm for principal component analysis. SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications, 31 0 (3): 0 1100--1124, 2010

    2010

  67. [75]

    H. Ruan, S. Rezaei, Y. Yang, D. Gross, and B.-X. Xu. A thermo-mechanical phase-field fracture model: A pplication to hot cracking simulations in additive manufacturing. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 172: 0 105169, 2023

    2023

  68. [76]

    Ruan, X.-L

    H. Ruan, X.-L. Peng, Y. Yang, D. Gross, and B.-X. Xu. Phase-field ductile fracture simulations of thermal cracking in additive manufacturing. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 191: 0 105756, 2024

    2024

  69. [77]

    Rutzmoser

    J. Rutzmoser. Model order reduction for nonlinear structural dynamics: simulation-free approaches. PhD thesis, Technische Universit \"a t M \"u nchen, 2018

    2018

  70. [78]

    Rutzmoser and D

    J. Rutzmoser and D. Rixen. A lean and efficient snapshot generation technique for the hyper-reduction of nonlinear structural dynamics. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 325: 0 330--349, 2017

    2017

  71. [79]

    J. B. Rutzmoser, D. J. Rixen, P. Tiso, and S. Jain. Generalization of quadratic manifolds for reduced order modeling of nonlinear structural dynamics. Computers & Structures, 192: 0 196--209, 2017

    2017

  72. [80]

    Ryckelynck

    D. Ryckelynck. A priori hyperreduction method: an adaptive approach. Journal of Computational Physics, 202 0 (1): 0 346--366, 2005

    2005

  73. [81]

    Selvaraj and S

    J. Selvaraj and S. R. Hallett. Adaptive and variable model order reduction method for fracture modelling using explicit time integration. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 418: 0 116506, 2024

    2024

  74. [82]

    Stojanovic, S

    R. Stojanovic, S. Djuric, and L. Vujosevic. On finite thermal deformations. Archiwum Mechaniki Stosowanej, 16: 0 103--108, 1964

    1964

  75. [83]

    R. L. Taylor. FEAP - F inite E lement A nalysis P rogram, 2014

    2014

  76. [84]

    Tezaur, F

    R. Tezaur, F. As’ad, and C. Farhat. Robust and globally efficient reduction of parametric, highly nonlinear computational models and real time online performance. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 399: 0 115392, 2022

    2022

  77. [85]

    Trainotti, J

    F. Trainotti, J. Marinko, J. Maierhofer, and D. J. Rixen. ECSW hyperreduction of hyper-viscoelastic components via co-simulation with abaqus. Finite Elements in Analysis and Design, 241: 0 104222, 2024

    2024

  78. [86]

    Volkwein

    S. Volkwein. Proper orthogonal decomposition: Theory and reduced-order modelling. Lecture Notes, University of Konstanz, 4 0 (4): 0 1--29, 2013

    2013

  79. [87]

    Washabaugh, D

    K. Washabaugh, D. Amsallem, M. Zahr, and C. Farhat. Nonlinear model reduction for CFD problems using local reduced-order bases. In 42nd AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit, page 2686, 2012

    2012

  80. [88]

    K. M. Washabaugh. Faster fidelity for better design: A scalable model order reduction framework for steady aerodynamic design applications. PhD thesis, Stanford University, 2016

    2016

  81. [89]

    Z. Wei, S. Gerke, and M. Br \"u nig. Damage and fracture behavior under non-proportional biaxial reverse loading in ductile metals: Experiments and material modeling. International Journal of Plasticity, 171: 0 103774, 2023

    2023

  82. [90]

    Z. Wei, S. Gerke, and M. Br \"u nig. Numerical analysis of non-proportional biaxial reverse experiments with a two-surface anisotropic cyclic plasticity-damage approach. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 419: 0 116630, 2024

    2024

  83. [91]

    Woolfe, E

    F. Woolfe, E. Liberty, V. Rokhlin, and M. Tygert. A fast randomized algorithm for the approximation of matrices. Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis, 25 0 (3): 0 335--366, 2008

    2008

  84. [92]

    J.-Y. Wu. A unified phase-field theory for the mechanics of damage and quasi-brittle failure. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 103: 0 72--99, 2017

    2017

  85. [93]

    J.-Y. Wu, V. P. Nguyen, C. T. Nguyen, D. Sutula, S. Sinaie, and S. P. Bordas. Phase-field modeling of fracture. Advances in Applied Mechanics, 53: 0 1--183, 2020

    2020

  86. [94]

    Wulfinghoff

    S. Wulfinghoff. Empirically corrected cluster cubature ( E3C ). Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 437: 0 117779, 2025

    2025

  87. [95]

    Zhang, B

    Q. Zhang, B. Mortazavi, X. Zhuang, and F. Aldakheel. Exploring the mechanical properties of two-dimensional carbon-nitride polymer nanocomposites by molecular dynamics simulations. Composite Structures, 281: 0 115004, 2022

    2022

  88. [96]

    Zhang, J

    Q. Zhang, J. Zhang, S. Reese, and T. Brepols. A nonlinear manifold model order reduction approach for thermo-mechanically coupled plasticity. PAMM, page e202400070, 2024

    2024

  89. [97]

    Zhang, S

    Q. Zhang, S. Ritzert, J. Zhang, J. Kehls, S. Reese, and T. Brepols. A multi-field decomposed model order reduction approach for thermo-mechanically coupled gradient-extended damage simulations. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 434: 0 117535, 2025 a

    2025

  90. [98]

    Zhang, N

    Q. Zhang, N. Valizadeh, M. Liu, X. Zhuang, and B. Mortazavi. Hierarchical multiscale fracture modeling of carbon-nitride nanosheet reinforced composites by combining cohesive phase-field and molecular dynamics. Composite Structures, page 118942, 2025 b

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.