Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 40 references

A tensor-train reduced basis solver for parameterized partial differential equations on Cartesian grids

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper introduces a tensor-train reduced basis method that builds projection subspaces for parameterized PDEs by decomposing snapshots in the split-axes format, claiming cheaper offline construction, a smaller reduced subspace, and…

desk verdict A genuinely useful tensor-train reduced basis method with solid offline gains, but the accuracy certificate for the rank-K energy norm is a heuristic, so the paper needs a careful revision before the claims are taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14460 v2 pith:QOOEARIZ submitted 2024-12-19 math.NA cs.NA

Nicholas Mueller , Yiran Zhao , Santiago Badia , Tiangang Cui This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NAcs.NA MSC 65N3065M6015A69
keywords tensor-traindecompositionreducedbasismethodsmodelorderreductionspace-timehyper-reductionempiricalinterpolationparameterizedPDEsCartesiangrids
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

This paper introduces TT-RB, a reduced-order modeling method that constructs low-dimensional subspaces for parameterized PDEs by applying a tensor-train (TT) decomposition to solution snapshots whose spatial degrees of freedom are split into Cartesian directions. The central claim is that this construction is substantially cheaper offline than the standard space-time reduced basis (ST-RB) approach, because the expensive operations act on one spatial direction at a time rather than on the full spatial mesh. It further claims that the resulting reduced subspace has dimension equal to a single tensor rank instead of a product of spatial and temporal ranks, so that for a given accuracy the online system is smaller, and for a given subspace dimension the projection is more accurate. The paper supports these claims with a priori and a posteriori error estimates and benchmarks on the Poisson, heat, and transient linear elasticity equations in two and three dimensions.

What carries the argument

The central object is the tensor-train (TT) decomposition, a low-rank format that writes a tensor as a product of three-dimensional cores, combined with the 'split-axes' representation of finite-element unknowns on a Cartesian grid. The TT format carries the argument because every operation in the offline phase—Cholesky rescaling, SVD compression, empirical interpolation, and Galerkin projection—is applied to one core at a time, so cost scales with a single axis length rather than the full spatial dimension $N_s$, and the projection subspace dimension is the temporal rank $r_t$ rather than the product $r_s r_t$. For the rank-$K$ stiffness norm, the load-bearing device is a rank-one crossnorm $|X_{s,s}|$ chosen 'similar' to $X_{s,s}$, used to compute the initial TT cores before an orthogonalization sweep on the cores.

What would settle it

Run the rank-$K$ algorithm on 2D or 3D Poisson problems where the terms of the stiffness norm $X_{s,s}$ differ strongly in magnitude, and decrease $\epsilon$ at fixed mesh size $M$; if the measured energy-norm error stops decaying with $\epsilon$, or violates the bound (21) beyond the algorithm's constants, then the rank-one crossnorm choice (32) does not preserve enough of the true norm.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the TT format can carry the whole reduced-basis pipeline—subspace construction, hyper-reduction, and Galerkin projection—with all operations performed on the tensor cores. Given snapshots in the split-axes format, a modified TT-SVD imposes orthogonality in the finite-element energy norm: for rank-one norm matrices this is done by sequential Cholesky rescaling of one-dimensional factors, and for the rank-$K$ stiffness norm by recursively building a reduced norm matrix on the cores. Hyper-reduction is handled by TT-MDEIM, an empirical interpolation of residual and Jacobian tensors directly in TT form. The paper's numerical claim is that TT-RB matches ST-RB accuracy with a much smaller projection subspace and a cheaper offline phase, with gains that grow with the spatial dimension $d$, and that for a fixed subspace dimension the TT-RB projection is more accurate. Theorem 4 gives the a posteriori error bound tying total error to the user tolerance through both the subspace and the interpolation steps.

Load-bearing premise

The method's central accuracy guarantee for energy norms rests on the heuristic that a rank-one crossnorm 'similar' to the true rank-$K$ stiffness norm preserves enough of the norm for the TT error bound to hold; the paper states this bound is no longer guaranteed and verifies the behavior numerically instead of proving it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For spatial dimension $d>2$, the asymptotic offline cost of the TT basis construction is lower than TPOD: roughly $O((d+1)M^{d+2}\log M)$ versus $O(M^{3d-2}+M^{d+2}\log M)$ under the paper's equal-size assumptions.
  • The dimension of the TT projection subspace is $r_t$ instead of $r_s r_t$, which in the heat-equation benchmark yields reduction factors tens to hundreds of times larger than ST-RB.
  • TT-MDEIM gives the same form of error bound as matrix MDEIM, with an extra $\sqrt{d+1}$ factor entering through the TT-SVD compression.
  • Theorem 4's a posteriori estimate connects the total error to the user tolerance $\epsilon$ through both the TT subspace error and the TT-MDEIM interpolation errors.
  • On the Poisson, heat, and transient elasticity benchmarks, TT-RB reaches comparable or better accuracy than ST-RB at the same tolerance, with larger online speedups in wall time and memory.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One extension the paper leaves implicit: if the rank-one crossnorm heuristic holds beyond these benchmarks, the same pipeline should transfer to non-Cartesian geometries through unfitted finite element methods, since the split-axes structure is the only geometry-dependent ingredient.
  • A direct test of the weakest assumption would be to run the rank-$K$ algorithm with several different choices of the rank-one norm $|X_{s,s}|$; if the energy-norm error is insensitive to that choice, the heuristic is robust, and if not, the divergence marks its limits.
  • The method's advantage is largest when the temporal rank is small; for problems with high temporal complexity, permuting the TT axes so that time is compressed later or earlier could trade rank for accuracy, an option the paper does not explore.
  • Because the residual and Jacobian assembly in TT-MDEIM is algebraic and parameter-agnostic, the hyper-reduction should carry over to nonlinear and saddle-point problems, potentially extending TT-RB beyond the linear cases tested here.
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 introduces TT-RB, a reduced-basis solver for parameterized PDEs on Cartesian grids, in which the snapshot tensor is compressed with a tensor-train SVD (TT-SVD) instead of the space-time TPOD used by ST-RB. The reduced subspace is built in a split-axes format, the residual and Jacobian are hyper-reduced with a tensor-train variant of MDEIM (TT-MDEIM), and an a posteriori error estimate is adapted from the authors' earlier ST-RB analysis. Numerical experiments on Poisson, heat, and linear elasticity problems in 2D and 3D report offline and online speedups relative to ST-RB and compare accuracy at matching tolerances. The central claims are that TT-RB lowers the offline cost, reduces the projection-subspace dimension, and achieves accuracy comparable to ST-RB.

Significance. If the accuracy claims are fully substantiated, TT-RB would be a useful addition to the reduced-basis literature: the split-axes construction has the potential to lower offline memory and time substantially, the hyper-reduction is naturally adapted to tensor formats, and the reported reduction factors are large. The paper has clear strengths: it gives explicit complexity estimates for the offline phase, the numerical comparisons are made against independent full-order solutions, and the main heuristic is disclosed rather than hidden. The code is available through the authors' GridapROMs.jl library, which supports reproducibility. However, the significance is currently limited by a load-bearing gap: the algorithm used in all benchmarks (rank-K norm) is not covered by the proved a priori estimate, and several accuracy claims go beyond what the numerical evidence establishes.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.3, Eq. (32), Algorithm 4] The rank-K basis construction used in all numerical benchmarks is based on a rank-1 crossnorm |X_s,s whose equivalence to the actual rank-K stiffness norm X_s,s is only asserted, not proved. The text explicitly states that 'the error bound (21) is no longer guaranteed in this case', so Theorem 2 does not cover the algorithm as implemented. Since every benchmark measures error in the rank-K norm (11), the central accuracy guarantee advertised in the abstract and in Theorem 4 is not established for the method actually tested. The numerical evidence is consistent with this gap: TT-RB errors are typically several times larger than ST-RB errors at matched tolerance, in some cases more than an order of magnitude larger (e.g., Table 6, M=40, ε=10^-4: E/ε = 50.30 for TT-RB vs 2.38 for ST-RB). Please either prove a norm-equivalence bound for |X_s,s versus X_s,s with constants independent of h and the domain aspect ratio, provide a rigorous error bound for Algorithm 4, or restrict the a priori and a posteriori claims to the rank-1 case and present the rank-K results explicitly as heuristic.
  2. [Section 1 and Section 5; Tables 3-8] The paper claims in Section 1 that 'TT-RB decompositions offer significantly higher accuracy than ST-RB for a given reduced subspace dimension' and in Section 5 that accuracy is 'comparable'. No experiment compares the two methods at equal reduced-subspace dimension; the reported comparisons are at equal tolerance ε, where TT-RB uses a much smaller subspace (rt vs rst) but has larger normalized errors. For example, Table 6 shows E/ε = 50.30 for TT-RB versus 2.38 for ST-RB at M=40, ε=10^-4, and Table 8 shows E/ε = 89.90 versus 5.57 at M=40, ε=10^-2. The abstract's 'lower dimensionality of the projection subspaces for a given accuracy' is therefore only qualitatively supported. Please provide equal-dimension accuracy comparisons, or revise the accuracy claims to match the presented evidence.
  3. [Section 3.2, Eqs. (23)-(24)] The equivalence of the two diadic decompositions (23) and (24), on which Algorithm 3 and its accuracy guarantee rest, is only 'empirically verified' up to machine precision. This is not a proof that the sequentially rescaled TT-SVD produces the same projection subspace as the full Cholesky rescaling, and the rank-K extension inherits this gap. A rigorous statement, or an explicit assumption in Theorem 2 that this equivalence holds, is needed before Algorithm 3 can be presented as a variant of TT-SVD with the accuracy of Theorem 2.
  4. [Theorem 4, Section 4] The a posteriori bound (42) contains an explicit residual term that is not bounded a priori, and no effectivity indices are reported in the numerical section. Since the paper's stated contribution includes 'a posteriori error estimates to validate the accuracy of the method', the numerical validation should report the ratio of the estimated bound to the true error, or at least the size of the residual term, for the three benchmarks. Without this, the claim that the estimates validate the method is not quantitatively supported.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The word 'diadic' should be 'dyadic' in Sections 3.1-3.2 and in the captions of Eqs. (23)-(24).
  2. [References] Several references have truncated DOIs or broken line breaks, including [7], [22], and [37]; please correct these in the bibliography.
  3. [Tables 3-8] The quantity E/ε is used throughout the tables but is not defined in a table caption; please state explicitly that E is the averaged relative Xst,st error defined in (43) and that the table reports E divided by the tolerance ε.
  4. [Section 3.4, Remark 5] The identity (35) is justified only by reference to a figure; either provide a short proof or label it as an empirically observed identity.
  5. [Section 2.2, Eq. (14)] The notation `r:, js` and `pUt, psµ` in Eq. (14) is not defined in the text; a brief explanation would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: TT-RB accuracy is validated against independent full-order solutions; the rank-K crossnorm gap in Section 3.3 is an acknowledged limitation, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

Examining the derivation chain, no step reduces to its own inputs by construction. Theorem 2 obtains the Xst,st-orthogonal TT basis error by Cholesky rescaling and the standard TT-SVD bound from [14]; no fitted constant or target quantity enters the bound. Theorem 4 is adapted from the authors' prior work [7], but that prior result is a published, parameter-free a posteriori bound for ST-RB whose assumptions do not include the present TT-RB claim; the adaptation only adds the sqrt(d+1) factor from Theorem 1, so the self-citation is not load-bearing in a circular sense. Section 3.3 explicitly states: "the error bound (21) is no longer guaranteed in this case, we show in Sect. 4 that the procedure yields a correct error decay with respect to the tolerances." This is an honest limitation: the rank-K stiffness-norm case relies on the rank-1 crossnorm heuristic (32) and Algorithm 4, and the numerical evidence in Tables 3-8 measures error in the true Xs,s norm against independent FOM solutions. The gap is an unproved heuristic with empirical validation, not an equivalence between the prediction and the input. Similarly, the claimed spectral equivalence of the two diadic decompositions in Section 3.2 is said to be "empirically verified," which is again a rigor gap rather than a circular definition. TT-MDEIM accuracy in Theorem 3 is proved using full-rankness from [25] and DEIM Lemma 3.2 from [36], both external; no parameter is fitted to match the reported errors. The use of the authors' GridapROMs.jl library [39] affects implementation only. Overall, the central claims are self-contained against external FOM benchmarks, and the self-citations are not circularly load-bearing.

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

The method relies on standard reducibility assumptions for RB methods, on external TT-SVD and DEIM results, and on two paper-specific premises: the equivalence of diadic unfoldings in Sec 3.2 (used by X1-TT-SVD) and the heuristic choice of a rank-1 crossnorm for rank-K norms in Sec 3.3. No new physical entities or fitted free parameters are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The unfolding matrices T_{y_{i-1}i,i+1:mu} admit a low-rank approximation with relative errors epsilon_i for given ranks r_i (Eq. 19).
    This reducibility assumption is inherited from the RB literature [1,24] and is stated in Theorem 1; if it fails, the TT-SVD accuracy bound (Thm. 1) does not hold.
  • ad hoc to paper The two diadic decompositions (23) and (24) produce the same final unfolding R_{sigma_d t,mu} up to machine precision.
    Stated in Section 3.2 as 'one can empirically verify'; no proof is provided, and Alg. 3 relies on it to avoid global Cholesky factorization.
  • ad hoc to paper The rank-1 norm matrix |X_{s,s} in (32) is equivalent to the rank-K norm matrix X_{s,s}, so the error bound (21) remains valid in practice.
    Section 3.3: 'the error bound (21) is no longer guaranteed in this case, we show in Sect. 4 that the procedure yields a correct error decay'.
  • standard math TT-SVD accuracy Theorem 1 and the full-rank property of interpolation matrices from [36] and [25] hold as stated.
    The paper cites [14] and [36] for these; they are external results.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A tensor-train reduced basis solver for parameterized partial differential equations on Cartesian grids." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QOOEARIZ

@misc{pith2026241214460,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A tensor-train reduced basis solver for parameterized partial differential equations on Cartesian grids},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QOOEARIZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14460}
}
read the original abstract

In this manuscript, we introduce the tensor-train reduced basis method, a novel projection-based reduced-order model designed for the efficient solution of parameterized partial differential equations. While reduced-order models are widely used for their computational efficiency compared to full-order models, they often involve significant offline computational costs. Our proposed approach mitigates this limitation by leveraging the tensor train format to efficiently represent high-dimensional finite element quantities. This method offers several advantages, including a reduced number of operations for constructing the reduced subspaces, a cost-effective hyper-reduction strategy for assembling the PDE residual and Jacobian, and a lower dimensionality of the projection subspaces for a given accuracy. We provide a posteriori error estimates to validate the accuracy of the method and evaluate its computational performance on benchmark problems, including the Poisson equation, heat equation, and transient linear elasticity in two- and three-dimensional domains. Although the current framework is restricted to problems defined on Cartesian grids, we anticipate that it can be extended to arbitrary shapes by integrating the tensor-train reduced basis method with unfitted finite element techniques.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [7]

    Model order reduction with nove l discrete empirical interpolation methods in space–time

    N. Mueller and S. Badia. “Model order reduction with nove l discrete empirical interpolation methods in space–time” . In: Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics 444 (2024), p. 115767. DOI : https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2024.11

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cam.2024.11 2024

  2. [1]

    Quarteroni, A

    A. Quarteroni, A. Manzoni, and F. Negri. Reduced basis methods for partial differential equations: an introduction. V ol. 92. Springer, 2015

    work page 2015

  3. [2]

    Reduced basis approx imation of parametrized optimal flow control problems for the Stokes equations

    F. Negri, A. Manzoni, and G. Rozza. “Reduced basis approx imation of parametrized optimal flow control problems for the Stokes equations”. In: Computers & Mathematics with Applications 69.4 (2015), pp. 319–336

    work page 2015

  4. [3]

    Reduced basis approx imation and a posteriori error estimation for Stokes flows in parametrized geometries: roles of the inf–sup stabi lity constants

    G. Rozza, D. Huynh, and A. Manzoni. “Reduced basis approx imation and a posteriori error estimation for Stokes flows in parametrized geometries: roles of the inf–sup stabi lity constants”. In: Numerische Mathematik 125.1 (2013), pp. 115–152

    work page 2013

  5. [4]

    An algebraic least squares reduced basis method for the solution of nonaffinely parametrized Stokes equations

    N. Dal Santo, S. Deparis, A. Manzoni, and A. Quarteroni. “ An algebraic least squares reduced basis method for the solution of nonaffinely parametrized Stokes equations” . In: Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and En- gineering 344 (2019), pp. 186–208

    work page 2019

  6. [5]

    Space–time reduced order model for large-scale linear dynamical systems with application to Boltzmann transport problems

    Y . Choi, P . Brown, W . Arrighi, R. Anderson, and K. Huynh. “ Space–time reduced order model for large-scale linear dynamical systems with application to Boltzmann transport problems”. In: Journal of Computational Physics 424 (2021)

    work page 2021

  7. [6]

    Space-Time Re duced Basis Methods for Parametrized Unsteady Stokes Equations

    R. Tenderini, N. Mueller, and S. Deparis. “Space-Time Re duced Basis Methods for Parametrized Unsteady Stokes Equations”. In: SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 46.1 (2024), B1–B32. DOI : 10 . 1137 / 22M1509114. eprint: https://doi.org/10.1137/22M1509114

    doi:10.1137/22m1509114 2024

  8. [8]

    Reliable Real-Time Solution of Par ametrized Partial Differential Equations: Reduced-Basis Output Bound Methods

    C. Prud’Homme et al. “Reliable Real-Time Solution of Par ametrized Partial Differential Equations: Reduced-Basis Output Bound Methods”. In: Journal of Fluids Engineering 124.1 (Nov. 2001), pp. 70–80. DOI : 10.1115/1.1448332

    doi:10.1115/1.1448332 2001

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    A Mathe matical and Computational Framework for Reli- able Real-Time Solution of Parametrized Partial Different ial Equations

    C. Prud’homme, D. Rovas, K. V eroy, and A. Patera. “A Mathe matical and Computational Framework for Reli- able Real-Time Solution of Parametrized Partial Different ial Equations”. In: ESAIM: Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Analysis 36 (Sept. 2002), pp. 747–771. DOI : 10.1...

    2002 doi

  2. [10]

    Numerical tensor calculus

    W . Hackbusch. “Numerical tensor calculus”. In: Acta numerica 23 (2014), pp. 651–742

    2014

  3. [11]

    Hackbusch

    W . Hackbusch. T ensor spaces and numerical tensor calculus. V ol. 42. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    2012

  4. [12]

    Some mathematical notes on three-mode fa ctor analysis

    L. R. Tucker. “Some mathematical notes on three-mode fa ctor analysis”. In: Psychometrika 31.3 (1966), pp. 279– 311

    1966

  5. [13]

    TT-cross approxima tion for multidimensional arrays

    I. Oseledets and E. Tyrtyshnikov. “TT-cross approxima tion for multidimensional arrays”. In: Linear Algebra and its Applications 432.1 (2010), pp. 70–88

    2010

  6. [14]

    Tensor-train decomposition

    I. V . Oseledets. “Tensor-train decomposition”. In: SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 33.5 (2011), pp. 2295– 2317

    2011

  7. [15]

    A continu ous analogue of the tensor-train decomposition

    A. Gorodetsky, S. Karaman, and Y . M. Marzouk. “A continu ous analogue of the tensor-train decomposition”. In: Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 347 (2019), pp. 59–84

    2019

  8. [16]

    Spect ral tensor-train decomposition

    D. Bigoni, A. P . Engsig-Karup, and Y . M. Marzouk. “Spect ral tensor-train decomposition”. In: SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 38.4 (2016), A2405–A2439

    2016

  9. [17]

    Deep composition of Tensor-Train s using squared inverse Rosenblatt transports

    T. Cui and S. Dolgov. “Deep composition of Tensor-Train s using squared inverse Rosenblatt transports”. In: F oun- dations of Computational Mathematics (2021), pp. 1–60

    2021

  10. [18]

    Approximation and sampling of multivariate probability distributions in the tensor train decomposition

    S. Dolgov, K. Anaya-Izquierdo, C. Fox, and R. Scheichl. “Approximation and sampling of multivariate probability distributions in the tensor train decomposition”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.01212 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Alternating minima l energy methods for linear systems in higher dimensions

    S. V . Dolgov and D. V . Savostyanov. “Alternating minima l energy methods for linear systems in higher dimensions”. In: SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 36.5 (2014), A2248–A2271

    2014

  12. [20]

    Pseudo-skeleton approximations by matrices of maximal volume

    S. A. Goreinov, N. L. Zamarashkin, and E. E. Tyrtyshniko v. “Pseudo-skeleton approximations by matrices of maximal volume”. In: Mathematical Notes 62.4 (1997), pp. 515–519

    1997

  13. [21]

    A. V . Mamonov and M. A. Olshanskii. A priori analysis of a tensor ROM for parameter dependent par abolic problems. 2024. arXiv: 2311.07883 [math.NA]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Interpolatory tens orial reduced order models for parametric dynamical sys- tems

    A. V . Mamonov and M. A. Olshanskii. “Interpolatory tens orial reduced order models for parametric dynamical sys- tems”. In: Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 397 (2022), p. 115122. DOI : https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2022

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    The aggregated unfitted finite element method for elliptic problems

    S. Badia, F. V erdugo, and A. F. Mart´ ın. “The aggregated unfitted finite element method for elliptic problems”. In: Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 336 (2018), pp. 533–553. DOI : https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2018 REFERENCES 23

    2018 doi

  16. [24]

    Kolmogorov n-widths for line ar dynamical systems

    B. Unger and S. Gugercin. “Kolmogorov n-widths for line ar dynamical systems”. In: Advances in Computational Mathematics 45.5-6 (2019), pp. 2273–2286. DOI : 10.1007/s10444-019-09701-0

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    A. Dektor. Collocation methods for nonlinear differential equationson low-rank manifolds. 2024. arXiv: 2402.18721 [math.NA]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Nitsche’s method for interface problems in computational mechanics

    P . Hansbo. “Nitsche’s method for interface problems in computational mechanics”. In: GAMM-Mitteilungen 28 (Nov. 2005). DOI : 10.1002/gamm.201490018

    2005 doi

  19. [27]

    Fictitious domain methods usi ng cut elements: III. A stabilized Nitsche method for Stokes’ problem

    E. Burman and P . Hansbo. “Fictitious domain methods usi ng cut elements: III. A stabilized Nitsche method for Stokes’ problem”. In: European Series in Applied and Industrial Mathematics (ESA IM): Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Analysis 48 (May 2014). DOI : 10.1051/m2an/2013123

    2014

  20. [28]

    The Finite Element Method in D imension Two

    H. Le Dret and B. Lucquin. “The Finite Element Method in D imension Two”. In: Partial Differential Equations: Modeling, Analysis and Numerical Approximation . Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2016, pp. 167–2 18. DOI : 10.1007/978-3-319-27067-8_6

    2016 doi

  21. [29]

    Halko, P .-G

    N. Halko, P .-G. Martinsson, and J. A. Tropp. Finding structure with randomness: Probabilistic algorit hms for constructing approximate matrix decompositions . 2010. arXiv: 0909.4061 [math.NA]

    2010 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Ho et al

    K. Ho et al. JuliaMatrices/LowRankApprox.jl: v0.5.2. V ersion v0.5.2. Mar. 2022.DOI : 10.5281/zenodo.6394438

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    Gaussian Elimination and Its V ariants

    “Gaussian Elimination and Its V ariants”. In: Fundamentals of Matrix Computations. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2002. Chap. 1, pp. 1–110. DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/0471249718.ch1. eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/d

    2002 doi

  24. [32]

    Galerkin v. least –squares Petrov–Galerkin projection in nonlinear model reduction

    K. Carlberg, M. Barone, and H. Antil. “Galerkin v. least –squares Petrov–Galerkin projection in nonlinear model reduction”. In: Journal of Computational Physics 330 (2017), pp. 693–734

    2017

  25. [33]

    S upremizer stabilization of POD–Galerkin approximation of parametrized steady incompressible Navier–Stokes equa tions

    F. Ballarin, A. Manzoni, A. Quarteroni, and G. Rozza. “S upremizer stabilization of POD–Galerkin approximation of parametrized steady incompressible Navier–Stokes equa tions”. In: International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 102.5 (2015), pp. 1136–1161

    2015

  26. [34]

    The Alternat ing Linear Scheme for Tensor Optimization in the Tensor Train Format

    S. Holtz, T. Rohwedder, and R. Schneider. “The Alternat ing Linear Scheme for Tensor Optimization in the Tensor Train Format”. In: SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing (Jan. 2011). DOI : 10.1137/100818893

    2011 doi

  27. [35]

    Solution of Linear Sys tems and Matrix Inversion in the TT-Format

    I. V . Oseledets and S. V . Dolgov. “Solution of Linear Sys tems and Matrix Inversion in the TT-Format”. In: SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 34.5 (2012), A2718–A2739. DOI : 10.1137/110833142. eprint: https://doi.org/10.1137/110833142

    2012 doi

  28. [36]

    Nonlinear model r eduction via discrete empirical interpolation

    S. Chaturantabut and D. C. Sorensen. “Nonlinear model r eduction via discrete empirical interpolation”. In: SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 32.5 (2010), pp. 2737–2764

    2010

  29. [37]

    Efficient model r eduction of parametrized systems by matrix discrete em- pirical interpolation

    F. Negri, A. Manzoni, and D. Amsallem. “Efficient model r eduction of parametrized systems by matrix discrete em- pirical interpolation”. In: Journal of Computational Physics 303 (2015), pp. 431–454. DOI : https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2015.09

    2015 doi

  30. [38]

    07 - Sampling and R econstruction

    M. Pharr, W . Jakob, and G. Humphreys. “07 - Sampling and R econstruction”. In: Physically Based Rendering (Third Edition). Ed. by M. Pharr, W . Jakob, and G. Humphreys. Third Edition. B oston: Morgan Kaufmann, 2017, pp. 401–504. DOI : https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800645-...

    2017 doi

  31. [39]

    Mueller and S

    N. Mueller and S. Badia. GridapROMs.jl: Efficient reduced order modelling in the Jul ia programming language

  32. [2025]

    arXiv: 2503.15994 [math.NA]

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.