Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 59 references

Bayesian dynamic mode decomposition for real-time ship motion digital twinning

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a Bayesian extension of Hankel dynamic mode decomposition can nowcast a destroyer's motions in sea state 7 up to five wave encounter periods with better accuracy than the deterministic version, while producing…

desk verdict A useful Bayesian DMD ensemble undermined by a claim its own tables contradict and a tuning-on-test-data setup — worth major revision, not rejection. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14839 v1 pith:W6X5IJIJ submitted 2024-11-22 stat.AP cs.LGmath.DS

Giorgio Palma , Andrea Serani , Kevin McTaggart , Shawn Aram , David W. Wundrow , David Drazen , Matteo Diez This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.APcs.LGmath.DS MSC 62F1562M2062P30
keywords BayesiandynamicmodedecompositionHankel-DMDshipmotionnowcastingdigitaltwinuncertaintyquantificationseastate7data-drivenreducedordermodel5415Mdestroyer
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 seeks to establish that a Bayesian extension of Hankel dynamic mode decomposition (Hankel-DMD) can act as a real-time, data-lean nowcasting engine for ship motions inside a naval digital twin. The core idea is to treat the method's two tuning parameters—how much recent history to use and how many time-delayed copies to embed—as random variables, and to report the mean and spread of predictions across many hyperparameter draws. The authors show on simulated course-keeping data for a 5415M destroyer in beam-quartering sea state 7 waves that this Bayesian mean outperforms the best deterministic hyperparameter choice for most error metrics and prediction windows, with forecasts staying accurate up to five wave encounter periods. If the method works as claimed, ships could continuously update short-term motion forecasts at very low cost while also getting a signal for when those forecasts are unreliable.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Bayesian Hankel-DMD predictor. Standard Hankel-DMD augments the measured state vector (heave, roll, pitch, yaw, rudder angle, surge and sway velocities) with $s$ time-delayed copies, builds the data matrices $\hat{X}$ and $\hat{X}'$, and extracts DMD modes and eigenvalues via full SVD, giving a modal expansion $x(t)=\sum_{k} \phi_k b_k \exp(\omega_k t)$ that predicts the future. The Bayesian extension treats the two hyperparameters—observation duration $l_{tr}$ and delay duration $l_d$—as independent uniform random variables over ranges chosen from a prior deterministic hyperparameter study, and uses 100 Monte Carlo samples to integrate the prediction into a normal distribution with mean $\bar{x}(t)$ and standard deviation $\sigma_x(t)$. The mean is the improved forecast; the standard deviation is the claimed reliability estimate, visualized through Chebyshev's inequality with a coverage factor of two.

What would settle it

Take the exact trained setup (same code, same prior ranges, same Monte Carlo count) and apply it to a different ship speed, heading, or sea state, comparing the Bayesian mean against the deterministic best configuration on prediction windows of one, two, and five encounter periods. If the Bayesian mean loses to the deterministic best on more than a small share of solver/metric/window combinations, or if the standard deviation shows no relation to actual error, the paper's core claim is contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that Bayesian Hankel-DMD significantly improves the accuracy of the predictions compared to the deterministic method, and that the standard deviation of the Bayesian prediction is correlated with the actual forecast error. The implementation replaces a single choice of observation length $l_{tr}$ and delay length $l_d$ with uniform priors ($l_{tr}/\hat{T}$ between 1 and 5, $l_d/l_{tr}$ between half and three-quarters), draws 100 Monte Carlo samples, and uses the sample mean as the forecast and the sample spread as the uncertainty. On the 5415M course-keeping test case with three CFD solvers, the Bayesian mean improves over the best deterministic hyperparameter configuration for NRMSE and NAMMAE across all solvers and windows, and improves JSD in most combinations, with the CFDShip-Iowa JSD values being slightly worse in the reported tables. The paper also reports a computational cost of a few hundredths of a second per deterministic prediction, with the Monte Carlo runs embarrassingly parallel.

Load-bearing premise

The prior ranges for the two hyperparameters were chosen after running the deterministic algorithm on these same datasets and seeing which ranges worked best, so the Bayesian improvement is only proven for conditions where those prior ranges happen to be right.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A ship operator could use the Bayesian mean forecast instead of a single deterministic DMD run and get better average accuracy at essentially the same real-time cost, since the Monte Carlo draws are independent and parallelizable.
  • The correlation between predicted standard deviation and actual error gives a principled way to flag low-confidence forecasts: when $\sigma_x(t)$ rises, the forecast should not be trusted for high-regret decisions.
  • Because the ROM is rebuilt from the near past whenever a new prediction is needed, the method adapts as the ship's state evolves, matching the 'as-is' updating requirement of digital twins without a large training database.
  • The improvement is largest for the shortest prediction window and shrinks as the horizon approaches five encounter periods, suggesting the method is best suited for nowcasting rather than long-horizon seakeeping prediction.
  • For NRMSE and NAMMAE, all three independent solvers agree on the improvement, so the result is unlikely to be an artifact of one CFD code, though the underlying dynamics all come from simulations rather than full-scale measurements.

Reading between the lines

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

  • This suggests a general recipe for other DMD-based reduced-order models: if a few hyperparameters dominate accuracy, Bayesian marginalization over them can improve accuracy and yield an uncertainty estimate even without a deeper probabilistic model.
  • The most direct untested extension is to close the loop with the uncertainty: use the predicted standard deviation as an online trigger to re-train the ROM or shorten the forecast horizon, something the paper motivates but does not implement.
  • A fair generalization test would fix the prior ranges on one condition (for example, one solver) and evaluate on another; the cross-solver consistency reported in the paper makes this feasible and is the natural next experiment.
  • If the uncertainty estimates remain informative for full-scale motions, they could be fed into model predictive control or fatigue monitoring as risk weights, converting a point forecast into a decision input; the paper only hints at this possibility.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a Bayesian extension of Hankel dynamic mode decomposition (Hankel-DMD) for nowcasting ship motions in waves, targeting digital-twin applications. The method treats two Hankel-DMD hyperparameters—the training window length ltr and the maximum delay length ld—as uniformly distributed random variables, computes many deterministic Hankel-DMD predictions via Monte Carlo sampling, and uses the sample mean and standard deviation as the forecast and its uncertainty. The approach is tested on course-keeping simulations of the 5415M destroyer in beam-quartering irregular waves (sea state 7 at Fr = 0.33) using data from three CFD/potential-flow solvers (CFDShip-Iowa, TEMPEST, ShipMo3D). The evaluation uses 250 prediction starting points and three error metrics (NRMSE, NAMMAE, JSD) over forecasting horizons up to five encounter periods. The paper reports that the Bayesian formulation improves prediction accuracy and provides uncertainty estimates that correlate with prediction error, while remaining fast enough for real-time use.

Significance. The digital-twin motivation and the real-time execution time are valuable. The method is data-lean, adaptive, and computationally cheap (about 0.05 s per deterministic prediction), and the evaluation across three independent solvers with a 250-start statistical protocol is a strength. If the claimed improvements and the uncertainty-error correlation were shown to be robust, the method would be a genuinely useful nowcasting component for naval digital twins. However, the paper's central claim of consistent improvement across all metrics is contradicted by its own summary tables, and the selection of the prior ranges on the same test data undermines the independence of the comparison. The work is therefore significant as a proposal, but it requires a re-analysis and more careful, defensible claims before it can be accepted as reported.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 6 (Conclusion) vs Tables 3–4] The conclusion states that 'the Bayesian Hankel-DMD significantly improves the accuracy of the predictions compared to the deterministic method considering all the metrics.' This is contradicted by the paper's own Tables 3 and 4. For CFDShip-Iowa, the Bayesian JSD is worse than the best deterministic configuration at every forecast horizon: 0.0250 vs 0.0141 at lte=T, 0.0293 vs 0.0217 at lte=2T, and 0.0375 vs 0.0353 at lte=5T. The Bayesian NAMMAE is also worse at lte=T (0.2740 vs 0.2568). Only NRMSE improves in that block. The authors should either revise the conclusion to a more limited claim (for example, improvement in the majority of cases or improvement in NRMSE) or provide a concrete explanation for why these counter-examples do not contradict the 'all metrics' statement.
  2. [Sections 4 and 5.2] The prior ranges used by the Bayesian method are selected after the full-factorial deterministic analysis on the same dataset, as stated in Section 4 ('their ranges of variation are defined after a full-factorial numerical experiment in order to identify reasonable promising combinations') and Section 5.2 (the ranges are obtained by 'integrating the insights on the hyperparameters derived from the deterministic analysis'). In addition, the 'best' deterministic baseline in Tables 2–4 is selected using the same 250 test starting points (Section 5.1). This creates a selection-on-test-data loop: both the Bayesian ensemble and the deterministic baseline are tuned to the same test set on which they are then compared. A fair evaluation would determine the prior ranges (or at least the deterministic baseline) on a training split and evaluate both methods on a separate validation set. Without this, the reported improvement may not generalize to other sea states, speeds, or hulls.
  3. [Section 5.2 and Figures 9–11] The claim that 'The Bayesian algorithm consistently outperforms the deterministic one across all three metrics' is not only contradicted by Tables 2–4, but the comparison is also asymmetrical: the Bayesian result is an average over a range of hyperparameters, while the deterministic result is the single best configuration found on the same test data. This mixes model averaging with parameter selection. The comparison should either be re-framed as 'Bayesian model average vs. a selected deterministic configuration' or, preferably, extended to compare the Bayesian average against the full distribution of deterministic configurations, so that the claimed advantage is not an artifact of comparing an average to a point selected under favorable conditions.
  4. [Section 5.2 and Figures 7–8] The paper claims a 'direct correlation' between the predicted standard deviation and the prediction accuracy ('The standard deviation of the forecast appears directly correlated with the accuracy of the prediction'). This is supported only by a qualitative comparison of one successful and one unsuccessful example. Since the uncertainty-reliability link is stated as one of the four digital-twin requirements (point iv in Section 1), a quantitative assessment is needed—for example, the correlation between the Bayesian standard deviation and the actual prediction error across the 250 starting points, or a calibration analysis of the stated 88.89% Chebyshev interval. Without such evidence, the reliability-information claim is not established.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 3] The table header reads 'NAMMAAE', which appears to be a typo for 'NAMMAE'.
  2. [Section 5.2] The method is called 'Bayesian' although the hyperparameters are only assigned fixed uniform priors and no data-updated posterior is computed; a more precise description would be 'Bayesian model averaging with prior-only weights' or 'ensemble-averaged DMD'.
  3. [Figures 7 and 8] The captions refer to 'random time series', but the text identifies the panels as examples of successful and unsuccessful predictions; the captions should match the actual selection criterion.
  4. [Equations (20)–(23)] Some symbols in the metric definitions are not explicitly defined at first use (e.g., Q, R, M, and the domain χ); please add definitions for completeness.
  5. [Section 5.2] The timing test is reported only for the largest configuration (ltr/T = 5, ld/T = 5); reporting the timing range across all tested configurations would strengthen the real-time claim.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The Bayesian prior support is fitted to the same 250 starting points later used to evaluate the Bayesian method, so the claimed improvement is a tuned-ensemble comparison rather than an independent prediction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 5.2 (Bayesian algorithm), with prior range from Section 5.1 Eq. (24); evaluation described in Section 5.2]
    "The Bayesian extension of the algorithm is obtained by integrating the insights on the hyperparameters derived from the deterministic analysis, identifying the most promising range for the hyperparameters in terms of prediction accuracy. The training time history length is treated as a probabilistic variable, uniformly distributed between 1 and 5 encounter wave periods, ltr/T ~ U(1, 5). ... ld ~ U(1/2 ltr, 3/4 ltr). ..."

    Eq. (24) in Section 5.1 selects the prior support (1 <= ltr/T <= 5 and 1/2 <= ld/ltr <= 3/4) by inspecting the deterministic Hankel-DMD error on all three metrics and prediction windows for the same 250 starting points that are later used in Section 5.2 to evaluate the Bayesian mean ('the same set of 250 random time series'). The Bayesian forecast is therefore an average over hyperparameter values already known to be promising for those exact test windows. Comparing this tuned ensemble with the best deterministic configuration on the same windows measures a prior fitted to the target data, not an independent predictive improvement. The claimed Bayesian superiority and the uncertainty-accuracy correlation are partly constructed by this prior choice.

full rationale

The Bayesian Hankel-DMD itself is a well-defined Monte Carlo average of deterministic Hankel-DMD predictions over a uniform prior on (ltr, ld); the mathematics of Eqs. (18)-(19) is not circular. The circularity is in the evaluation protocol: the prior support is Eq. (24), obtained from the deterministic full-factorial experiment on the same 250 test starting points used for the Bayesian assessment (Sections 5.1 and 5.2). Thus the headline claim that the Bayesian formulation 'significantly improves the accuracy ... considering all the metrics' is an evaluation of a prior tuned on the test data, not an out-of-sample claim. This warrants a partial-circularity score. Separately, the conclusion's 'all metrics' wording is contradicted by the paper's own Tables 3 and 4 (e.g., CFDShip-Iowa Bayesian JSD is 0.0250 vs 0.0141 at lte=T, and NAMMAE is 0.2740 vs 0.2568 at lte=T), but that is a reporting/accuracy issue rather than circularity. No load-bearing self-citation chain was found: prior DMD works by the same authors are cited for context and for the Hankel-DMD/forecasting baseline, while the Bayesian extension's equations are derived in the paper from the cited external DMD machinery.

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

The method introduces no new physical entities. The main free parameters are the two prior ranges for ltr and ld, which are fitted to the same dataset's performance. The reliability of the central claims also rests on domain assumptions about DMD's local linearizability, the Koopman-invariance of time-delay embeddings, and the representativeness of CFD data for real ship motions.

free parameters (2)
  • ltr prior lower and upper bounds = T and 5T (T = wave encounter period)
    Selected to match the deterministic hyperparameter sweep that achieved lowest NRMSE on the same dataset (Section 5.2).
  • ld prior range factor = 0.5 to 0.75 of ltr
    Chosen from the deterministic analysis as the optimal ld/ltr range (Eq. 24, Section 5.2).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption DMD approximates the nonlinear ship dynamics with a locally linear model via the Koopman operator.
    Section 2.1, Eq. (13) represents the forecast as a modal expansion of a linear operator.
  • domain assumption Time-delayed copies of the state span a Koopman-invariant subspace.
    Section 2.2, adopted from Brunton et al. 2017 and Kamb et al. 2020 (refs [34,44]).
  • ad hoc to paper Uniform priors on ltr and ld with data-informed ranges are appropriate for the Bayesian ensemble.
    Section 5.2; the ranges are set from the same dataset's deterministic performance, which is the main circularity burden.
  • domain assumption CFD-simulated motion data for the 5415M in one sea state and heading are representative for validating the nowcasting method.
    Section 3; no experimental or full-scale data are used.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bayesian dynamic mode decomposition for real-time ship motion digital twinning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W6X5IJIJ

@misc{pith2026241114839,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bayesian dynamic mode decomposition for real-time ship motion digital twinning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W6X5IJIJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14839}
}
read the original abstract

Digital twins are widely considered enablers of groundbreaking changes in the development, operation, and maintenance of novel generations of products. They are meant to provide reliable and timely predictions to inform decisions along the entire product life cycle. One of their most interesting applications in the naval field is the digital twinning of ship performances in waves, a crucial aspect in design and operation safety. In this paper, a Bayesian extension of the Hankel dynamic mode decomposition method is proposed for ship motion's nowcasting as a prediction tool for naval digital twins. The proposed algorithm meets all the requirements for formulations devoted to digital twinning, being able to adapt the resulting models with the data incoming from the physical system, using a limited amount of data, producing real-time predictions, and estimating their reliability. Results are presented and discussed for the course-keeping of the 5415M model in beam-quartering sea state 7 irregular waves at Fr = 0.33, using data from three different CFD solvers. The results show predictions keeping good accuracy levels up to five wave encounter periods, with the Bayesian formulation improving the deterministic forecasts. In addition, a connection between the predicted uncertainty and prediction accuracy is found.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14839 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Setup and notation for the current test case [14] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. CFD versus nominal JONSWAP spectrum (encounter wave). Note that wave probe 2 is used for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Sketch of the nowcasting approach with Hankel-DMD. The DMD in its Hankel variation (with and without control) exposes two main hyperparameters, i.e., the length of the training time histories, ltr, and the number of delayed copies, that can be expressed as the shift of the most delayed embedded time history ld . These two values deeply affect the prediction capability of the methods, while no general rule is given f… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Error metrics from prediction statistical analysis of hyperparameters configurations, Hankel-DMD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Error metrics from prediction statistical analysis of hyperparameters configurations, Hankel-DMD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Error metrics from prediction statistical analysis of hyperparameters configurations, Hankel-DMD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Nowcasting prediction of random time series by Hankel-DMD (best hyperparameters) and Bayesian Hankel-DMD. CFDShip-Iowa: (a) and (d); TEMPEST: (b) and (e); ShipMo3D: (c) and (f). 5.2 Bayesian algorithm The Bayesian extension of the algorithm is obtained by integrating t…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Nowcasting prediction of random time series by Hankel-DMD (best hyperparameters) and Bayesian Hankel-DMD. CFDShip-Iowa: (a) and (d); TEMPEST: (b) and (e); ShipMo3D: (c) and (f). ltr, ld is also considered a probabilistic variable, uniformly distributed within the inter…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Error metrics from nowcasting statistical analysis, deterministic vs Bayesian forecasting algorithm, CFDShip-Iowa data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Error metrics from nowcasting statistical analysis, deterministic vs Bayesian forecasting algorithm, TEMPEST data. improvement in the accuracy prediction obtained by the Bayesian algorithm is also confirmed by Tables 2 to 4, where a comparison with the best determinis…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Error metrics from nowcasting statistical analysis, deterministic vs Bayesian forecasting algorithm, ShipMo3D data. incoming data from the physical twin. This holds also for the Bayesian extension of the algorithm, which requires multiple estimations with different hy…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Codesseira and Eduardo A

    Victor C. Codesseira and Eduardo A. Tannuri. Path following control for autonomous ship using model predictive control. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 54(16):57–62, 2021. 13th IFAC Conference on Control Applications in Marine Systems, Robotics, and Vehicles CAMS 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Model predictive control for ship path tracking with disturbances

    Zhengyang Dong, Linying Chen, Pengfei Chen, and Junmin Mou. Model predictive control for ship path tracking with disturbances. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Unmanned Systems (ICUS) , pages 1487–1492, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Data-driven model predictive control for ships with gaussian process

    Peilong Xu, Hongde Qin, Jingran Ma, Zhongchao Deng, and Yifan Xue. Data-driven model predictive control for ships with gaussian process. Ocean Engineering, 268:113420, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Cooperative model predictive control for ship formation tracking with communication delays

    Jingxi Zhang, Junmin Mou, Linying Chen, Pengfei Chen, and Mengxia Li. Cooperative model predictive control for ship formation tracking with communication delays. Ocean Engineering, 291:116272, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    From data to insight for a polar supply and research vessel

    Anriëtte Bekker, Mikko Suominen, Pentti Kujala, Rosca Johan Oscar De Waal, and Keith Ian Soal. From data to insight for a polar supply and research vessel. Ship Technology Research, 66(1):57–73, 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Towards a digital twin approach for vessel-specific fatigue damage monitoring and prognosis

    Eric VanDerHorn, Zhenghua Wang, and Sankaran Mahadevan. Towards a digital twin approach for vessel-specific fatigue damage monitoring and prognosis. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 219:108222, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Digital twin: Definition & value

    Digital Engineering Integration Committee AIAA. Digital twin: Definition & value. Technical report, AIAA and AIA Position Paper, 2020

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Digital twin: Values, challenges and enablers from a modeling perspective

    Adil Rasheed, Omer San, and Trond Kvamsdal. Digital twin: Values, challenges and enablers from a modeling perspective. IEEE Access, 8:21980–22012, 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    G.E.P . Box. Robustness in the strategy of scientific model building. In ROBERT L. LAUNER and GRAHAM N. WILKINSON, editors, Robustness in Statistics, pages 201–236. Academic Press, 1979

    1979

  2. [10]

    West and Mark Blackburn

    Timothy D. West and Mark Blackburn. Is digital thread/digital twin affordable? a systemic assessment of the cost of dod’s latest manhattan project. Procedia Computer Science, 114:47–56, 2017. Complex Adaptive Systems Conference with Theme: Engineering Cyber Physical Systems, C...

    2017

  3. [11]

    Schirmann, Matthew Collette, and James W

    Matthew L. Schirmann, Matthew Collette, and James W. Gose. Ship motion and fatigue damage estimation via a digital twin. In Life Cycle Analysis and Assessment in Civil Engineering: Towards an Integrated Vision, pages 2075–2082, Ghent, Belgium, 2018. CRC Press. Num Pages: 8

    2018

  4. [12]

    Digital twin development-condition monitoring and simulation compari- son for the revolt autonomous model ship

    Alexander Danielsen-Haces. Digital twin development-condition monitoring and simulation compari- son for the revolt autonomous model ship. Master’s thesis, NTNU, 2018

    2018

  5. [13]

    Real-time digital twin for ship operation in waves

    Jae-Hoon Lee, Yoon-Seo Nam, Yonghwan Kim, Yuming Liu, Jaehak Lee, and Heesuk Yang. Real-time digital twin for ship operation in waves. Ocean Engineering, 266:112867, 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    URANS analysis of a free-running destroyer sailing in irregular stern-quartering waves at sea state 7

    Andrea Serani, Matteo Diez, Frans van Walree, and Frederick Stern. URANS analysis of a free-running destroyer sailing in irregular stern-quartering waves at sea state 7. Ocean Engineering, 237:109600, 2021

    2021

  7. [15]

    CFD validation and analysis of turning maneuvers of a surface combatant in regular waves

    Shawn Aram and Philipp Mucha. CFD validation and analysis of turning maneuvers of a surface combatant in regular waves. Ocean Engineering, 293:116653, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Lee, Matteo Diez, Emily L

    Evan J. Lee, Matteo Diez, Emily L. Harrison, Minyee J. Jiang, Lawrence A. Snyder, Ann Marie R. Powers, Raymond J. Bay, Andrea Serani, Maria L. Nadal, Eric R. Kubina, and Frederick Stern. Experimental and computational fluid-structure interaction analysis and optimization of de...

    2024

  9. [17]

    Reduced-order model for ship motions incorporating a volume-based calculation of body-nonlinear hydrostatic and Froude-Krylov forces

    Kenneth Weems and Vadim Belenky. Reduced-order model for ship motions incorporating a volume-based calculation of body-nonlinear hydrostatic and Froude-Krylov forces. Ocean Engineering, 289:116214, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    A semi- empirical ship operational performance prediction model for voyage optimization towards energy efficient shipping

    Ruihua Lu, Osman Turan, Evangelos Boulougouris, Charlotte Banks, and Atilla Incecik. A semi- empirical ship operational performance prediction model for voyage optimization towards energy efficient shipping. Ocean Engineering, 110:18–28, 2015. Energy Efficient Ship Design and ...

    2015

  11. [19]

    Data-driven forecasting of ship motions in waves using machine learning and dynamic mode decomposition

    Matteo Diez, Mauro Gaggero, and Andrea Serani. Data-driven forecasting of ship motions in waves using machine learning and dynamic mode decomposition. International Journal of Adaptive Control and Signal Processing, n/a(n/a), 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    SIAM, 2016

    J Nathan Kutz, Steven L Brunton, Bingni W Brunton, and Joshua L Proctor.Dynamic Mode Decomposition: Data-Driven Modeling of Complex Systems. SIAM, 2016

    2016

  13. [21]

    Dynamic mode decomposition of hairpin vortices generated by a hemisphere protuberance

    ZhanQi Tang and Nan Jiang. Dynamic mode decomposition of hairpin vortices generated by a hemisphere protuberance. Science China Physics, Mechanics and Astronomy, 55(1):118–124, Jan 2012

    2012

  14. [22]

    Analysis of time-resolved piv measurements of a confined turbulent jet using pod and Koopman modes

    Onofrio Semeraro, Gabriele Bellani, and Fredrik Lundell. Analysis of time-resolved piv measurements of a confined turbulent jet using pod and Koopman modes. Experiments in Fluids, 53(5):1203–1220, Nov 2012

    2012

  15. [23]

    G. Song, F. Alizard, J.-C. Robinet, and X. Gloerfelt. Global and Koopman modes analysis of sound generation in mixing layers. Physics of Fluids, 25(12):124101, 12 2013

    2013

  16. [24]

    Rowley, IGOR Meziç, SHERVIN Bagheri, PHILIPP Schlatter, and DAN S

    CLARENCE W. Rowley, IGOR Meziç, SHERVIN Bagheri, PHILIPP Schlatter, and DAN S. Henningson. Spectral analysis of nonlinear flows. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 641:115–127, 2009

    2009

  17. [25]

    PETER J. Schmid. Dynamic mode decomposition of numerical and experimental data. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 656:5–28, 2010

    2010

  18. [26]

    A. A. Kaptanoglu, K. D. Morgan, C. J. Hansen, and S. L. Brunton. Characterizing magnetized plasmas with dynamic mode decomposition. Physics of Plasmas, 27(3):032108, 03 2020

    2020

  19. [27]

    Proctor and Philip A

    Joshua L. Proctor and Philip A. Eckhoff. Discovering dynamic patterns from infectious disease data using dynamic mode decomposition. International Health, 7(2):139–145, 02 2015

    2015

  20. [28]

    Brunton, Lise A

    Bingni W. Brunton, Lise A. Johnson, Jeffrey G. Ojemann, and J. Nathan Kutz. Extracting spatial–temporal coherent patterns in large-scale neural recordings using dynamic mode decomposition. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 258:1–15, 2016

    2016

  21. [29]

    Brunton, Marko Budiši´ c, Eurika Kaiser, and J

    Steven L. Brunton, Marko Budiši´ c, Eurika Kaiser, and J. Nathan Kutz. Modern Koopman theory for dynamical systems. SIAM Review, 64(2):229–340, 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    Campana, and Frederick Stern

    Matteo Diez, Andrea Serani, Emilio F. Campana, and Frederick Stern. Time-series forecasting of ships maneuvering in waves via dynamic mode decomposition. Journal of Ocean Engineering and Marine Energy, 8(4):471–478, Nov 2022

    2022

  23. [31]

    Serani, M

    A. Serani, M. Diez, S. Aram, D. Wundrow, D. Drazen, and K. McTaggart. Model order reduction of 5415M in irregular waves via dynamic mode decomposition: Computational models’ diagnostics, forecasting, and system identification capabilities. In 35th Symposium on Naval Hydrodynam...

    2024

  24. [32]

    On the use of dynamic mode decomposition for time-series forecasting of ships operating in waves

    Andrea Serani, Paolo Dragone, Frederick Stern, and Matteo Diez. On the use of dynamic mode decomposition for time-series forecasting of ships operating in waves. Ocean Engineering, 267:113235, 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    Improving knowledge and forecasting of ship performance in waves via hybrid machine learning methods

    Matteo Diez, Andrea Serani, Mauro Gaggero, and Emilio Fortunato Campana. Improving knowledge and forecasting of ship performance in waves via hybrid machine learning methods. In 34th Symposium on Naval HydrodynamicsWashington, DC, USA, June 26 - July 1, 2022, 2022

    2022

  26. [34]

    Brunton, Bingni W

    Steven L. Brunton, Bingni W. Brunton, Joshua L. Proctor, Eurika Kaiser, and J. Nathan Kutz. Chaos as an intermittently forced linear system. Nature Communications, 8(1):19, May 2017

    2017

  27. [35]

    Time-delay observables for Koopman: Theory and applications

    Mason Kamb, Eurika Kaiser, Steven L Brunton, and J Nathan Kutz. Time-delay observables for Koopman: Theory and applications. SIAM Journal on Applied Dynamical Systems, pages 886–917, Vol. 19, No. 2, 2020

    2020

  28. [36]

    TEMPEST level-0 theory

    Michael J Hughes, Bradley L Campbell, William F Belknap, and Timothy C Smith. TEMPEST level-0 theory. Technical report, Technical Report NSWCCD-50-TR-2011/011, Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division, 2011

    2011

  29. [37]

    McTaggart

    K. McTaggart. Rapid simulation of ship motions during maneuvering in operational wave conditions. In Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers Maritime Convention, 2019

    2019

  30. [38]

    Carrica, and Frederick Stern

    Juntao Huang, Pablo M. Carrica, and Frederick Stern. Semi-coupled air/water immersed boundary approach for curvilinear dynamic overset grids with application to ship hydrodynamics. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, pages 591–624, Vol. 58, No. 6, 2008

    2008

  31. [39]

    Tu, Clarence W

    Jonathan H. Tu, Clarence W. Rowley, Dirk M. Luchtenburg, Steven L. Brunton, and J. Nathan Kutz. On dynamic mode decomposition: Theory and applications. Journal of Computational Dynamics, 1(2):391–421, 2014

    2014

  32. [40]

    Otto and Clarence W

    Samuel E. Otto and Clarence W. Rowley. Linearly recurrent autoencoder networks for learning dynamics. SIAM Journal on Applied Dynamical Systems, 18(1):558–593, 2019

    2019

  33. [41]

    Learning Koopman invariant subspaces for dynamic mode decomposition

    Naoya Takeishi, Yoshinobu Kawahara, and Takehisa Yairi. Learning Koopman invariant subspaces for dynamic mode decomposition. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS’17, page 1130–1140, Red Hook, NY, USA, 2017. Curran A...

    2017

  34. [42]

    Nathan Kutz, and Steven L

    Bethany Lusch, J. Nathan Kutz, and Steven L. Brunton. Deep learning for universal linear embeddings of nonlinear dynamics. Nature Communications, 9(1):4950, Nov 2018

    2018

  35. [43]

    Brunton, Bingni W

    Steven L. Brunton, Bingni W. Brunton, Joshua L. Proctor, and J. Nathan Kutz. Koopman invariant subspaces and finite linear representations of nonlinear dynamical systems for control. PLOS ONE, 11(2):1–19, 02 2016

    2016

  36. [44]

    On the structure of time-delay embedding in linear models of non-linear dynamical systems

    Shaowu Pan and Karthik Duraisamy. On the structure of time-delay embedding in linear models of non-linear dynamical systems. Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, 30(7):073135, 07 2020

    2020

  37. [45]

    Marlantes, Piotr J

    Kyle E. Marlantes, Piotr J. Bandyk, and Kevin J. Maki. Predicting ship responses in different seaways using a generalizable force correcting machine learning method. Ocean Engineering, 312:119110, 2024

    2024

  38. [46]

    J. Lin. Divergence measures based on the shannon entropy. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 37(1):145–151, 1991

    1991

  39. [47]

    Kullback and R

    S. Kullback and R. A. Leibler. On information and sufficiency. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics , 22(1):79–86, 1951

    1951

  40. [48]

    Van Walree and C

    F. Van Walree and C. Visser. Analysis and post processing of measured signals vol. 2: Seakeeping water on deck tests. Technical Report 22810-1-SMB, Maritime Research Institute Netherlands, 2010

    2010

  41. [49]

    W. F. Belknap and A. M. Reed. TEMPEST – A New Computationally Efficient Dynamic Stability Prediction Tool: Risk of Capsizing. Fluid Mechanics and its Applications, 2019

    2019

  42. [50]

    P . Bandyk. A body-exact strip theory approach to ship motion computations . PhD thesis, University of Michigan, Dept. of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, Ann Arbor, 2009

    2009

  43. [51]

    Abkowitz

    M. Abkowitz. Lecture notes on ship hydrodynamics - steering and manoeuvrability. Technical Report HY-5, Hydro and Aerodynamics Laboratory, Lyngby, Denmark, 1964

    1964

  44. [52]

    Aram and P

    S. Aram and P . L. Field. CFD-based maneuvering prediction of a trimaran with two side hull configura- tions in calm water. In SNAME Maritime Convention, 2016. 19 Preprint

    2016

  45. [53]

    Aram and S

    S. Aram and S. E. Kim. A numerical study of added resistance, speed loss and added power of a surface ship in regular head waves using coupled URANS and rigid-body motion equations. InVII International Conference on Computational Methods in Marine Engineering, MARINE 2017, 2017

    2017

  46. [54]

    S. E. Kim, H. Shan, R. Miller, B. Rhee, A. Vargas, S. Aram, and J. Gorski. A scalable and extensi- ble computational fluid dynamics (CFD) software framework for ship hydrodynamics applications - NavyFOAM. Journal of Computing in Science & Engineering, (99), 2017

    2017

  47. [55]

    S. Aram, Y. T. Lee, H. Shan, and A. Vargas. A computational fluid dynamic analysis of a fluidic actuator for active flow control applications. AIAA Journal, Vol. 56, No. 1, 2018

    2018

  48. [56]

    Free-Stream Characteristics of a Family of Low-Aspect-Ratio, All- Movable Control Surfaces for Application to Ship Design

    L Folger Whicker and Leo F Fehlner. Free-Stream Characteristics of a Family of Low-Aspect-Ratio, All- Movable Control Surfaces for Application to Ship Design. Navy Department, David Taylor Model Basin, 1958

    1958

  49. [57]

    McTaggart

    K. McTaggart. Ship radiation and diffraction forces at moderate forward speed. In World Maritime Technology Conference, 2015

    2015

  50. [58]

    CFD and potential flow simulations of fully appended free running 5415M in irregular waves

    Hamid Sadat-Hosseini, Dong Hwan Kim, Serge Toxopeus, Matteo Diez, and Frederick Stern. CFD and potential flow simulations of fully appended free running 5415M in irregular waves. In Proceedings of the 5th World Maritime Technology Conference (WMTC15), Providence, Rhode Island,...

    2015

  51. [59]

    Dynamic mode decomposition with control

    Joshua L Proctor, Steven L Brunton, and J Nathan Kutz. Dynamic mode decomposition with control. SIAM Journal on Applied Dynamical Systems, pages 142–161, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2016. 20

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.